Bill C-31 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit;
(b) expands the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes;
(c) introduces the search and rescue volunteers tax credit;
(d) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(e) expands the circumstances in which members of underfunded pension plans can benefit from unreduced pension-to-RRSP transfer limits;
(f) eliminates the need for individuals to apply for the GST/HST credit and allows the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive the credit;
(g) extends to 10 years the carry-forward period with respect to certain donations of ecologically sensitive land;
(h) removes, for certified cultural property acquired as part of a gifting arrangement that is a tax shelter, the exemption from the rule that deems the value of a gift to be no greater than its cost to the donor;
(i) allows the Minister of National Revenue to refuse to register, or revoke the registration of, a charity or Canadian amateur athletic association that accepts a donation from a state supporter of terrorism;
(j) reduces, for certain small and medium-sized employers, the frequency of remittances for source deductions;
(k) improves the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada; and
(l) requires a listing of outstanding tax measures to be tabled in Parliament.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) introduces transitional rules relating to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit;
(b) requires certain financial intermediaries to report to the Canada Revenue Agency international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more;
(c) makes amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permits the disclosure of taxpayer information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada and BDC Capital Inc. are not financial institutions for the purposes of the Income Tax Act’s mark-to-market rules.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) expanding the GST/HST exemption for training that is specially designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training;
(b) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors;
(c) adding eyewear specially designed to treat or correct a defect of vision by electronic means to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(d) extending to newly created members of a group the election that allows members of a closely-related group to not account for GST/HST on certain supplies between them, introducing joint and several (or solidary) liability for the parties to that election for any GST/HST liability on those supplies and adding a requirement to file that election with the Canada Revenue Agency;
(e) giving the Minister of National Revenue the discretionary authority to register a person for GST/HST purposes if the person fails to comply with the requirement to apply for registration, even after having been notified by the Canada Revenue Agency of that requirement; and
(f) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures by
(a) providing a GST/HST exemption for supplies of hospital parking for patients and visitors, clarifying that the GST/HST exemption for supplies of a property, when all or substantially all of the supplies of the property by a charity are made for free, does not apply to paid parking and clarifying that paid parking provided by charities that are set up or used by municipalities, universities, public colleges, schools and hospitals to operate their parking facilities does not qualify for the special GST/HST exemption for parking supplied by charities;
(b) clarifying that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of the GST/HST;
(c) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permitting the disclosure of confidential GST/HST information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) clarifying that a person cannot claim input tax credits in respect of an amount of GST/HST that has already been recovered by the person from a supplier.
Part 3 implements excise measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) adjusting the domestic rate of excise duty on tobacco products to account for inflation and eliminating the preferential excise duty treatment of tobacco products available through duty free markets;
(b) ensuring that excise tax returns are filed accurately through the addition of a new administrative monetary penalty and an amended criminal offence for the making of false statements or omissions, consistent with similar provisions in the GST/HST portion of the Excise Tax Act; and
(c) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures by
(a) permitting the disclosure of confidential information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(b) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency.
In addition, Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to clarify that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of those Acts.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff. In particular, it
(a) reduces the Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under the other tariff treatments on tariff items related to mobile offshore drilling units used in oil and gas exploration and development that are imported on or after May 5, 2014;
(b) removes the exemption provided by tariff item 9809.00.00 and makes consequential amendments to tariff item 9833.00.00 to apply the same tariff rules to the Governor General that are applied to other public office holders; and
(c) clarifies the tariff classification of certain imported food products, effective November 29, 2013.
Part 5 enacts the Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act and amends the Income Tax Act to introduce consequential information reporting requirements.
Part 6 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 6 provides for payments to compensate for deductions in certain benefits and allowances that are payable under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act.
Division 2 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Division 3 of Part 6 amends the Hazardous Products Act to better regulate the sale and importation of hazardous products intended for use, handling or storage in a work place in Canada in accordance with the Regulatory Cooperation Council Joint Action Plan initiative for work place chemicals. In particular, the amendments implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals with respect to, among other things, labelling and safety data sheet requirements. It also provides for enhanced powers related to administration and enforcement. Finally, it makes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.
Division 4 of Part 6 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to authorize individuals to transport beer and spirits from one province to another for their personal consumption.
Division 5 of Part 6 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Division 6 of Part 6 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to prohibit parliamentarians from contributing to their pension and accruing pensionable service as a result of a suspension.
Division 7 of Part 6 amends the National Defence Act to recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force while preserving the integration and the unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and to provide that the designations of rank and the circumstances of their use are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 6 amends the Customs Act to extend to 90 days the time for making a request for a review of a seizure, ascertained forfeiture or penalty assessment and to provide that requests for a review and third-party claims can be made directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Division 9 of Part 6 amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to provide for the dissolution of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board and to repeal the requirement for the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to submit a comprehensive report every five years on the Agency’s activities and on the impact those activities have had on regional disparity.
Division 10 of Part 6 dissolves the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and authorizes, among other things, the transfer of its assets and obligations, as well as those of its subsidiaries, to either the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It also provides that the employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries are deemed to have been appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and includes provisions related to their terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, it amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to, among other things, confer on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the authority that is necessary for the administration, management, control and disposal of the assets and obligations transferred to the Agency. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act.
Division 11 of Part 6 provides for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the programs known as the “Online Works of Reference” and the “Virtual Museum of Canada” from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History.
Division 12 of Part 6 amends the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act to remove certain restrictions on the acquisition of voting shares of Nordion.
Division 13 of Part 6 amends the Bank Act to add regulation-making powers respecting a bank’s activities in relation to derivatives and benchmarks.
Division 14 of Part 6 amends the Insurance Companies Act to broaden the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting the conversion of a mutual company into a company with common shares.
Division 15 of Part 6 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to support the objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council to enhance the alignment of Canadian and U.S. regulations while protecting Canadians. It introduces measures to accelerate and streamline the regulatory process, reduce the administrative burden for manufacturers and importers and improve safety for Canadians through revised oversight procedures and enhanced availability of vehicle safety information.
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 modernize the legislation by aligning it with the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.
This Division also amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting activities related to specified fresh fruits and vegetables, including requiring a person who engages in certain activities to be a member of a specified entity or organization. It also repeals the Board of Arbitration.
Division 16 of Part 6 amends the Telecommunications Act to set a maximum amount that a Canadian carrier can charge to another Canadian carrier for certain roaming services.
Division 17 of Part 6 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to interrupt their compassionate care leave or leave related to their child’s critical illness, death or disappearance in order to take leave because of sickness or a work-related illness or injury. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of compassionate care benefits or benefits for parents of critically ill children.
Division 18 of Part 6 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide that fees fixed under that Act for the use of a facility provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the Safe Food for Canadians Act as well as fees fixed for services, products and rights and privileges provided by the Agency under that Act are exempt from the application of the User Fees Act.
Division 19 of Part 6 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, enhance the client identification, record keeping and registration requirements for financial institutions and intermediaries, refer to online casinos, and extend the application of the Act to persons and entities that deal in virtual currencies and foreign money services businesses. Furthermore, it makes modifications in regards to the information that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada may receive, collect or disclose, and expands the circumstances in which the Centre or the Canada Border Services Agency can disclose information received or collected under the Act. It also updates the review and appeal provisions related to cross-border currency reporting and brings Part 1.1 of the Act into force.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 to, among other things,
(a) require certain applications to be made electronically;
(b) provide for the making of regulations regarding the establishment of a system of administrative monetary penalties for the contravention of conditions applicable to employers hiring foreign workers;
(c) provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence in respect of which a decision as to whether the selection criteria are met is not made before February 11, 2014; and
(d) clarify and strengthen requirements related to the expression of interest regime.
Division 21 of Part 6 amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to clarify that an adjudicator may grant systemic remedies when it has been determined that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice.
It also clarifies the transitional provisions in respect of essential services that were enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.
Division 22 of Part 6 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to clarify how payments to provinces under section 99 of that Act are to be determined.
Division 23 of Part 6 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 so that the aggregate amount of payments to provinces and territories for matters relating to the establishment of a Canadian securities regulation regime may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Division 24 of Part 6 amends the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act and the National Housing Act to provide that certain criteria established in a regulation may apply to an existing insured mortgage or hypothecary loan.
Division 25 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, make that Act consistent with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and add the authority to make regulations for carrying into effect the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The amendments include the simplification of the requirements for obtaining a filing date in relation to an application for the registration of a trade-mark, the elimination of the requirement to declare use of a trade-mark before registration, the reduction of the term of registration of a trade-mark from 15 to 10 years, and the adoption of the classification established by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.
Division 26 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to repeal the power to appoint the Registrar of Trade-marks and to provide that the Registrar is the person appointed as Commissioner of Patents under subsection 4(1) of the Patent Act.
Division 27 of Part 6 amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent the payment of Old Age Security income-tested benefits for the entire period of a sponsorship undertaking by removing the current 10-year cap.
Division 28 of Part 6 enacts the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, respecting the construction and operation of a new bridge in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge and the Nuns’ Island Bridge.
Division 29 of Part 6 enacts the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which establishes the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC) as a portion of the federal public administration. The ATSSC becomes the sole provider of resources and staff for 11 administrative tribunals and provides facilities and support services to those tribunals, including registry, administrative, research and analysis services. The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Acts establishing those tribunals and to other Acts related to those tribunals.
Division 30 of Part 6 enacts the Apprentice Loans Act, which provides for financial assistance for apprentices to help with the cost of their training. Under that Act, apprentices registered in eligible trades will be eligible for loans that will be interest-free until their training ends.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to lead off debate on Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. Over the next 20 minutes, I will provide an overview of the bill's overarching objectives and will highlight some of its key initiatives.

Our government continues to focus on what matters to Canadians, and this bill would do nothing to detract from that. Bill C-31 focuses on creating jobs and economic growth while supporting families and communities.

This is our government's 10th budget since 2006. Over that period our country has been confronted by unprecedented economic challenges from beyond our borders. Canada has not only weathered the global economic storm but has exceeded expectations. Let me remind members today that with the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries and is the only G7 country to have an unwavering AAA rating, with a stable outlook from all the major credit-rating agencies: Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. Nevertheless, in good times and bad, we have never strayed from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and have never wavered from seeing our plan through.

Economic action plan 2014 marks the next chapter in keeping that commitment to Canadians, focusing on three key priorities: returning to budget balance, promoting jobs and economic growth, and supporting families and communities. Before I get into the details of the bill, let me begin by explaining the principles driving these priorities, starting with balancing the budget, the cornerstone of our low-tax plan.

Returning to balanced budgets and basic economic principles of debt reduction means that more tax dollars can be spent improving Canada's economic potential and growth prospects rather than on servicing debt. These long-term benefits explain why our government has not wavered from our goal and has cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds since the great recession. It is also why Canada remains in an enviable fiscal position among all G7 countries, with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio by far.

Our goal is now within sight. Including the measures announced in economic action plan 2014, we expect to realize a surplus of $6.4 billion in 2015-16, including a $3 billion annual adjustment for risk. Let me point out that we are doing all this without cutting major transfers to persons or other levels of government. At the same time as we are reining in spending, let me emphasize that transfers for Canadian priorities like education and health care will continue to increase.

Although balancing the budget is the cornerstone of our prosperity plan, our government also believes that it is vital that we create the conditions for businesses to grow.

The government's focus on improving tax competitiveness for business is part of a policy framework that targets growth, which has allowed Canada to have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7.

That is not all. Canada is an increasingly dynamic place for investment and corporate growth. In the most recent Bloomberg rating of the most attractive countries for business, Canada jumped to second place, topped only by Hong Kong.

Our government recognizes that our greatest asset is also what will keep us a leader in the global economy, our people. This is why we continue to invest in training to help workers get the skills they need to succeed and to connect more Canadians with available jobs. To better align training with labour market needs, the Canada job grant will launch this year, ensuring that employers have input into skills-training decisions. We are also working with provinces and territories to renew the $500 million per year labour market agreements. Our government will also renegotiate the $1.95 billion per year labour market development agreements to better reorient training toward labour market demand. This, along with our commitment of $222 million annually, matched by the provinces and territories over the next four years through a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, will strengthen Canada's job market and will get Canadians working.

Now I would like to return to the specific measures in today's legislation.

First of all, economic action plan 2014 act, no.1, focuses on our commitment to families and announces improved support for Canadian families who adopt a child.

All parents must pay for their children's education, but adoptive parents have additional expenses, including agency fees and legal costs. These costs can be significant, especially in the case of children adopted outside Canada, and can include travel and accommodation expenses and the cost of translating documents.

With respect to taxation, in order to better recognize adoption expenses, primarily agency fees and legal costs, economic action plan 2014 will increase the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit, which had already been increased in economic action plan 2013, to $15,000 in 2014. This amount will be indexed to inflation in subsequent years.

Our government will also ensure that the tax system takes into account the changing nature of the health care system and Canadians' needs.

We are also proposing amendments to the Excise Tax Act to improve the application of the GST-HST in the health care sector. Specifically, today's legislation proposes three changes to expand tax relief under the GST-HST for certain health-related services and medical and assistive devices to reflect the evolving nature of the health care system.

The first change would expand the current GST-HST exemption for training designed to help individuals cope with a disorder or disability. It would now also exempt services for designing training, such as developing a training plan.

The second change would exempt the professional services of acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors from GST-HST.

The third change would add to the list of GST-HST-free medical and assistive devices eyewear designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals who are vision impaired when it is supplied on the order of a physician or other specified health professional.

Today's legislation also recognizes the important role played by research and rescue volunteers in their communities. They protect people while often risking their own safety. Bill C-31 proposes a 15% non-refundable search and rescue volunteer tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of eligible service in the year, starting in 2014.

Our government is very proud to publicly recognize the outstanding commitment of these volunteers and the difference they make in their communities, communities like my riding of North Vancouver.

North Shore Rescue is a daily example of the sacrifice these brave men and women commit to every day. It is why I know that measures like this will go a long way in supporting these selfless volunteers across Canada.

As everyone can see, we are protecting the health and well-being of Canadians. Promoting a clean, safe environment is also one of our government's priorities.

For example, since 2006, the government has taken significant action to protect our natural areas, including taking steps to add more than 160,000 km² to the Canadian national parks and marine conservation areas system—an increase of more than 58%—and securing almost 4,000 km² of ecologically sensitive private lands.

Economic action plan 2014 includes measures to protect Canada's rich natural heritage by investing in national parks, conserving recreational fisheries, expanding recreational trails, supporting family-oriented conservation and expanding tax support for clean energy generation.

Today's legislative measure will encourage additional donations of ecologically sensitive lands to conservation charities by doubling to 10 years, for income tax purposes, the carry-forward period.

This is in response to a recommendation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in its February 2013 report entitled “Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving in Canada”.

As all hon. members can see, through Canada's economic action plan 2014 we are keeping taxes low, putting consumers first, protecting Canadians' health and safety, and strengthening communities from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-31 expands on the government's consumer-focused measures to improve the bottom line for Canadian families and to ensure that they are getting value for their hard-earned dollars.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant action to support and protect Canadian consumers. We have reduced taxes and tariffs; ensured marketplace fairness; promoted competition in industries such as financial services, telecommunications, and air services; and improved products and food safety.

Through the consumers first agenda measures contained in economic action plan 2014, our government is going even further. One key focus of our government has been encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market. Today's legislation proposes new measures to do this by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies that may be their competitors more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice data and text services.

Our government will also bring forward future legislation to provide telecommunications regulators with the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on companies that violate rules such as the Wireless Code, further enhancing competition in the telecommunications market.

The list goes on. I could speak well beyond my allotted time on the benefits of today's legislation. Let me very quickly list some of the other positive measures in Bill C-31:

Creating the Canada apprentice loan, a new initiative that would help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year;

Eliminating tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration to improve the global competitiveness of Canadian energy projects;

Investing $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process, ensuring that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs;

Strengthening Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime and adding measures to fight tax evasion, ensuring that all Canadians pay their fair share;

Cutting red tape on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account for source deductions;

Reducing costs and red tape for all Canadian businesses by harmonizing Canada's trademark framework with international norms; and

Providing $165 million over two years on a cash basis to advance the construction of a new bridge for the St. Lawrence.

In my presentation today, I have merely provided an overview of the many ways in which economic action plan 2014 will benefit Canadians.

Let us look at the facts: Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession and then some. Over one million more Canadians are employed now than were employed at the end of the recession in 2009. Nearly 90% of those jobs are full-time jobs. Canada's job growth has dramatically outpaced that of the other G7 countries.

Again, we are on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, as promised, but this has not deterred us from making Canada one of the best places to do business or from providing tax relief for all Canadians. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them and have removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. I will remind my colleagues that a Canadian family of four saves nearly $3,400 in 2014.

While the NDP and Liberals keep demanding reckless spending, our government will stay the course with fiscal prudence.

When the Liberal leader suggests questionable economic policy and claims that budgets balance themselves, our government will stay the course to balance the budget. When the opposition calls for higher taxes and taking more money from hard-working Canadians, our government will stay the course with our low-tax plan. Quite simply, it is our government that has had to make the tough decisions and stick to our priorities, the priorities of all Canadians. For that reason, we have remained steadfast in our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians.

To sum up, in an uncertain world, Canada's economic action plan is working. It is creating jobs, keeping the economy growing and returning to balanced budgets. By staying the course and sticking to our proven track record and economic action plan, Canada remains on track for a great future. I therefore strongly encourage all members of the House to read the legislation and give it the support that it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.

There are a couple of things he neglected to point out in this mammoth budget implementation act of 350 pages. There are 40 laws amended through this one bill. We started to see the depth and breadth of this, and so much of it is completely unconnected to the budget itself. I know the name of the bill is the budget implementation act, and those watching might think it would have something to do with the budget or helping the Canadian economy.

Something else he seemed to have neglected is the small business hiring tax credit. It is something that New Democrats advocated for in 2011. Imitation is the best form of flattery. The government picked it up for a couple of years, and it is missing in this bill. This was an opportunity for the government to renew its effort to help the entrepreneurs, the small and medium businesses in our country, which create over 70% of the jobs in our economy.

Therefore, it is not only on process, using over 300 pages of an omnibus bill, a kitchen sink bill, and throwing in everything under the sun—I could go through the list, but I will refer to it in my speech—the Prime Minister himself, when in opposition, said it was an undemocratic technique and a tactic used by the government. I know the Prime Minister will remember those words well.

My question is this. If he wants to help the economy that has lost those 400,000 manufacturing jobs, where is the small business hiring tax credit? It was such a good idea. They ran on it twice and simply forgot to mention it this time.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite ironic that the member is asking about a measure that we introduced and they voted against. Furthermore, even though the opposition likes to suggest otherwise, it has been common practice to include various measures in a budget and a subsequent budget implementation bill. This is nothing new or groundbreaking. It simply reflects the central role of a budget to a government's agenda. Everything in the bill supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. I should also point out that everything in the bill was part of the budget, except for two minor changes.

The member asked me about small business. This is what we have done for small business. First, we have maintained the employment insurance premiums for three years. This is keeping $660 million in the pockets of employers and employees. We have cut red tape in a number of different ways, by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to CRA that are made every year by over 50,000 small businesses. These are just some of the many things we have done for small businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canada jobs grant that the government has negotiated with the provinces and territories may have some merit in terms of engagement of the private sector and the decisions around investments in training and skills, but the reality is that the labour market agreements with the provinces were funding organizations and initiatives that perform a completely different set of tasks than that of the Canada jobs grant. For instance, in Nova Scotia there are organizations, such as Community Inc, PeopleWorx, Hants County Community Access Network, and the Valley Community Learning Association, which help people with literacy skills. These are organizations that help people upgrade their literacy to get their GED high school equivalency in order to pursue post-secondary education. The end of these labour market agreements and the stopping of the federal funding will mean that these organizations, and the vulnerable Canadians who are helped by them, will no longer receive that vital support.

Does the parliamentary secretary recognize that while the jobs grant may help some people, there will be a lot of vulnerable Canadians left behind by the ending of funding for the labour market agreements? Will the government restore that funding, certainly for a period of perhaps two or three years, in order to transition these groups to other funding mechanisms?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of those programs that my colleague mentioned may be good programs, but the reality is that the system was not working. Jobs are still going unfilled by Canadians because they do not have the skills necessary to fill those jobs. We have to address the skills shortage that we have in Canada. Employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing today and into the future is the lack of skilled workers. This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and certain regions of the country, where thousands of jobs are going unfilled because we do not have the skilled workers necessary to fill those jobs. We are addressing this problem with the Canada job grant.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in hearing my colleague's comments about small and medium-sized business. We have done many things since 2006. For example, we reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, while also increasing the threshold to which the rate applies from $300,000 to $500,000. We have also increased the amount of capital gains exemptions.

Could my colleague expand on some of the other things we are doing for small business? There are some measures in this budget implementation act that talk about apprenticeship programs for small and medium-sized business. Could he comment on that, please?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a number of measures to help small business in Canada because we recognize that small business is the cornerstone of our economy. Small businesses create the most jobs in our economy. That is why we are supporting small businesses with internships. We are investing $45 million for thousands of post-secondary graduates to intern in small and medium-sized businesses across Canada.

As I mentioned earlier, we are maintaining the EI premiums so that businesses and employees can keep $660 million in their pockets.

Our government is also promoting fairness in the credit card market by committing to work with groups to help lower credit card acceptance costs for small businesses. During pre-budget consultations across the country, we heard that this is a big issue for small businesses.

We have also reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% while increasing the small business limit to $500,000.

Our Conservative government has lowered the federal corporate income tax rate to 15%, to help create jobs and economic growth in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the government is introducing an omnibus bill.

This 350-page bill contains a number of measures that the official opposition lament, including the one whereby the government would reduce access to the guaranteed income supplement, creating more uncertainty for seniors who live below the poverty line.

A government minister even bragged about saving $700 million on the backs of seniors. It is deplorable. The government has slipped in a number of other harmful measures in this private member's bill.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, it is common practice in a bill of this size to include many different measures. Everything mentioned in this legislation, with the exception of two items, was in budget 2014. There is nothing new. There are no surprises here at all.

Let me tell the member what the economic action plan would do for Canadians.

We are launching the Canada job grant so that Canadians can get the skills training they need to get in-demand jobs.

We are creating the Canada apprentice loan, which would provide apprentices with Red Seal trades to have access to over $100 million in annual interest-free loans.

We are launching a job matching service. This new service would match Canadians looking for work with employers who are looking to hire them.

We have more paid internships for young Canadians. Over 4,000 young Canadians can now have extra paid internships.

Our government is helping older workers get back to work, by investing $75 million in the targeted initiative for older workers program to support older workers who want to participate in the job market.

This legislation is good for the Canadian economy, and it is good for Canadian employers and employees. I ask the opposition to support the bill.

Bill C-31—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 the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 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 of the said bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that after a full 25 minutes of debate on a 350-page bill that the government has stuffed full of all sorts of, “gems” is not the right word—there is another word for it that I do not think I am allowed to use here in Parliament—the government has decided that it needs to shut down that debate because it has obviously gone on too long. They think that a full 25 minutes and a few more after that should be enough to study a bill that affects 40 Canadian laws and has over 500 clauses in it, almost none of them designed to help the Canadian economy.

As this is my first speech as finance critic for the official opposition, I want to make mention of and thank the member for Parkdale—High Park, who did such an incredible job on this portfolio for a number of years. She developed strong relationships. She was absolutely dignified, and she brought New Democrats to a strong place when talking about financial measures. She had relationships with, not only the banking community, but the small business and entrepreneurial communities in this country. I owe a great debt for the amount of work that the member for Parkdale—High Park has done.

From the perspective of which I come, representing a rural and remote part of the country in northwestern British Columbia, and being a former small business owner myself, I have great familiarity with the struggles, challenges, and opportunities for those who operate small and medium-sized businesses in this country. Those businesses exist in resource-based economies in the rural parts of this country, and 80% of the Toronto Stock Exchange exists on those resource and extractive economies.

What these businesses are looking for primarily is a government that understands them, that listens to Bay Street a little less, and that more often consults and meets with people on Main Street. They are looking for a government that understands what small and medium-size businesses have to go through to put food on the table. Primarily, they need a strong economy and one that provides them with customers, a viable way to grow and expand their businesses. What we have seen from the government too often, on the Conservative side and previously, has led us to the position our economy is in right now.

There have been 400,000 missing manufacturing jobs since the Conservatives took over. The Conservatives call that excellent. There are 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced since the beginning of the recession. The youth unemployment rate is twice the national average, and Canadians now owe more money, at a personal debt ratio that is greater than any other country in the OECD. We are one of the most indebted nations in the world, and the government says all is fine and rosy.

Its policies are based on a simple principle of rip and ship: take the resources and the wealth that are the endowment of this country and send them out in their most raw form. Do not add value. Do not seek to enhance any of the qualities of those resources. The results are stark. Our trade deficit is at a staggering level. We are operating in a trade deficit position and have done so for a number of years. It is $45 billion, and it does not seem to preoccupy the Conservatives at all.

We have seen finance minister after finance minister, now two of them, misunderstand the telling signs in the economy. The previous finance minister missed the global recession entirely. He thought it was a blip, a bump in the road, and nothing to be concerned with. In the midst of the first months of that recession, the government brought in an austerity budget, countering every other G20 country in the world, saying that Conservatives know best on the economy. The fact is that they do not, and the mounting evidence on economic mismanagement of the Conservatives is piling up.

Now we have the budget implementation act, a bill that is crammed with all sorts of things that, again, I cannot mention with their proper terms. These are things like the temporary foreign worker program. Suddenly the Conservatives are going to get tough on the very program that they have allowed companies to abuse. Two years ago, they said they were going to go after those bad companies and put them on a blacklist.

Do members know how many companies are sitting on that blacklist today? There is zero, not a one. That would lead me to believe that maybe there are no companies abusing the temporary foreign worker program. However, wait, one province alone, the province of Alberta, has found 100 cases of companies abusing the massive loopholes in the temporary foreign worker program that the government created. HD Mining and certain banks have started to export jobs that we did not think could be exported: mining jobs, financial sector jobs. These are jobs that have been the heart of this economy for many years.

With the clock being what it is, I will be finishing my comments tomorrow, but allow me to establish that both on form and on substance, the current Conservative government has failed Canadians once again.

The Conservatives have a missed opportunity with this monster omnibus bill, which is fundamentally anti-democratic, not according to just me but according to the Prime Minister when he used to occupy this place.

New Democrats will oppose Bill C-31 every step of the way.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley will have 15 minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from April 2, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has 15 minutes left to conclude his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to limit my speech to just 15 minutes because this is a huge bill—it is over 350 pages long. It is hard to cover and explain everything in it. It is complicated and huge and fundamentally anti-democratic. I have plenty of quotes from the Prime Minister and other Conservatives who used to say that omnibus bills like this one were disastrous and tragic for Parliament.

We have learned to call these “ominous” budget bills because, while technically omnibus in nature, what we see in these 350 pages, with over 500 clauses and 40 laws being changed in this one act alone, is the Conservatives continuing down their very anti-democratic path of fundamentally disrespecting Parliament and the institutions. We see it in the unfair elections act, and we also see it in the next omnibus bill, Bill C-31, which contains so many aspects that it is difficult to cover in the short time we have.

Before politics, I was a small business owner. The riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia is both rural and resource sector based. I bring those experiences to bear as the finance critic for the official opposition. Therefore, my orientation toward matters of the economy, financial affairs, and the budget is based on those small and medium-sized businesses, which are at the very heart of our economy, providing more than 70% of all new jobs. At the heart of our economy lies the resource sector. Virtually 80% of the equity traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange relies on the resource sector of Canada, that natural wealth and endowment. Therefore, one wonders, while casting through the hundreds of pages in this omnibus bill, exactly what the government has done to help the resource sector, small and medium businesses, and the overall fragility of the Canadian economy.

Canada right now sits at a crossroads. Four hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost and not replaced since the government took power. Three hundred thousand net jobs have been lost since it took over that have also not been replaced. Personal household debts are at record highs.

The trade deficit hitting $45 billion is now seen as a casual event; a country like Canada having massive trade deficits with our trading partners presents no problems or concerns to the government. We are a trading nation. We are not trading well right now, and the government seems not occupied with that. The Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the former finance minister have decried the half-trillion dollars of dead money sitting in our economy that is not being used by the private sector. It is simply because, when the government hands over its corporate tax cuts, they come with no strings attached. Its ideological drive, that all tax cuts must directly and implicitly lead to job creation, has shown not to be true in this case.

According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 85% of the jobs created last year alone were created in short-term, temporary, part-time jobs. These are not our numbers. These are numbers gathered by the business community in Canada. We have seen the government blow open the temporary foreign worker program. More than 300,000 temporary foreign workers went to work this morning in Canada. That has a dual effect. It replaces Canadian workers who were training to do those jobs. I had a phone call from a young woman this morning. She is fully ticketed. She has gone through all the programs, has taken out student loans, is ready to work in the resource sector, and cannot find work because the contractor working on the gas pipeline operation has hired temporary foreign workers from all over the world. She is frustrated. She is trying to pay the bills, and the government turns a blind eye. We saw it with the HD Mining case in British Columbia. Two hundred workers were needed to work in the mine. The way the company got around the small barriers that the Conservatives put up was to say workers must be fully ticketed to work in a mining operation and fluent in Mandarin. That was a requirement that was somewhat difficult to meet in the Canadian labour force market. The employer said they could not find 200 fluent Mandarin-speaking miners in Canada, so they would need a temporary foreign worker licence permit, which the government happily granted with no conditions attached, until it became public; then there was obvious backlash. Then the Prime Minister went with the ethnic media in Vancouver. We have all sorts of criticisms about the temporary foreign worker program, but just to one section of the media; it has never since repeated those criticisms out loud.

Royal Bank of Canada laid off workers and replaced them with temporary foreign workers. We have seen 300 welders recently laid off in Alberta and replaced with temporary foreign workers. The resource wealth that we are endowed with deserves to be respected.

Let us review the six principles of how to properly develop the oil wealth in Alberta, put forward by that lefty radical, former premier Lougheed. Let us review what this radical had to say.

The first principle is “[act] like an owner”. Is the current government doing that when it comes to resource wealth? Not at all.

Second, he said, is “[get] your fair share”. Particularly when it comes to natural resources, like oil, which cannot be replenished, one only gets to do it once. If they do not collect their fair share, it is a missed opportunity.

The third principle is “Save for a rainy day”. Can members imagine what former premier Lougheed would have said about Conservatives, who have not only accrued the largest debt in Canadian history, but they also have the record for our two largest deficits and adding to our largest national debt ever?

The fourth principle that former Premier Lougheed talked about is “[adding] value” to the resources. What do the Conservatives push? They are pushing raw bitumen pipelines. What do they allow? They allow raw log exports. What they allow for is not adding value to the mineral wealth of this country. We know that is where the greatest gain in jobs can be. For those Conservatives who represent parts of Saskatchewan and British Columbia and Alberta, one has to wonder about all those jobs that have been foregone by their policies. All of those jobs and opportunities are lost, and all those families who could be paying the rent and helping to raise kids on those value-added jobs are lost.

Fifth, former Premier Lougheed also said “Go slow”. Why? Because we see what the boom can do; it always leads to a bust. The former MP for Fort McMurray, Brian Jean, on his way out the door of this place, said that the main problem in the oil patch in northern Alberta is that we are going too fast. We see that those are wise words and correct, if one visits Fort McMurray and talks to the workers and the municipal leaders there. It is a bit of a shame that he only found that conscience when he was leaving Parliament and the Conservative caucus. He did not say it when he was here. I know that many Conservatives also share his views.

The sixth and last thing that former premier Lougheed said was “Practice statecraft”. What do we have from the current government when it comes to developing our economy and natural resource wealth? The Conservatives encourage conflict. They yell and scream at opponents and call them enemies of this state if they do not agree with Conservative ideology. They say that they must be foreign-funded radicals. They get into their “grassy knoll” theories over there in the Conservative Party, saying that this must be the problem.

However, here is the result of all that conflict and tension among Canadians and between first nations and the Government of Canada, which the current government has exacerbated time and again. It leads to uncertainty. Whatever the sector, whether the resource sector or the banking sector, uncertainty is a serious problem. It is impossible to plan if people within companies and industries do not feel they have any certainty. What the Conservatives have ironically and tragically done through their abusive and bullying approach to the conversation in Canada has increased the level of uncertainty and conflict.

Let us look at Bill C-31. Let us deal with what is in it. I can quickly walk through some of the positive measures because there are not many of them.

The government has finally reversed its policy on charging the GST on parking when visiting a hospital. It was something that the Conservatives put in the budget. We told them to take it out, and they listened for once. The Conservatives have also extended some tax credits for families who are seeking adoption. We think this is a very positive thing. They have also introduced another proposal that we put forward to allow for a tax credit for volunteers conducting search and rescue. We think that is very important. It is a small measure, but for those who risk their lives to protect Canadians, we think it is a good measure.

Now, let us get to the bad things that are in Bill C-31.

Let us start with the first one, FATCA. What a great deal it is that is buried in this bill. One would think that something like a major tax treaty with our most significant trading partner would have stand-alone legislation and its own debate. That is not so with the Conservatives; they bury it. When they bury something and they release it, as they did on a Friday afternoon when they released this bill, one can anticipate that there is something they do not want to talk about. We estimate that more than one million Canadians may be affected by this tax treaty. They are Canadians who do not even know they may be implicated by this by being married to an American or former American. They are Canadians who were born to American parents. Canadians who were born here may be implicated by this.

What this deal would do is to tell the banks in Canada to release the private personal banking information of those Canadians to the Canada Revenue Agency, which then ably and quickly would pass it along to the IRS in the United States. Passing the private banking information of more than one million Canadians to the U.S. government somehow does not seem to bother the Conservatives. There were no consultations with the Privacy Commissioner. They told the Privacy Commissioner it was happening, but did not bother to find out if it went against privacy laws in Canada.

We do not know if this is even charter proof. Constitutional lawyers have said that this is a mistreatment of Canadian citizens and it will face a charter challenge. Again, there were no charter questions. The banks have estimated that to collect this information may cost upward of $100 million. Some have already spent tens of millions of dollars; it is hard information to get at. We asked the government how much it would cost it to wade through these millions of documents and pieces of banking information, and the government said it had no estimate, that it does not know what it is going to cost. The banks have said it would cost upward of $100 million per bank.

The federal government signed this treaty and did not bother to find out what it might cost the Canadian taxpayer. In addition, there is no reciprocity. There is no agreement with the U.S. to have some sort of equal treatment of Canadians. Canada is not a tax haven for American money. It has never been described as such. Why institute a tax treaty to go after tax cheats and tax havens that do not exist? Why forego the privacy of so many Canadians?

What fight did the Conservatives actually do? The Minister of Finance wrote an op-ed. He did, and it was strongly worded. He put it into a couple of papers in Washington, and that was it. Compare that with the government having spent millions of dollars toward lobbying the U.S. government on Keystone. It has spent millions on a full-scale frontal attack. The Prime Minister said that if the U.S. does not agree, this is a no-brainer, and we will wait the president out. Was this all that could be done in diplomacy?

We spent millions, and are spending millions of dollars on diplomats running around Washington trying to convince the Americans to create 40,000 jobs in the U.S. to add value to the bitumen coming out of the oil patch in Alberta. Who came up with that number? The Canadian government did, when trying to convince American legislators. Compare that full-on assault in trying to convince people in Washington to do something, to an op-ed, when they were standing up for Canadians' rights. It is a no-brainer. This is bad policy to sell out Canadians at such a cheap level. There is so much more in this bill.

What is not in this bill is the consumer protection that the government so often talks about. The fact that people have to pay to get their bills from companies is not in this legislation; it was in the throne speech. It said it would go after payday lenders because it is extortion. It was talked about in the throne speech, but it is absent in Bill C-31.

On the passenger bill of rights, do members remember that one? The Conservatives had the industry minister talk about the passenger bill of rights. It is not in the bill. There is the small business hiring tax credit, something that New Democrats proposed in 2011 and the government incorporated into two subsequent budgets. According to small and medium-sized businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it works as an effective tax measure in creating jobs. Unlike the government's broad, blunt attacks on tax, it works, and the government left it out. When asked why, it did not respond and continued.

Last, on temporary foreign workers, there is a piece in the bill that is meant to punish employers who abuse the temporary foreign worker program. The government has a blacklist. It has had a blacklist, for two years, for employers who abuse the system. Who is on the blacklist? There is nobody, not a single employer. The Alberta government has cited over 100 employers who have abused the program, and the government cannot find one.

In summation, I will move the following amendment. However, allow me to say this. In the process that the government is using, this is fundamentally anti-democratic. It fundamentally does not help the Canadian economy, and it is more bad news for the Canadian people. 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 second reading to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, because it:

(a) amends more than 60 Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight;

(b) does nothing to create quality, good-paying jobs for Canadians and fails to extend the hiring credit for small business;

(c) fails to reverse devastating cuts to infrastructure and healthcare;

(d) hands over private financial information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service under Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act;

(e) reduces transparency at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency;

(f) imposes tolls on the Champlain Bridge;

(g) jeopardizes the independence of 11 federal administrative tribunals; and

(h) enables the government to weaken regulations affecting rail safety and the transport of dangerous goods without notifying the public.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Debate will be on the amendment.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my comment is about the remarks that the member made about the intergovernmental agreement to respond to the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

As the member mentioned, there were a couple of things that the government did not do that it should have done: first, to perhaps ask the courts whether an intergovernmental agreement that was being negotiated would violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, second, to get an official comment from the Privacy Commissioner as it was negotiating with officials from the United States.

I think the government could have done a better job of protecting the rights of Canadians, and I would ask if my colleague would like to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, do members remember that old slogan that the Conservatives used during one of the campaigns, “Stand up for Canada”? Was that the first campaign? It has been so long, I suppose, that they have forgotten what “Stand up for Canada” actually means. Both on the side of pushing back and negotiating a deal that protected Canadians' privacy and rights, they have capitulated entirely. Canada was one of the last G7/G20 countries to sign the deal with the United States. It is always a good sign when we are last up with our most significant trading partner.

This is the “ready, fire, aim” government. It puts it in place, and then after the fact says “This is a privacy issue, and perhaps we should check with the Privacy Commissioner. We'll do that later” or “Perhaps this might be unconstitutional. We have a whole bunch of lawyers here in Ottawa paid for by taxpayers, and they are constitutional experts”.

These guys are trying to run them out of work. They do not ask them anything, especially when dealing with something so fundamental as our constitutional rights.

“Stand up for Canada”; what a fascinating idea. They should perhaps dust off those old pamphlets from that election and actually do what they said they would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for raising the fact that one of the larger offences in all of the last number of years of omnibus budget bills is buried in this omnibus bill. This complex piece of legislation should never be put in an omnibus bill.

I have previously mentioned to the House Peter Hogg, one of Canada's leading constitutional experts, who warned the Minister of Finance that this bill would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I also want to draw the attention of the House to the opinion of Allison Christians, who is the H. Heward Stikeman chair in tax law at McGill, and Arthur Cockfield, a professor at Queen's University. I want to put their opinion on the record:

The proposed Implementation Act and the IGA do not enhance the reciprocal tax information exchange between the United States and Canada, nor do they create a workable regime for Canada to enhance its international tax enforcement efforts going forward.

Further they state:

Instead, the Implementation Act and the IGA raise a number of serious issues ranging from likely Charter violations to violations—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have run out of time. I know we have a 10-minute timeframe for questions and comments, but we need some time for other members.

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

Mr. Speaker, the challenges will come, and the courts will be seized with this.

This is such a bad way to run government. The Conservatives spent a quarter of a million dollars on the Nadon appointment to the Supreme Court and then had to go back and undo it, for the first time in Canadian history.

These things matter. Things like the Constitution actually seem to matter. Lo and behold, the Conservatives are finding that. On tax treaties, privacy rights will matter and constitutional rights will matter.

I have another point that I was unable to raise in my speech: the lack of transparency. After all the tragedies we have seen involving rail safety, one would think that the government would put something in here to help. What it has done is give the minister the power to change training, equipment, and safety regulations without having to notify the public.

The government has simply, unilaterally, within cabinet, decided that it is going to change the way the trains are run across this country, without ever notifying the public or the community. We would have thought, after Lac-Mégantic, that there would have been an increase in transparency to try to bring the public into what is happening on the rails, since it can so deeply affect a community and pose such a risk. Instead, the government has gone the opposite way.

It is a shame. It is a continuation of the Conservative tendency toward insulting all measures of transparency and accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent speech. This is his first speech on an economic topic since he was appointed official opposition finance critic. I loved his speech.

The question I wanted to ask was already asked, in part, by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. I would like to take that one step further. She talked about the constitutional issues related to FATCA. It is becoming increasingly clear in budget bill after budget bill after budget bill that the Conservative government's process does not include enough preparation.

They rush their bills through with very little discussion, and they introduce bills, like the last one, with monumental errors. We took a stand against that and warned the government, in the Standing Committee on Finance and in the House of Commons, that the provisions to change the appointment process for Supreme Court judges would not get past the Supreme Court itself. The Conservatives did not listen to us.

There are other elements, such as the Conservatives' decision not to charge GST and HST on parking fees after all, even though that was a measure they proposed. We pointed out their mistake to them.

I would like the member to comment on the growing number of increasingly serious mistakes resulting from the government's hasty approach time and time again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question.

The problem with the process they are using now is that it costs a lot of money, it is very complicated and it is unfair. There are many provisions in this bill designed to improve situations created by previous omnibus bills passed by the Conservatives. That is the problem with this bill. The Conservatives are going to use another huge bill to solve the problems created by previous omnibus bills.

Here is a very interesting quote by the Prime Minister. He said:

....in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

Who believed that? It was the Prime Minister who used to believe that. What has this Prime Minister done? He has taken the omnibus abuses and put them on steroids. We now have omnibus bill after omnibus bill, with a kitchen sink full of measures. They are Trojan Horses that bury within them all these anti-democratic measures. The Conservatives then pretend to break it up at committee.

The process is complete sham. We need something better. We need a competent government. In 2015, we will get ourselves one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the official opposition finance critic for his speech, which showed just how deceiving this omnibus bill is and how it will do nothing to help the Canadian economy, growth or job creation.

I would like the member to elaborate on these issues. How are this Conservative government's successive austerity bills stifling Canada's economy and causing us to fall further and further behind?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question.

It is interesting because everyone believes that there are some basic problems with the economy right now. A bill that is over 350 pages long should present an opportunity to improve the situation, add value and send a message to young people who are really struggling in today's labour market as a result of both Conservative and Liberal governance.

What does this bill contain? It contains many other things. One truly dangerous example is the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada. What is that? It is the group of independent tribunals whose purpose is to defend human rights and aboriginal rights. With this bill, the government is going to change who has control over all existing tribunals, thus jeopardizing their independence. I know that the government does not really like to be criticized and it does not really like people who speak out against it, but we need these truly independent tribunals. This bill raises many concerns about what will happen in the future, since its provisions do little to help the economy and a lot to undermine democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31. This is the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. It is again another massive omnibus budget bill. It is 359 pages in length, with almost 500 separate clauses.

This bill includes a host of measures that have nothing to do with a budget bill in an effort to limit debate on important issues. Completely unrelated measures are grouped together in a single bill. The Conservatives chose this route in order to adopt these measures quickly and avoid having them reviewed by Parliament.

The inconsistency, and some would say hypocrisy, that the government is demonstrating is exemplified by the Prime Minister's own words as an opposition MP. I heard my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley refer to this quotation a few minutes ago.

In 1994, the Prime Minister, as an opposition MP, said in this House:

...in the interest of democracy, I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

He went on to say:

The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House. ... I would also ask government members...to give serious consideration to this issue of democracy....

The Liberal omnibus legislation that the then opposition member, now Prime Minister, was talking about at that time in 1994 was 21 pages in length and altered 11 pieces of legislation. That is a far cry from the 359-page document that lies before us today.

I cannot for the life of me understand how the Prime Minister, and others who were part of that Reform movement at that time, could live with themselves today when what they are doing goes far deeper against the principles that they articulated at that time.

The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force these policies through. They are ignoring public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are also potentially creating bad public policy, because the committees, wherein greater expertise lies and which ought to be considering and ultimately voting on these pieces of legislation, are being cut out of the discussion. Perhaps there is some level of engagement of committees when it comes to the evaluation of the legislation, but not at the critical points at which we vote at committee to pass these pieces of legislation.

We are being asked to consider measures, for instance, of compassionate leave, sickness benefits, search and rescue volunteers tax credits, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, and medical expense tax credits. We would actually be quite supportive of many of these measures as individual measures, and it is unfortunate that these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable and harmful and regressive measures that we cannot support.

The bill also includes new rules around FATCA, the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under the bill, Canadians effectively are going to be doing the dirty work and becoming tax collectors for the IRS. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are going to be punished if they do not provide their U.S. tax number to the CRA.

If these Canadians provide their U.S. tax numbers, the Canadian government will hand over all this information, together with information on the Canadians' bank accounts, to the U.S. This will help the U.S. collect tax on registered Canadian savings accounts, including RDSPs, registered disability savings plans; RESPs, registered education savings plans; and tax free savings accounts.

The other night when we were at the briefing by the Finance Canada public servants, they could not answer a very simple question, and that was whether the contributions made to RDSPs and RESPs by the Canadian government as matching grants would be considered taxable by the Americans. They could not answer that basic question.

It was never the public policy intention of RDSPs and RESPs to subsidize the American treasury. They are for helping Canadian families with members with disabilities and for helping young Canadians get good educations. Yet the Conservatives are incapable of answering that question. They have not stood up for Canadian interests during these negotiations.

The budget bill would also change rules around rail safety, food safety, and hazardous products.

It would centralize control over regional development in my part of the country and ACOA. It would take away the authority of regional boards in ACOA. It would dissolve those boards and move all the decision-making to Ottawa. It would dissolve ECBC without real consultation with communities, again centralizing decision-making in Ottawa on matters on which Atlantic Canadians, frankly, may have greater expertise and understanding.

The bill would also change the number of federal judges. We would think the government would have learned something from the Nadon fiasco. Ultimately, one of the casualties of previous budget implementation bills was the government's credibility when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Members will recall that it was in a previous budget implementation act that the government changed the legislation, the Supreme Court Act, with regard to the appointment of judges to try to facilitate the appointment of Justice Nadon. We know how that ended up. It did not end well. The Supreme Court refused to go along with the government on that.

That is the kind of bad public policy outcome we have when we force all these unrelated measures through the House in an omnibus budget bill of this scale.

I want to talk a little bit about what is not in Bill C-31. There is very little in this piece of legislation to address some of the most serious concerns facing Canadian families today. There is little in the bill that would actually help struggling middle-class families who are having difficulty making ends meet. Conservatives have failed to recognize that large groups within the Canadian economy and society are being left out of this so-called economic recovery.

In my part of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley, Stats Canada, which tracks unemployment and employment and labour figures, gives some very telling data. I represent Hants County, Kings County, and Annapolis County. Hants, Kings, and Annapolis are represented by me and the member for West Nova.

Since the recession, residents in this part of Nova Scotia have seen good-paying, full-time jobs replaced by temporary and part-time work. That data is laid out for us by Stats Canada. We have seen part-time jobs increase by 1,700. In the same period, the region has lost 9,800 full-time jobs. The percentage of residents in the area who are of working age and have a job, which is labour market participation, has plummeted from 61.6% to 54%.

This is what is happening in my part of Nova Scotia. We are seeing it in families. We are seeing it in small businesses.

We are seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a monolithic recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country, because there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

These Canadians are tired of the uncertainty. They are tired of struggling to find work to try to make ends meet when they have lost full-time jobs and have had to replace them with part-time work. They are facing record levels of personal debt. The average household in Canada now owes a record $1.66 for every $1 of disposable income. Instead of using this budget to help address some of these challenging needs of middle-class families, Conservatives continue to ignore them.

In the previous four Conservative budgets, the Conservatives actually raised taxes on hard-working Canadian families. Budget 2013 actually raised taxes on imported goods, everything from household goods to wigs for cancer patients. Sadly, the Conservatives raised taxes because they needed the money to cover for their waste and mismanagement. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, and millions to advertise a jobs program that did not even exist. Meanwhile, the middle class is struggling under record levels of personal debt, and the Conservatives are raising taxes on it just to support its own profligacy and wasteful spending on advertising.

Canadian youth are struggling. This bill ignores the unemployment and underemployment challenges of young Canadians. Due to Conservative inaction on youth unemployment and underemployment, we risk losing a generation of potential. We will feel the economic consequences of this disinterest in young Canadians for decades.

For young Canadians, there are 265,000 fewer jobs than there were before the downturn. TD Economics has estimated that prolonged high levels of unemployment and underemployment among young Canadians will cost the Canadian economy $23 billion.

For those who like to argue that youth unemployment is always bad following a recession, it is time to look beyond the simple unemployment rate and examine the whole story. For example, the gap between Canada's youth unemployment and adult unemployment has recently reached an all-time high. Our young people are simply being left out of this so-called recovery.

What is more, the unemployment rate does not reflect the fact that some young people are so discouraged that they are not even looking for work any more.

Students are having a harder time finding summer work. Many of them are taking unpaid internships just for work experience. A lack of paid work means that students are graduating from university with high levels of debt. The need today for government intervention and summer jobs, post-recession, is actually greater than it was before the downturn, yet the Canada summer jobs program last summer created half the number of summer jobs it did back in 2005.

The need is greater today, and the government is doing half as much to create jobs for students during the summer.

This is not just affecting young Canadians. It is affecting parents, and in many cases grandparents, who are footing the bills. According to TD Bank, more than half of baby boom parents are providing financial support to adult children who are no longer in school. It is nearly half, and 43% have allowed their adult children to live at home, rent-free, for extended periods of time.

Helping adult children make ends meet is actually leading a lot of middle-class families into greater levels of debt. They are dipping into retirement savings. It is also one of the reasons Canadian parents 55 years of age and older with children are more likely than those without children to refinance their mortgages. Their average household debt is actually twice that of their childless peers. They are more likely to take on higher non-mortgage debt, such as higher credit card debt and lines of credit, which is one of the reasons non-mortgage debt in Canada continues to climb. The average Canadian owes $28,000 in non-mortgage debt today. That is a record high.

There are too many young Canadians looking for work and there are too many middle-class Canadian families struggling under crushing levels of personal debt. The bill would do little to help Canadian youth or middle-class families and offers no real vision for the future.

I would like to speak again about something in this budget implementation act, and these are the measures regarding FATCA. The Conservatives want to actually turn Canadians into American tax collectors through this budget implementation bill. Earlier this year, when the Conservatives signed an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA, we had hoped that some of the concerns we had would be addressed.

Canada and the U.S. had previously achieved an agreement to exchange information on suspected tax cheats, but FATCA goes a step further than any other tax-sharing legislation has. It requires Canadian banks to give the CRA the account information of every U.S. citizen living in Canada. The CRA will then give this information to the IRS, and those U.S. persons will have to file taxes in the U.S.

The problem is that there are many U.S. citizens living in Canada, and they do not even know that they are considered Americans for tax purposes. These include any person born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have not lived in the U.S. since they were toddlers. The Canadian government has agreed to help the IRS find these individuals.

This will also affect Canadians who are not even U.S. citizens but are married to one, because their joint accounts will now be reported to the IRS. This is a remarkable breach of Canadians' privacy by their own government. Not only will the CRA provide the IRS information with tax identification information and the account balances of U.S. persons without their knowledge, it will impose a $100 penalty for each instance of non-compliance. Why are Conservatives prepared to do Uncle Sam's work in this case and potentially penalize Canadians with dual citizenship or their Canadian spouses?

U.S. persons living in Canada would be required to report and pay taxes to the U.S. on their RDSPs and RESPs. These accounts are supposed to help Canadians pay for education or help disabled Canadians avoid poverty. The Canadian government money was not intended to be used to subsidize the U.S. treasury. Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen, when it so clearly is inconsistent with the objectives of RDSPs and RESPs?

The other night, as I mentioned earlier today, we asked the public servants at the briefing whether Canadian government contributions, the matching grants to RESPs and RDSPs, would be considered taxable by the Americans, by the IRS. They could not answer the question. The idea that we would sign an agreement when we do not know something as basic as this speaks to the way the government has lost influence, power, and authority in negotiating with the Americans.

The FATCA agreement is very important, and it should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. We should be doing a more thorough evaluation of the agreement the government has signed, and it should not be part of a budget implementation bill, an omnibus bill. Constitutional law experts such as Peter Hogg have raised concerns about whether the agreement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are real issues around this that will be given short shrift through the process by which a budget implementation act, which is such a massive omnibus bill, has been given to Parliament.

There are also provisions in this budget implement act for demutualization. I have heard from insurance providers in Nova Scotia who worry that these changes potentially will hurt rural Canadians. Even the government's own report on demutualization tells us, quote:

Concerns were expressed that demutualization could lead to consolidation, reduce competition, access to services, and weaken ties to rural communities in which most mutual companies are based.

Again, measures on demutualization are something we need to consider more thoroughly.

What is clear is that this tired, out-of-touch Conservative government is devoid of vision and ideas. It is not just anti-democratic; it is totally out of touch with young Canadians and struggling middle-class families. Canadians deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech. I have the pleasure of sitting with him at the Standing Committee on Finance. We have had a number of opportunities to discuss important issues there, including one that is in this bill.

I am talking about the FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States. It has to do with the United States going through Canada to collect taxes from people it considers to be U.S. citizens. I raise this issue not just because it is important, but because we have studied the issue of tax havens and tax evasion at the Standing Committee on Finance. Some, including me, believe that we only scratched the surface, while others believe we studied the matter at length. Even though I do not feel we spent very much time on this study, it was extremely intense because the issue is quite broad and complex.

At the Standing Committee on Finance, we will be studying this budget implementation bill in its entirety, so the committee might need several weeks to get through all the complexities of the FATCA agreement. Can my colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's question.

Indeed, it is important for us to take a close look at tax havens and to implement appropriate measures. I do not agree with the government's approach to the FACTA agreement with the U.S. government. According to experts, this agreement could violate our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, among other things.

I agree with my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques that we should work harder with Canadian banks to develop an approach on tax havens. The overall capacity of our banks and their presence around the world should enable us to do more and to take more leadership on this issue. However, the Conservative government does nothing to address tax havens in its approach to FACTA.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many complex aspects of this omnibus legislation. Certainly, even the title, FATCA, foreign accounts taxation and compliance agreement, is one of the most complex.

It certainly would, as the hon. member stated, affect people who have no idea whatsoever that they could be caught in this broad ambit of people who are considered U.S. persons, people like me who were born in the United States but have nothing to do with the United States, who in my case has never lived there as an adult, but purely as a Canadian citizen and renounced U.S. citizenship.

This could apply to me, or my daughter. Then the information is handed over to the IRS without our knowledge.

Now, I want to draw attention to the charter argument, specifically section 15 of the charter, which says “Every individual is equal before and under the law...”. As my hon. colleague mentioned, the leading constitutional law experts of Canada have said that this will violate the charter.

So, as with other legislation, it will get pushed through this place. As in the case of the Nadon appointment or with some of the mandatory minimum sentence laws that were passed, we have clear evidence that we are being asked, as parliamentarians, to push through a piece of legislation that would be offensive to our fundamental rights of equality under the law, under section 15. I ask for the member's comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, this speaks to the challenge of these omnibus bills.

We were denied the opportunity at the appropriate committees to consider all aspects of these changes in a more thorough, methodical, and thoughtful way. There are legal and constitutional issues to consider.

Members of the justice committee, for instance, ought to have been more engaged on the changes to the Supreme Court Act in the last omnibus bill, but instead we ended up getting into an embarrassing fiasco around Justice Nadon's appointment. This was embarrassing not just for the Conservatives but our citizens as well.

There is some expertise at the finance committee studying FATCA, but there is also a need to work with other committees.

Parliament could be mobilized and engaged more thoroughly if we did not have these kinds of disparate measures lumped together in one budget omnibus bill.

I would agree with the hon. member.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this bill does very little to help young Canadians find jobs. I am very concerned about the fact that if young Canadians struggle to find a job for a year or two during their youth, this will effect their earning potential and their ability to contribute to the country's economy for the rest of their lives. We see this happen to women who stay home while their children are young.

There will be a lifetime impact on earnings potential. If we do not do something now about all the young people who are still looking for jobs after the last recession, this sector of our economy, this cohort of young Canadians, will be hurt for the rest of their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This bill does not do anything for young people and for middle-class families. The youth unemployment rate is higher than it was before the recession. We have lost 255,000 jobs for young people since the recession. This will have a terrible long-term effect on the economy.

According to TD Economics there is a $23 billion cost to the Canadian economy as a result of the scarring effect of young Canadians not getting a good start. This is leading to an unprecedented level of unpaid internships and growth in inequality of opportunity. Bill C-31 would do nothing to address the challenges faced by young Canadians or middle-class families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for mentioning demutualization and the impact it would have, especially on certain regions of Nova Scotia. However, the bill does not indicate exactly what this government's intentions are in terms of demutualization. The Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies stated that these companies do not want the government to create a framework that would include incentives for demutualization.

I would like the hon. member to speak more about the potentially negative impact of demutualization, not just for certain regions, but for people who have invested in mutual companies, especially the members, because they are the ones who invest in them.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly mutual companies are against demutualization. The government's intentions with this bill are not clear. We hope that when we discuss this bill in committee, we will get a better understanding of the direction the government wants to take. This is another case where, with omnibus bills, the government is making it difficult for us to do our jobs and assess bills responsibly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014, no. 1.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

As the bill's short title would indicate, this piece of legislation would implement some of the measures passed in economic action plan 2014.

I have noted through the years that my opposition colleagues take exception to the term “economic action plan”. They are welcome to. While they are concerned with titles and labels, we on this side of the House are concerned with action on jobs, long-term growth, and continued prosperity for all Canadians. We have focused on reducing taxes for all Canadians; lowering government debt; increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; creating the best educated, most highly skilled, and flexible workforce in the world; and building the modern infrastructure that we need to compete abroad and enjoy living in livable communities at home.

These priorities were outlined in our first mandate in a document I would encourage all MPs to read. All Canadians would benefit from doing so. It is called “Advantage Canada”. It is available on the Department of Finance website. That document was written in better times, before the global recession. While times have changed, our priorities have not.

In the intervening years we have weathered the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, but we stuck to our priorities, the priorities that Canadians elected us to address. Our commitment to that course has paid dividends for Canada. In every way that Canadians pay taxes, whether sales tax, income tax, or customs and tariffs, this government has lowered them.

We are now poised to return to a surplus fiscal position. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that we return to this balanced budget and reduce our long-term debt charges.

We have reduced unnecessary regulations. We have made progress in cutting red tape. We have concluded major free trade agreements. We have invested an unprecedented amount in our post-secondary institutions and the skilled trades. Right across this great country, Canadians have seen their local infrastructure renewed, from wastewater facilities to community centres. Locally, this has meant unprecedented investments in Wilfrid Laurier University, my alma mater, as well as the world-renowned University of Waterloo and Canada's top polytechnic institute, Conestoga College.

New computer science and engineering facilities provide students the best environment to learn. Many of these students will become graduates who want to start one of the high-tech businesses for which Waterloo region is so well known. When they do, they can take advantage of the federally supported new Communitech Hub, which offers the latest technologies for their use as experts in building high-tech businesses.

When we talk about high-tech businesses, what we will build is beyond our imagination. Quantum computing and nanotechnology are just two of the bleeding-edge fields now being pursued thanks to significant support from this government. When I say it is beyond our ability to imagine, I clearly remember, when I was a school board trustee back in 1978, that the computer housed in the school board offices was huge. It occupied almost a full room. Today we can compute far more than that on these little devices we hold in our hands, which each one of us in the House is privileged to use. Not only will those kinds of technology advancements from 1978 increase again, but they may also possibly double or triple in quantity.

Community centres from St. Clements to Kitchener have been built or renovated. Highway 8, our connection to Highway 401, has had its capacity increased to handle the increased volume that comes with our region's explosive growth.

We have done all of this during the worst times the world has seen since World War II, while reducing taxes for Canadians, and without cutting support for health care or education like the previous government did.

Canada has outperformed every other G7 country in job creation thanks to this government's commitment to long-term prosperity, as identified in the five priorities I listed earlier. Canadians have also experienced the strongest real per capita growth in the G7.

As chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I am especially proud of the key investments our government has made to protect and preserve our natural habitats. This government has invested over $17 billion in clean transportation initiatives, renewable fuels, clean air, clean energy, energy efficiency, and green infrastructure. This bill would build on that legacy, making it easier and more affordable for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands for preservation.

As I mentioned earlier, this budget would put us within a hair's breadth of a return to surplus. In our party, this is important. The leader of the third party claimed that budgets will simply balance themselves. While Canadians of a certain generation will remember that Pierre Trudeau had a similarly cavalier attitude toward budgets, many more Canadians will remember the painful actions it took to clean up the mess that Trudeau left. The truth is that it took decades for Canada to dig itself out of the hole that Trudeau left. If budgets balance themselves, why is the United States unable to do so; why is the Wynne government in my home province of Ontario unable to balance its books? Deficits and debts out of control, that is Pierre Trudeau's fiscal legacy.

Now, the leader of the third party wants to bring us back to that. We on this side of the House are preparing for a brighter future, not a return to the dark days of deficits and debts spiralling out of control. Not only were they spiralling out of control, but they were also followed by very drastic cuts to health care and education, which many people in this room and many, especially in Ontario, will still remember with a great deal of pain.

On this side of the House, and among a few members on that side—not today but usually—we believe in fiscal discipline. A balanced budget allows us to spend more of the tax dollars that we collect to serve Canadians, and means less for the bankers and bondholders who fund that debt. When the government borrows less, interest rates drop for Canadians who are seeking to borrow for a home or a car, and for provincial governments like my own that seem addicted to spending the money they do not have. That is our vision. Unlike the third party, we will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future in a vote-buying exercise.

We focus instead on the fundamentals. This act would make it easier for small businesses to grow and hire by reducing the amount of time and resources they must devote to administrivia, allowing them instead to focus on their business.

This act would make life a little easier for Canadians struggling with health issues, by making the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act more flexible for employees, and allowing compassionate care leave for employees with critically ill children.

As well, this act addresses an issue that has so infuriated Canadians of late. We have seen senators accused of serious irregularities being suspended by their peers. They have no staff, no offices, no responsibility, but they are still accumulating pensionable service. To average Canadians, the middle-class Canadians the third party struggles so hard to define, this does not reflect any reality they have ever experienced.

In my home of Waterloo Region, business people tell me that they cannot access the talent they need. This act would make it easier for Canadians to pursue a skilled trade by offering financial assistance to apprentices. These business people also tell me that the current system of training is broken, focused on filling seats and not on producing results. I was especially pleased when members of the Ontario government finally agreed to participate in the Canada jobs grant program.

We are focused on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The budget this act would implement will move us further toward those goals. By every measure, under this government Canada's economy has outperformed the world.

I know that the members opposite are screaming from the rooftops that this budget is the end of the world. They have been sticking to that Chicken Little routine every budget since Canadians first gave us the responsibility of governing, but they have been wrong every year and are wrong again. They are again wrong this time, and the evidence is that our approach is working. I ask the members opposite, especially those who have served more than one term, to listen to themselves, review what they predicted about previous budgets, and then review what happened, to see how wrong they have been year after year. I do not have time to go into all of the evidence, but maybe during the questions I will.

Under this government, Canada has led the world. That may be an uncomfortable fact for the opposition members, but it is a fact they cannot deny.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the lecture that the hon. member has given us. Unfortunately, the Conservatives like to ignore what they are doing and especially what they are not doing.

Looking at budget 2013, we see that there were numerous tax increases, either because of the removal of the provincial tariff exemptions or because the government applied GST on many items, such as parking at hospitals. I would like to know where the hon. member actually was when the Conservatives decided to impose the GST on parking at hospitals, a measure that was so bad they have now chosen to remove it with budget 2014 and this BIA.

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

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to add some material that I did not have time to do earlier. It is important for all members of the House and all Canadians to realize that it is on this side of the House, in this government, that we are working to reduce the tax burden on Canadian families. In fact, the average Canadian family currently pays $3,400 less in taxes than it did in 2006 when we took office.

There are a number of other facts I would like to clear up because they were misinterpreted earlier. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada, and over 85% of those are full time and 80% are in the private sector.

I could go on, but I have to give someone else a chance.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which targeted the Liberal Party. I appreciated it a great deal, because we are working to oppose this government.

My Conservative colleague talked about the environment and some of the things the government is trying to do. Why did it not bring back the ecoENERGY retrofit homes program?

This was a program that encouraged people to make homes more energy efficient in order to save them money when living in their homes. It was for everyone, and also helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was really a win-win situation. It helped local businesses, saved energy, saved money, and reduced Canada's greenhouse gas footprint.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that my colleague drew attention to the fact that I did target the Liberal government. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that actually nudged me out of my complacency and to get involved in politics in the first place, because of some of the mismanagement I saw there.

Specifically, we have invested, since 2006, more than $17 billion in support of the environment.

The member references the ecoENERGY program. Well, all of us in the House knew it was a time-limited plan. When we established it, it was a time-limited plan. It was a Conservative plan. However, the funny thing is that these people voted against it when we implemented it and now are asking us why we are not continuing it.

Greenhouse gases in this country have decreased by 8% since 2005 during a time when the economy grew by over 8%. Under the so-called Kyoto accord, greenhouse gases did not go down like they were supposed to, but actually increased by 30%. So, on the environment, I am proud of the record of our government.

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

Mr. Speaker, specifically following up on the environment, I just want to say that the government recently announced $4.4 million of support, in partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, for 743 hectares of land just outside of the Oliver-Osoyoos area in the South Okanagan Similkameen.

This is a major effort by the government to conserve, and I will quote Linda Hannah, B.C. regional vice-president of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, who says:

This is one of the most significant conservation projects we have undertaken here in B.C. This project will benefit not only the many rare species that rely on this habitat, but also the people who live in and visit this beautiful valley and want to see it remain ecologically vibrant.

Obviously, government has a role to make sure that these valuable lands are conserved, but the member mentioned in his speech that government can also get out of the way and encourage people to donate their own land. I would like him to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for drawing attention to the parks. Under this government, we have increased the area of our national parks by 58%. The square-mileage of our parks has increased.

Regarding the donation of ecologically sensitive land, this is an important aspect. When people do have these prized possessions, many of which are like the lands Ducks Unlimited Canada is currently administering and creating, it is important that they be allowed to donate these without a huge tax burden.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to highlight several features of budget 2014. Each year we bring out a new budget with new particulars but with the same steady principles and long-term priorities. We have looked at our economic circumstances and listened to Canadians and we know that they support our government's continued efforts to secure jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity.

This government is proud to serve Canadians in both domestic and international affairs. On the domestic side, I would like to speak to specific job-creating and economic measures as well as our low-tax plan on the road to balance. Moving to international issues, I hope to address economic immigration, free trade agreements, and Canada's relationship with the United States.

Allow me to start with an issue that is near and dear to all Canadians: jobs. Our government knows that Canadians are willing to work hard to get ahead, but we recognize the gap between the demand for skilled work positions and our current graduates and trainees. We are taking action to address these challenges. We would encourage students to enter the skilled trades by making interest-free loans available for Red Seal apprentice programs. Apprentices would be able to get interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per technical training period.

Our government is committed to workers who have lost their jobs and those who need retraining. Economic action plan 2013 introduced the Canada job grant to address this very issue. The grant would go toward training Canadians for jobs in high-demand fields and will be fully implemented in fiscal year 2017. The plan is to invest $300 million in the new program from the existing $500 million labour market agreements with the provinces. Budget 2014 would continue this implementation process.

In addition to training Canadians for available jobs, we are making it easier for businesses to hire them. As a member of the Red Tape Reduction Commission, I am pleased to say that this government would now implement another one of its recommendations. We would cut the administrative burden on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

Despite these and other measures, the Canadian economy will experience periodic labour force gaps. Companies can address these gaps with temporary foreign workers if there are no Canadians available to do the work. Our government sees the value of the foreign worker program and its ability to help businesses in need, but we strongly believe that Canadians should always get the first shot at available jobs. To that end, we would commit $11 million over two years and $3.5 million each year going forward in reforming the labour market opinion process.

In addition to training, cutting red tape, and filling labour gaps, our government continues the trend of keeping corporate taxes low. Low taxes encourage more start-ups and attract more international companies to move here. Our steady course on corporate taxes works nicely with our reduction in personal taxes, but I will speak more on that later. To supplement these direct measures, budget 2014 includes several less direct approaches that would encourage economic activity by creating a more conducive climate.

New inventions, ideas, and methods give Canada an economic edge over international competitors. Our government helps to foster these innovations and discoveries by funding research and development projects throughout the country. In 2014, we would continue the trend of increasing annual R and D funding, with the total proposed spending now at $1.6 billion over five years.

We all know that sometimes brilliant ideas come from surprising sources and that the Internet is the single greatest advance in knowledge sharing in generations. Getting more people online increases the chances of new ideas coming to the fore. Budget 2014 proposes to spend $305 million over five years to extend and enhance high-speed broadband access to roughly 280,000 households in rural and northern Canada.

Of course, information flowing online is not the only thing that needs to move in Canada. People and goods require quality roads and rails to navigate our vast country. We have set aside $53 billion for the building Canada plan. Among other things, this plan would fund transfers to provinces and municipalities and would accept applications for the building Canada fund. It would also renew the P3 Canada fund to find new ways for state and private actors to co-operate on projects. It would contribute to on-reserve infrastructure, and much more.

Canadians know that governments pay for these kinds of infrastructure projects through taxes. However, if taxes get too high, it can actually slow the economy down. With that in mind, since 2006, we have introduced over 160 tax-cutting measures. The average family of four's yearly taxes are now around $3,400 lower.

Building on that solid record, budget 2014 includes many individual cuts. For example, we propose increasing the GST exemption measures, such as exempting training in coping tactics for people with disorders and disabilities. One of my personal favourites, due to the exciting technology element, is the exemption for eyewear specifically designed to electronically enhance the vision of people with impairments. Along with a host of other cuts, these measures would continue to make life just that much easier for Canadians.

Governance is about trade-offs, such as tax relief versus deficit elimination. Our government is doing both, which brings me to my personal favourite part of budget 2014: staying on track to balanced books and surplus.

Canadians trust our government to protect the nation's finances, to tax wisely, to rein in spending, and to respond to crises. Responding to the great recession of 2008 took a heavy toll on the budget. However, I can proudly say that the budget is on track to balance for the next fiscal year, and the sooner the better. As a small businessman, I can say first-hand that I understand the occasional need for borrowing, but I also understand the immense joy and relief of being in surplus again.

We are eliminating the deficit in two ways: by increasing revenue and by cutting spending. By fostering a healthy economic climate, our government has helped the GDP rise, which increases tax revenue without raising taxes. Unlike what the inexperienced Liberal leader thinks, budgets do not just balance themselves. Unlike what the reckless New Democrats may hope, a carbon tax on everything depresses GDP and lowers tax revenue.

The second way we are tackling the deficit is by making concerted efforts to reduce the size of government through attrition and modernization.

Growth in GDP and population brings me back to the matter of immigration I introduced when speaking of the LMOs earlier.

Along with most Canadians, our government believes that our immigration system should benefit Canada. As such, we have taken several important steps to reform the system, including proposing replacement of the immigrant investor program by the immigrant investor venture capital fund. The new program would ensure that this class of immigrants would make substantial contributions to our economy.

Immigration is just one way that we interact with the wider world. Canada also trades extensively, and trade is good for economic growth.

As I mentioned, we have managed to grow GDP without raising taxes; in fact, we have grown our GDP by cutting taxes over 160 times.

Increasing resource development and increasing trade are two of the best ways to increase our GDP. With the signing of the Canada-European trade agreement late last year and the Canada-Korea trade agreement a few weeks ago, Canada has secured new opportunities for growth.

Of course, trade requires goods and services to exchange. Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources, fertile soil, and the workforce needed to translate those assets into exports. I am particularly pleased to note that budget 2014 continues funding for agricultural development through the Growing Forward 2 framework. I also appreciate the proposed expansions to the types of livestock qualifying for tax deferral on sale by farmers dealing with drought or excessive rain.

Measures like these clearly show that our government is pursuing a sound strategy of diversifying our economy through developing our resources, opening new markets with new partners, and drawing closer to old friends and allies.

The great thing about trade is that it is not a zero sum game. Seeking out new trade opportunities in the Asia-Pacific zone and in Europe does not diminish our existing trade with the United States. The fact is that the United States is, and will continue to be, our closest ally and greatest trading partner. Our government is determined to increase that trade through improved cross-border infrastructure, such as the new international trade crossing between Windsor and Detroit. Budget 2014 proposes to provide $470 million over two years on a cash basis for the procurement and project delivery parts of the new bridge project. Since the Windsor-Detroit corridor handles 30% of Canada-US trade by truck, and since that trade is forecast to increase, expanding our infrastructure is an obvious choice.

Whether it is implementing direct job-related measures, cultivating a high-growth economic climate, cutting taxes while balancing the budget, or launching new trade initiatives, our government is taking solid steps for the good of the country. All Canadians can benefit from the sound governance budget 2014 demonstrates and from the prosperity to which it contributes. That is why I am looking forward to seeing the budget implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member who just spoke achieved something quite remarkable. We have before us a 350-page bill that will change, create and amend over 50 pieces of legislation. The member managed to speak for 10 minutes without even addressing one single aspect of the bill we are discussing in the House.

I know that the member's riding is close to the United States. One item in particular is important in this bill, and that is FATCA. Many people in his riding who are Canadian citizens and do not consider themselves American could be targeted by the U.S. revenue service, according to which they might owe thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars because the U.S. government sees them as American citizens. Those people's files could be transferred to the revenue service without their knowing it and could ultimately be subject to claims. Should that happen, those people will go to the member in question.

I would like to know what the member will tell the people targeted by the U.S. intelligence and revenue services about the fact that they might owe thousands of dollars that they do not think they owe to the U.S. government.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to point out is that as we look at this budget, we are looking at a balanced way of approaching things.

What I mentioned in my speech was the fact that it is not just one thing that is going to make a difference in this country. Just cutting corporate taxes or any other of a number of issues is not going to be what makes the difference. It is a combination of things that we do, including reducing spending, which I talked about in terms of government spending. I talked as well about reducing taxes, about immigration, about trade deals. There is a whole host of issues that we need to continue to work on in order to make our economy strong and to prosper.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the other side today that the government is focused on growth and that on every measure it is outperforming other countries.

However, I would like the Conservatives to reconsider their statements. This week's issue of The Economist shows that Canada's economy is predicted to grow by just 2.3% in 2014. This is well behind the U.S., which is slated to grow at 2.8%, and Britain, at 2.9%, and Australia, at 2.6%.

I wonder if the member will revise these statements and admit that Canada's growth is beginning to lag behind our partners.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in my role as chair of the foreign affairs committee is the number of individuals from other countries who approach me, whether they are ambassadors or the like, to talk about some of the amazing things that have been going on here in Canada.

If we look at what has happened since the economic downturn in 2008, we understand that many countries did not fare nearly as well and as a matter of fact were absolutely crippled by what happened during that downturn.

One of the things that is constantly raised to me by these ambassadors and other individuals is that there is more and more desire on the part of parliamentarians from other parts of the world to come to Canada to talk about the successes we have.

We continue to move forward. I know that if we look at the debt to GDP ratio, we see that ours remains the lowest in the G7 by quite a bit. I know we will continue to move forward as we implement our action plan over the coming years.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his great speech.

I would like to thank our previous finance minister, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, for the excellent position he has put our country in, and for this budget. I wish my new colleague all the best as well.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. He talked about the debt to GDP ratio. I would like him to establish how that affects debt servicing payments and how returning to a balanced budget will affect debt-servicing payments and leave more of our taxpayers' money to provide services. Could the member expand on how positive that would be as well?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I will briefly remind members that the former finance minister is still a member of the House. We usually try to avoid using members' names.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, reducing the amount of the debt that we have to service frees up more dollars for other programs.

One of the things I did not get a chance to mention is that I am particularly proud of this government and finance minister for introducing the adoption expense tax credit. It is something that I believe is very important. It further recognizes the unique costs that families incur as they adopt children, and the kinds of one-time expenses they have. Of course, there will also be ongoing expenses, but this is particularly important.

As the member mentioned, as we continue to reduce the debt, it continues to free up dollars and we can look at additional programs and tax incentives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31. This is the fourth budget implementation bill that I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in my tenure as deputy critic for finance and international trade for the official opposition.

A fairly obvious trend has emerged with these budget bills that I have debated. There is a pattern or a modus operandi, if you will.

I am going to do something that the government rarely does when debating the budget bill: I am going to discuss the budget bill. The last two speakers did not talk about it. In fact, they used the precious time of this House to talk about the budget and initiatives and also to pat themselves on the back, while ignoring the most negative aspects and this government's often poor record on the economy.

I was saying that there is a trend that has emerged with these budget implementation bills. I have noticed that the government routinely adheres to eight criteria when it introduces such bills.

The first concerns size. Budget bills are always mammoth affairs. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned, the English version of the bill is 350 pages long, and the French version is even longer, at 380 pages.

Not only is the size—380 pages—absolutely incredible, but what the bill covers is absolutely incredible because it talks about a lot of things.

Size is one of the criteria. There are 380 pages in the French version. In the past, some bills have been 700 to 800 pages in length. One budget bill even reached 920 pages, if I am not mistaken. That seems to be one of the government's criteria in its attempt to confuse and expedite a complex process. It wants to get through it as quickly as possible and with as much confusion as possible. However, the government should tread carefully in this process.

The government's second criterion is that a budget implementation bill should create, eliminate or amend at least 10 laws. In this case, more than 50 laws are amended or created with a single bill.

At the end of the process, the House will vote on a series of measures. We can give only a single yes or no, not including the votes that took place at the reading stages or during committee work, which I will touch on later.

The third criterion that the government seems to adhere to in drafting its budget bills is that the bill must include several elements that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal matters. For example, this bill will amend the Judges Act and add four judges to the Quebec Superior Court and an extra one in Alberta. All of that is in a budget bill. Why does the government not want to introduce a bill to amend that act on its own, so that it can be studied independently? That is not the case here.

Using budget bills as a catch-all seems to be one of this government's tactics and a criterion for drafting such bills. People have spoken out against it. Many opposition speeches in the House quoted comments the Prime Minister made when he was in opposition and he strongly criticized the approach that he is now using on a regular basis.

The fourth criterion is that not only must the bill include several elements that have nothing to do with fiscal matters or the budget tabled, it must also create, not amend, laws that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal issues. For example, the last three divisions of part 6 of the bill create three different laws, including one about the Champlain Bridge and one about the management of administrative tribunals. Those are extremely important elements that should, if we are talking about creating a law, be studied separately from a budget implementation bill.

The government seems to be favouring a fifth criterion. We have seen this a number of times in previous bills, and we are seeing it again here. The government thinks that a budget bill should put and concentrate new powers in the hands of various ministers. Last year, we saw bills that gave unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of Finance, and to various ministers, in fact.

This time is no exception. Indeed, in the Hazardous Products Act amended by this bill, derivatives in securities will be amended by giving much more discretion to the ministers in question. Obviously, we can only engage in minimal discussion on the matter, because the bill is 350 pages long, and the government will push it through as quickly as possible. If the government stays on trend, which it usually does, it will start with a time allocation motion that is likely to come some time today or maybe tomorrow.

The government is using a sixth criterion. Actually, criteria 6, 7 and 8 are a lot alike. According to this sixth criterion, at least one legislative amendment should be in a bill like this one to restrict the rights of workers. This was systematic in previous bills and it is this time, too, since changes are being made to the Hazardous Products Act. The bill will amend features relating to occupational health and safety, as in previous bills that also restricted the rights of workers. These bills not only restrict the rights of workers, but they restrict the rights of immigrants as well.

Two specific clauses in this bill will affect them significantly by taking away rights and things that immigrants in Canada have access to. Those clauses will therefore limit access to social programs—or the restrictions may even be related to eligibility issues.

Finally, there is an eighth and final criterion. It seems that this budget bill, like previous budget bills, absolutely must contain at least one measure related to the government's so-called law and order agenda. Why is such a measure being included in a budget bill? The reason is that the government thinks it can get away with including this measure without providing any real reasons for doing so.

The government does not take the role of the House seriously. I do not think that it takes the essential democratic nature of the House seriously. It has never done so and continues to disregard it. As I mentioned, the Conservatives plan to move a time allocation motion. They have done so systematically with every other budget bill and with all of the legislation they introduce. The Conservatives seem to think that debate in the House is a trivial matter. Right now, they have a majority and they can do what they want. They can vote how they want and use their majority to pass the various bills that they, as a government, have deemed to be a priority. What is left for us as the opposition in the House? What remains of the role of the House if the government ignores the specific nature of the House of Commons when debating bills?

The specific role that MPs play, regardless of whether there is a minority or majority government, is to debate the essence of the government's bills and proposals. That is the real value of the House. We do not debate for the fun of it or to fill the pages of Hansard but to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the government's proposals are. We do not debate bills just so that we, as MPs, can get informed but so that the government can learn about any inherent weaknesses in its bills. It is only natural that there will be problems, since we are all human. The people who propose and draft bills are human. Some factors may have been overlooked or may not have been considered.

It is our role as the official opposition and as MPs on the other side of the House to point these things out to the government, whether it be through debates in the House or through the discussions that take place at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is where budget implementation bills go to be examined.

The government is bypassing the entire process. At second reading, instead of allowing many members to participate in the debate, the government is limiting the number of speeches to 15 to 20 members, depending on the government's time allocation motion, or the gag order, as it is known in Quebec. The government is doing itself a disservice. With this approach, the government is hurting itself and the good governance of the country.

I still do not understand why it systematically acts in this way. Since it was elected in 2011, the government has imposed some 60 gag orders during the study of various bills. Why? What is the danger? We can debate those bills and find shortcomings, whether at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. This is an opportunity to rectify the situation and to prevent the government from doing itself a disservice.

The latest problems facing the government in its implementation of the provisions of the budget implementation bill are indicative of the weak position in which the government puts itself.

This budget implementation bill contains a major correction to a measure that we had denounced at the time and brought to the government's attention. Why did budget 2013 have to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals? Hospitals were excluded from that measure. In 2013, when the government brought it in, we said that it was a mistake.

The government should not try to tax hospitals, since they play a specific role and parking is a source of revenue for them, but certainly not a source of profit. However, the government turned a deaf ear and decided to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals. Then the Conservatives realized that we were right and they were wrong. Budget 2014 and this bill are reversing that measure. They once again exempt hospitals from GST on their parking revenue.

Not only are the Conservatives backtracking after ignoring the opposition's recommendations, but they are also trying to hide their mistake, claiming that this is a new tax cut. However, this is a tax that they themselves imposed.

Let us be honest and recognize that no party in the House has a monopoly on truth; no party can claim never to have made a mistake. Let us recognize that we should work together to improve bills. We can disagree on the government's agenda for the economy. We have made no secret of that; we talk about it and debate it all the time. However, when it comes to implementing specific measures that affect all Canadians, we should take our role much more seriously.

I would like to give another example of something that happened in budget 2013 and subsequent implementation bills to show that the government does not learn from its mistakes. My colleague mentioned this, and it is worth bringing up again. I am talking about the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of Marc Nadon. The government tried to change the rules retroactively in a section of its last budget implementation bill, which we talked about. Over and over in the House and the Standing Committee on Finance, we told them that, first of all, it had nothing to do with the budget and should be studied separately, and second, that they could not change the rules retroactively, that they got themselves in trouble and that they should fix the problem without resorting to the budget or trying to pass retroactive legislation that would have no impact. We were right, and the Supreme Court agreed. We predicted the Supreme Court's reaction.

Are those the only elements? No. Other mistakes have happened because the government forces us to study such huge, complicated bills so quickly. Last year, the government passed a measure to eliminate an exemption for credit unions and caisses populaires.

This involved a lower tax rate for not-for-profit credit unions, which were benefiting from a special tax exemption. Although they were being taxed at 11%, the government wanted to tax them at the overall corporate tax rate, 15%. However, the bill and the wording of the amendment were so botched that in the end, the government did not take certain details into account that would have brought the tax rate for these credit unions and caisses populaires not to 15%, but to 28%. They would have paid 13% more than chartered banks whose primary objective is to make a profit and pay dividends to their investors and shareholders.

That was the result of a process that completely ignores the role of the House and our role as parliamentarians, MPs and representatives of our constituents. We must act in their best interest, always taking into account the common good and all the consequences our actions can have for laws and regulations.

I will take the few minutes I have left to talk about a final point that, I think, demonstrates this government's blatant disregard for the process. We often hear about a democratic process. The government should adopt a process of good governance specifically with respect to budget bills. I would like to talk about how these issues are dealt with in committee.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. When we have to conduct certain important studies, we take our time in order to do them properly. That committee is currently examining the highly problematic issue of youth employment. We will be dedicating 10 committee meetings to it. Last year, we dedicated 12 committee meetings to the issue of tax credits for charitable organizations, to determine whether we could improve the process and enhance Canadians' contributions to charitable organizations.

When a bill of 350, 400 or 500 pages that amends 40, 50 or 60 laws comes to the Standing Committee on Finance, we may have four or five meetings at most, including meetings with the people responsible and with government representatives. Four or five meetings to discuss complex issues, such as FACTA, which could violate the privacy of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of Canadians who could be considered by the U.S. government as American citizens who owe taxes. These people could have their personal file handed over to the U.S. government without their knowledge, and they could end up owing a considerable amount of money, even though they no longer consider themselves to be American, even though they were in the past.

This issue alone should take at least four, five or six meetings. We spent six to eight meetings discussing tax havens, and FACTA, which I just mentioned, was a key part of the debate we had at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, this will be just one of many dozens and dozens of issues we will have to discuss in that committee.

The very first time the government introduced an omnibus bill, we called on the government to separate the bill into parts so that the parts could be discussed in the relevant committees. The government separated the bill, but it sent the parts to the committees—such as the immigration, public safety or justice committees—for one meeting. These committees do not even have the right to propose amendments that could then go back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

This made the whole process a farce, and the budget implementation bill, regardless of what this government says, is also a farce. I urge the government to take these issues seriously, not only for the House, but also for all Canadians, whom we represent. they have the right to a competent and transparent government. The government has always claimed to be that kind of government, so it should demonstrate that right now by separating this budget into different parts to ensure that it can be carefully studied by the committees responsible for these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his speech. I always find him to be a very reasonable person, so I was quite happy to hear his views as the deputy critic for finance for the official opposition.

My question is very specific. He mentioned some of his concerns regarding the regulation, particularly to this budget implementation act, of derivatives. Derivatives are very complex formulas or algorithms that are used to calculate, particularly in the banking industry. Canada's banks are some of the world's most secure and obviously we want to keep them secure.

He said that he had specific criticism of it. What specific criticism would he have of the proposals in this budget implementation act and, if he has time, what would he give as an alternative proposition?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question, which was actually very pertinent. The issue of derivatives is a very complex one. We have seen, among other things, the role played by derivatives, especially non-bank asset-backed commercial paper, in the 2008-09 financial crisis, not just in North America but around the world. Derivatives should therefore be studied carefully.

I am not criticizing the regulations which, although not perfect, were more stringent in Canada than in many other countries. Such organizations as the Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec were affected rather negatively, along with many others, by the abuse of toxic derivatives they purchased.

My objection or my concern about this budget implementation bill as it pertains to derivatives is that it gives the Minister of Finance the power to make regulations for derivatives. With something like this, we must be able to see the consequences of this concentration of power, which permanently takes away the power of Parliament to act.

This is an important issue and it should require a specific study. Unfortunately, it will be studied along with all the measures in this budget bill.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about what is not in this bill. This bill does little to help young people find work. At this stage in a young Canadian's life, failing to find work will have a negative impact on the rest of his life.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

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

It is a good question because the Standing Committee on Finance has looked at the issue of youth employment and is still studying it today. Since at least the beginning of the financial crisis and therefore the economic crisis of 2008, the youth unemployment rate has consistently been roughly twice that of the general population. It is around 14% to 15%.

I think it is good that the committee is meeting to discuss this. What is more, the NDP moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Finance to study the issue of youth employment and to come up with solutions; however, those solutions are missing from this budget implementation bill.

There are solutions out there. I know that the NDP is looking at a number of possibilities for creating incentives for hiring young people, including tax incentives. It has worked for countries like Germany. We have to be able to take the best practices and try to incorporate them as much as possible to deal with the issue directly, but the budget implementation bill does not do that.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House to express my opposition to this omnibus process that is clearly calling into question the ability of parliamentarians to properly represent their constituents through informed debate on very specific issues. Instead, everything is thrown into an omnibus bill.

I would like to ask my esteemed colleague the following. The government could have done a lot of things in this bill. I believe with all my heart that the future of this country, and probably the future of all the industrialized countries of the world, depends on the creation of new, clean technologies in order to meet our energy needs. The eco-energy program could have been brought back, for example.

Could my esteemed colleague enlighten us by explaining what other similar measures could have been put in this bill in order to help future generations?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pontiac is quite right.

Regardless of what government members may propose in the speeches we are about to hear, judging by the two speeches we have heard this morning, there will be no mention of the opportunities that the government has missed, such as moving to the energy transition that we will have to make eventually or genuinely stimulating the economy in a productive fashion. The eco-energy program is an excellent initiative.

The government always forgets about tax multipliers. Investments are not all equal. Investments in infrastructure and in low-income Canadians, through employment insurance, have a much greater impact on the economy than cuts to income and sales taxes for companies and individuals.

The government should consider its own recommendations, recommendations made by its own finance department, in order to come up with measures that will really help the Canadian economy and not the measures we find here.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and those who elected him to Parliament. He does an exceptional job.

I would like him to comment for us on the tax credit that has not been renewed in the Bill C-31. This is the tax credit the NDP proposed in 2011 that stimulates job creation by helping small business with hiring. As the Conservatives should know, when small businesses in Canada do well, Canada does well.

Can my colleague tell us the consequences for small business if this tax credit is not renewed?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that I could have addressed, but we are only given so much time for our speeches.

People call this measure a tax credit but it is actually an EI premium credit that was granted to SMEs for each person they hired. SMEs are the biggest driver of job creation in this country. For two years, the government gave SMEs a holiday from paying employment insurance premiums for creating new jobs.

This measure was renewed each year until now. We were very much in favour of this measure. We supported the government and we even included this measure in our 2011 platform. This credit did great things. We even wanted to take this one step further by proposing a second credit, not only for job creation, but also for job retention.

The government must consider such initiatives and support them. However, instead, it quietly decided to discontinue this tax credit. Nevertheless, many organizations found it useful, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as did the members on this side of the House. We have always supported SMEs in their efforts to grow and level the playing field so that they can prosper. We are very disappointed. The government is on the wrong track, and the answers that are being given by the Minister of Finance are not at all reassuring for Canadians or the economic community.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to discuss the bill on economic action plan 2014. I will be sharing my time with the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

It is a great honour for me to speak in favour of the economic action plan and its implementation.

As a chartered accountant, I am very impressed by the contents of the plan and the opportunities it creates for Canada's economy. As a mother, I appreciate that it makes Canadian families a priority, and as the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am proud of the means it makes available to communities to improve infrastructure and services.

As everyone knows, our Conservative government is working to create jobs, ensure economic growth and secure long-term prosperity for all Canadians—not just our generation, but all future generations.

Our economic action plan 2014 includes numerous measures to promote our country's economic growth. I would like to talk about some of those measures.

For example, we are going to be connecting Canadians with available jobs, training people for jobs that actually exist, and providing new graduates with real opportunities. We are going to have more paid internships for young Canadians, investing $55 million to create paid internships for recent graduates in both small and medium-sized business and high-demand fields. We are going to be supporting job creation and innovation.

We will support job creation, innovation and trade.

Over the next decade, we will invest $1.5 billion in post-secondary research through the Canada first research excellence fund.

We will promote Canadian-made products, develop a “Made in Canada” campaign to promote high-quality Canadian products here and around the world, and work with our partners to reduce internal barriers to trade.

We want to ensure responsible resource development, conserve Canada's natural heritage and invest in infrastructure and transportation, specifically through the conservation of recreational fisheries and further investment in infrastructure.

We want to expand tax relief for health-related items and services, cap wholesale wireless rates to make telecommunications services more affordable, crack down on cross-border price discrimination, and much more.

We will establish a $200-million national disaster mitigation program to help communities prepare for natural disasters.

The economic action plan looks to return to a balanced budget in 2015. As a chartered accountant and the member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am proud to be a member of the government that has made this commitment to taxpayers. Unlike previous governments, we will not do it at just any price. That is a very important point. We respect taxpayers.

For example, major transfers to the provinces for health care, education and other services that Canadians depend on will also continue to increase to record levels. While we are controlling departmental spending, federal support to Canadians, such as seniors' benefits, will continue to grow.

Our Conservative government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation, economic growth and Canada's long-term prosperity. With the help of Canada's economic action plan, the Canadian economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. In addition, Canada is the only G7 country that has received the highest possible rating—AAA—from all major credit rating agencies.

Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is, by far, the lowest in the G7. For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has deemed Canada's banking system to be the most stable in the world.

For example, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, have both projected that Canada will have among the strongest economic growth among all G7 countries in the years to come. That is a remarkable accomplishment.

Since the end of the recession in July 2009, over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada. Over 85% of them are full-time jobs, and close to 80% are in the private sector.

Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. We are cutting every kind of tax: personal, consumption, business, excise and more. I have many examples of how we are doing that, but I do not think I have time to share them.

It is important that the people of Canada recognize that we are here for all Canadians. We are doing things for young Canadians and older Canadians. For example, the youth employment strategy, the YES program, would help young Canadians get the skills and work experience they need to transition to the workplace. It is an important investment of $330 million per year. To streamline and modernize the Canada student loans program, we are investing $123 million. This is among other previously established initiatives to support our young people.

It is also important to recognize what we have done to help senior citizens. They are the beneficiaries of our historic and landmark creation, the tax-free savings account, TFSA. It has been beneficial to senior citizens, as neither income earned in a TFSA nor withdrawals from a TFSA affect their federal income-tested benefits and credits, such as the guaranteed income supplement.

I am proud of this legislation. I am proud of our economic action plan 2014.

I look forward to taking any questions from my colleagues on this important budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre for her speech. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

I want to talk about something that directly affects my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou. I asked a question about this issue on Tuesday. A committee called Vigilance train Limoilou was created and launched a Facebook page yesterday. Tomorrow it will hold a press conference. One of the clauses in this monstrous bill will allow cabinet's decisions on changes to safety standards for the transportation of dangerous goods be kept secret.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques was right to conclude his speech by talking about the government's lack of transparency. I would like to ask my colleague how she can condone enshrining this secret cult in law?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague on the other side of the House needs to understand that our government is focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. These are the goals of economic action plan 2014.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the high, in fact record level of personal debt. It is now $1.66 for every $1 of annual income. This is the debt that individuals in Canada owe.

For all the talk of the Conservatives about how many jobs have been created since the very depths of the recession, which they always use as the starting point, the individual debt has increased. At the same time, the government's debt has increased under the Conservative government, and across the country, in the personal accounts of Canadians.

Why did the budget not try to tackle the personal debt issue that has been increasing over the last several years?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this question is terrifyingly misguided. The Conservative government is placing money in the pockets of Canadians because it believes in Canadians and their competency and capacity to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. That is unlike the previous government, which balanced the budget on the backs of our children and seniors. Our children's education transfer payments were cut and our seniors' health transfers were cut.

We are balancing the budget responsibly, as every family has to.

It is absolutely crucial that the hon. member understands the difference of approach. We have put $3,400 in the pockets of each family. We do not want to have concerns like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her wonderful speech. I find her to be a great colleague to work with.

My question is very short, due to time. In this budget implementation act, there is a provision that would allow the automatic entry of people who would receive an HST or GST cheque into the program, so that people with low incomes, or seniors and pensioners, no longer have to apply. We are cutting red tape here. We are making sure that the people who deserve the support get it.

I know that the member has a lot of seniors in her riding. I would like to hear her comments.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The members of my constituency are absolutely delighted. They are also delighted that the Conservative Government of Canada has taken 380,000 seniors off the tax rolls.

The concern in my province in particular is that our province has not matched that generosity, but it certainly is a help for seniors. I concur with the red tape reduction. The example I used in my remarks to the House is that TFSA earnings do not in any way impinge on GIS payments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. It is not often that I rise during debates on legislation, but I want to share a few thoughts on this particular bill. That is because I believe this bill and our recent budget, which it would implement, are of particular importance to my constituents in York—Simcoe.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, our government has stayed true to our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and has remained determined to see our plan through.

Last Friday, I was proud to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. It constitutes our latest initiative, focusing on our key priorities: creating jobs and economic growth, supporting and protecting families, and returning to balanced budgets in 2015. This bill would implement initiatives to connect my constituents with available jobs, invest in infrastructure, and expand our focus on trade and responsible resource development.

My constituents are pleased to see action connecting them with available jobs and fostering job creation. York—Simcoe is a hard-working riding. People are proud to work with their hands to do real things to see a positive result at the end of a day of hard work. This is a budget for them and for their children.

Apprenticeship training plays an important role in Canada's education system, and is a key provider of the vital skills and knowledge necessary to power and grow the Canadian economy. Recognizing this, economic action plan 2014 no. 1 would provide apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 for a period of technical training. I want to ensure that my young constituents are given real opportunities to find jobs and build careers. Many are doing so, getting jobs in Ontario or courageously striking out and moving west for opportunity. In either case, I want them to be given that chance.

In York—Simcoe, we are experienced with the use of temporary foreign workers. The country's most valuable market gardening in our fertile Holland Marsh muck soils depends heavily on temporary foreign workers from abroad who fill tasks that are impossible to get filled locally, but that has always been done carefully. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen failures in the temporary foreign workers program elsewhere in Canada, where officials have approved foreign workers despite the ready availability of Canadians qualified and willing to do the work. Some of my constituents have been affected by this situation.

It is not acceptable. Our government remains committed to a temporary foreign worker program that operates in the national interest, so included in this bill are measures to ensure that Canadians would be given the first opportunity at available jobs by strengthening the labour market opinion process.

The bill also would continue our commitment to support families like those in York—Simcoe. In last year's Speech from the Throne, we committed to lower prices and greater competition in the telecommunications market. In this bill, we would make significant progress by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates. Further support for families is included through a proposed increase, to $15,000, of the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for families.

We would also make changes to ensure the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. This includes exempting naturopathic doctors and acupuncturist services from the goods and services tax, or the harmonized sales tax, as it is in Ontario now. In York—Simcoe, my constituents increasingly rely on alternative health care providers, and this measure would help them in real and tangible ways.

The measures set out in economic action plan 2014 have one very important element in common with all of our previous budgets: they will produce results for Canadians and their economy.

In 2009, after the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, our government introduced its first economic action plan. Since then, the economic policies that we have put in place through our economic action plans have been extraordinarily successful. The reality is that Canada is an economic leader among the major developed countries of the G7. While economic uncertainty is still a reality for many developed economies, our economic action plans have enabled Canada to recoup all of the jobs lost during the recession, and more.

Since our first economic action plan, our government has created more than a million net new jobs. That is the strongest job growth performance of all the G7 countries during the recovery. Nearly all of the jobs created since 2009 have been full-time positions, 85% are in the private sector and over two-thirds are in high-paying industries.

As well, Canada's real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7 again.

Despite all of these accomplishments and despite what is obviously a plan that works for Canadians and their economy, the opposition continues to oppose our important economic initiatives at every opportunity.

Most important to York—Simcoe is the fact that this budget bill has us on track to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget in 2015. That matters to them because they understand that government debt is their debt, and they understand that when the opposition opposes our measures, it is because the opposition wants bigger government, higher spending, higher taxes, more deficits, and deeper debt. This is not what York—Simcoe residents want from Ottawa.

From my time as the Minister of International Trade, I can tell the House that our government's ability to propose concrete measures to complement our already sound framework and to steer them through Parliament in a timely manner makes Canada stand out among developed economies.

In contrast, in many other countries saw political paralysis rein and governments collapse. All the while those other domestic economies cried out for help. People abroad would say to me that they had confidence in Canada's government. Contrasting us with the U.S. and much of Europe, they would say that at least we can get things done in Canada.

Getting things done has been an important hallmark of this government. We have actively worked to facilitate a hard-working, orderly, and productive House of Commons. In York—Simcoe, constituents usually ask me why it takes so long to get things done in Parliament. They tell me that they elected us to make decisions.

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, with my hard-working, results-oriented constituents in mind, to facilitate the certainty of being able to come to a decision on this bill, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, not more than three further sitting days after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion is in order. Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who may wish to ask questions to rise in their places now so that the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

Thank you. We will proceed in a fashion similar to a normal question and comment period. Members will have about a minute or a minute and 15 seconds to put a question and also for the government to respond.

Questions, the hon. minister for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We are not ministers yet, but it is certainly coming, especially after this quite despicable act. It is coming. On October 19, 2015, you will be calling many of the folks on the NDP side as ministers, so we appreciate your getting the practice in right now.

We had the government House leader, soon to be opposition House leader, rise in this House and speak to the budget. This is a rare thing. He has not done this very often.

The problem with time allocation is that he is now shutting out most members of Parliament from being able to speak to this budget bill. Most members of the opposition, but also dozens of Conservatives, have not spoken to a single government bill since the beginning of the session. They are being told by the government House leader that their constituents do not have the right to be represented in the House of Commons. If their constituents do not have the right to have them stand up on their behalf and speak to this bill, most members of the opposition and most members of government are being disenfranchised. That is appalling. It is over 60 times now that the government has shut down debate. Hundreds of members of Parliament will be disenfranchised by this action.

The simple question is this: given how low the credibility of the current government is with the Canadian public, how does it have the nerve to cut hundreds of members of Parliament out of the budgetary process?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Canadians gave our government a very strong mandate to govern and to focus on the economy. At the point of the last election, all Canadians knew that with the economy in the midst of a global downturn, there was only one party they had faith in to take control of Canada's economy and help build and create jobs.

Canadians expect their government and the opposition to move this type of legislation forward. They expect the government to take decisions and to take action on the commitments that we have already brought forward in the budget. That is what our government has done in the House of Commons over the years that we have served as the Government of Canada.

Our government has faced continued attempts by the opposition, as we saw again this morning, to delay and obstruct these important bills with amendments that are really just calling for the shutdown of the entire budget package. We have seen the opposition filibuster.

We certainly look forward to continued debate here in the House of Commons.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was with absolute astonishment that I saw the head of the Conservative Party stand up and move time allocation on something so big and so complicated as a bill that would have such an enormous impact on this country of ours as we move forward. Does the member have any shame at all that his party can sit back and allow this to go forward without having proper debate?

I would ask the member this. How many different bills are in the bill we are talking about? There must be 50 or 60, if not more, changes of significance to major things that are going on in our country. Does he not have any shame or concern about the impact that would have on Canadians?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many of us still remember 2005, the last time the member had the opportunity to sit in government. That Liberal government's last budget implementation bill did much the same. It amended many different bills, dozens of different pieces of legislation.

Let us be clear. It is not the size of the budget legislation that the opposition cares about. It is not about which bills are in or which are not. We have had much larger budget implementation acts or bills in the past. It is that the opposition wants to stop the necessary and vital economic reforms that are in this bill.

Even though the opposition likes to suggest otherwise, it has been common practice to include various measures in a bill and in the subsequent budget implementation bill. That has been common practice. This is nothing new or groundbreaking. The opposition would have the Canadian public believe that these are extraordinary measures that have never been implemented in the past. Budget implementation bills often deal with legislation from different departments, with monies and so forth, so it is nothing that is new or groundbreaking. It simply reflects the central role of a budget to a government's agenda.

That is what this implementation act does. It brings forward the mandate and the agenda that we have to continue to bring forward positive policy that will help create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians in a very fragile recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister of state's argument, it is that the Conservatives are just like the former Liberal government, only on steroids. Is that his argument in defence of this action?

This omnibus budget implementation act, which follows a long series of similar bills, is over 350 pages and almost 500 clauses in length, and contains so many changes that have never been brought forward in a budget bill. I just want to highlight two that are of particular concern to so many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, and I am sure members are hearing this across the country.

First of all, with the changes around FATCA, a totally new bill is housed within Bill C-31 that would affect so many people who happen to hold Canadian-American citizenship, and is doing so without answering vital questions around privacy and what it would mean to people's private banking information. We need to have a thorough debate on that.

A second change is to rail safety. My riding is bounded by three railway lines, and people are very concerned about rail safety. When I read in the bill that the government would be able to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without even telling the public, I think Canadians deserve a debate on that.

My question for the minister of state is how can he justify suppressing the democratic right to debate such fundamental changes the Conservative government would make?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we did have the opportunity to listen to a number of speeches this morning from the government and the opposition sides. With all due respect, the opposition brought forward concerns regarding the FATCA agreement, which this member has talked about, and there are many people across Canada who are questioning exactly what FATCA is. Let me say that the agreement addresses those concerns.

The agreement addresses the concerns that Canadians had when the United States imposed certain regulations based on the treaties it has with many different countries. Consequently, this government responded very quickly and negotiated a very solid intergovernmental agreement, or IGA, with the Americans. It is an agreement that relies on the existing tax framework under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

CRA will not assist the Americans, it will not assist the IRS, in collecting U.S. taxes. Also, there are no new taxes being implemented through FATCA, and no new taxes that Canadians need to worry about. In our negotiations, we obtained a number of significant concessions that would not normally have been included, such as not including RRSPs in disclosure, not including RDSPs, not including tax-free savings accounts, and many others.

Again, FATCA is a policy that is here basically to safeguard Canadians.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I found it odd in several respects as this debate started that the member for York—Simcoe mentioned that people in his riding told him that they just wanted things done. If I lived in his riding, I would tell him, quite frankly, that he does not get out much, because what we are looking at here is something that is getting done, but not in a way that people feel is right for the country. I think it is irresponsible for the Conservatives to say that they just want to get it done quickly by using things such as this omnibus legislation.

The minister of state talked about the practices back in 2005 when the Liberals were in power. I remember that time and was here when the Conservatives took particular issue with the fact that the Atlantic accords were within the budget legislation. The Conservatives wanted these as a separate vote, and they got their way because of the Conservative members from Newfoundland Labrador. Things have changed. One, there are no Conservative members from Newfoundland and Labrador, among other things.

So, if the Conservatives did not like it then, when will they start practising what they used to preach?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we very much look forward to the next election when we will have members from Newfoundland and Labrador sitting in the Conservative caucus again so that Newfoundland and Labrador can have a voice not only in the caucus but also in cabinet. I think that member has recognized the problem that Newfoundland and Labrador does not have those opportunities. That said, we have many very strong members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada and across the country who are standing up and talking about the issues that are affecting Newfoundland and Labrador.

We look forward and anticipate, after the next election, Conservative members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like our Conservative, tax-cutting heroes—who have allegedly liberated taxpayers—to tell us about the 125,000 workers who use the Champlain Bridge each day.

What will those workers do when they wake up to find that they have to pay a tax to get to work and another to get back home at night?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians now have a government that has brought forward the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. The infrastructure being implemented across this country will serve Canada well for decades and decades. Many years ago, it was not the role of the federal government to be as active in federal infrastructure spending. This is a very positive measure that we brought forward to help create jobs and grow our economy in the downturn. However, the opportunities in the future are going be immense.

In Montreal and other places, bridges are being constructed. We need those pieces of infrastructure to move people and produce. More and more, Canadians are realizing that we need access to other markets. The hon. member talked about the toll for the Champlain Bridge. Many of the programs we are doing are called P3 programs. Part of the commitment for that bridge was that it would be a toll bridge, and we have others like it across the country. If there were to be the bridge, there would be a toll.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the hon. government House leader decided to shut down debate. He made a speech and then, well I cannot remark on where he might be, questions are being taken by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. government House leader had the gall to tell the House, on behalf of his constituents, that the government did not believe in big government. What is not “big government” about it asking the banks to root through the private information of Canadian citizens and turn that information, without their knowledge or consent, over to a foreign government? That is not just big government, that is big brother government. This measure deserves treatment in something other than an omnibus bill that has limited debate time.

I will not be able to speak a full 10 minutes because with time allocation, debate never comes around to the smaller parties. This is both an affront to democracy and a violation of the charter, as well as further abuse of our parliamentary system.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of the member that I am answering questions. I believe it is an honour to stand in the House and promote the budget implementation act of 2014.

On this FATCA, without an agreement in place our financial institutions would still have had to comply with FATCA. That is the problem. It is not whether or not our financial institutions would have had to comply with the rule of law dealing with those American citizens who are abiding here in Canada. Every financial institution in Canada, except the very small ones, would have had to comply with the Americans, and if they did not, there would have been huge consequences to their being involved in the United States, to their activity in the United States. It would have required banks to report information to the IRS. Canadian banks would have been reporting to the IRS.

The agreement we were able to negotiate says that those financial institutions can disclose information on American citizens living in Canada and their finances to the Canada Revenue Agency, which is then responsible for moving the information forward.

If that had not happened, banks would have had to deny basic banking services to clients. That is one of the major concerns that banks had, that they would in effect have to say no to American citizens or those who may be dual citizens, saying that they could not do business in Canada.

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

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, closure prevents us from discussing the financial insecurity of Canadian families.

We will not be able to discuss credit card interest rates, which destroy the financial capacity of Canadian households.

We will not be able to discuss “pay to pay", the practice whereby companies charge additional fees to people who pay by Canada Post. Despite this government's throne speech, nothing is being done about this.

Lastly, as for pensions, it is the same story about the grasshopper and the ant. I would like someone to explain to me how not saving now will give us an income in the winter of our lives.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had a hard time following the member's question initially because he was speaking about the dire circumstances of Canadians as a result of interest rates being too low. Does that mean that the New Democratic Party is proposing that interest rates dramatically increase? Does it believe that a big increase in interest rates would help to drive the economy? Does it believe that high interest rates are going to encourage small and medium-size businesses to hire more employees? Does it believe that high interest rates would build our economy?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, he is stating the very opposite of what I said. The answer must reflect the question. I was speaking about high credit card interest rates—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

That is not a point of order, but a matter of debate.

The hon. minister of state.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the other concern he had was in regard to retirement. I wish I had more time. We have three very strong pillars to retirement in Canada: the OAS, GIS, and CPP. We also have the pillar of all the other incentives for Canadians that our government has brought forward, incentives like the pooled registered pension plan and the tax-free savings account. All of these were brought in because we are focused on the retirement security of Canadian seniors. When I travelled the country during the prebudget consultations and after the budget rollout, Canadians thanked us for the measures the government had brought forward. We are looking out for the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, any economist would tell us that if we want to see manufacturers export more, we need to have a strong system of both intellectual property and international trade agreements. Our government has had a very strong record of taking action to strengthen Canada's intellectual property system. Trademarks help protect a company's brand and reputation, and ensures that consumers have confidence that the products they buy are legitimate.

The existing framework for protecting intellectual property is not currently aligned with international practices, creating unnecessary costs for businesses. International treaties, like the Madrid protocol, the Singapore treaty, and the Nice classification, recognize trademarks and make it easier for companies to do business. I know that under these treaties Canadian companies could benefit from promoting their brand, both at home and abroad.

Could the Minister of State for Finance please tell the House what the government is doing to assist Canadian businesses with regard to trademarks and branding?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is known for reducing red tape. We brought forward commissions that would help reduce red tape. We are focused on what we can do to help small, medium, and all businesses succeed. That means reduced red tape. That is part of our effort to protect the interests of the Canadian workforce. That is what we are here to do.

I am pleased to tell the member that the legislation we are here to debate today, economic action plan 2014 act no. 1, would implement all three of those international trademark treaties. This would reduce red tape for Canadian businesses and support our trade agenda. These measures would aid in streamlining the granting and protection of intellectual property rights in Canada and around the world. Harmonizing Canada's intellectual property regime would help Canadian businesses access new markets, lower costs, and draw foreign investment to Canada, while reducing the regulatory burden and red tape.

Our trade minister, our agriculture minister, and many other ministers and members of Parliament have travelled the world trying to gain access to new markets. One of the stumbling blocks has been that we have not been signatories to some of the treaties, like the Madrid one and others. This would help implement that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all hon. members that you ought to stand when questions and comments are called, not just stand for an extended period hoping to be recognized many minutes before there is an opportunity.

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, considering that this is the 61st gag order that the government has imposed since winning the 2011 election, it is clear that the government does not care about democracy. It wants to once again limit the debate on a fundamental issue, especially considering that the number of proposed amendments in this omnibus bill means that we will not have the time to properly debate them, which would have allowed us to really get to the heart of the matter. There are so many issues in this bill, issues that need a much more thorough debate. Consider, for example, the creation of a national securities commission, the Champlain Bridge and apprenticeship grants. There are many other potentially volatile areas that could really affect the economy. We are also wondering why the bill includes funding for the automotive industry in Ontario. There is also funding for fishers in Newfoundland, but there is no compensation for Quebec's cheese and dairy producers following the free trade agreement with the European Union. For the Quebec economy, there are many things that are not found in this bill, and we will not have time to debate it because, once again, the government is limiting the time, which is a complete affront to democracy.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain exactly what the question was. I can tell the hon. member that the Canada-European Union trade agreement is an agreement that would give us access to 500 million people. It is going to be a huge benefit to Canada's economy. Certainly when we meet with manufacturers, with the agricultural industry, and with many others, they understand the importance of that free trade agreement, and all the free trade agreements we have, to our country.

Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, but we are not immune from the challenges from beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent. For that reason, we stepped forward with free trade agreements, as the hon. member mentioned here today. We have brought forward agreements that will help employment in Canada and the economy in Canada. They will help all Canadians.

I would encourage the member to meet with Canadians in different sectors and find out about the importance. He mentioned dairy producers. It is going to be good for all of agriculture. It was specifically mentioned that there are certain measures in place to protect.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the original purpose of this debate, which concerns why debate on this legislation should be limited. We are debating time allocation.

In this omnibus bill, there are corrections to mistakes in previous omnibus bills. It seems as if every omnibus bill has to correct every previous omnibus bill. All of these bills have had debate limited and have been pushed through faster than they really should have been. They have contained a lot of different material unrelated to the budget.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: if this is a pattern that each of these bills has to correct the previous one, why do we not just do it right for once? Why do we not just take our time and get it right?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians got it right in 2006. Canadians got it right in 2008. Canadians got it right in 2011 when they asked this government to be the government to shepherd or take the economy through a very difficult economic time. Canadians got it right.

Even as I travelled across this country, from one coast to the other, in the pre-budget consultation, we heard from industry, from moms and dads, from academics, and from manufacturers. We heard different groups come forward to say what they would like in the budget. They understood. They understood that this government was the government that can help build jobs, help create jobs, and help save jobs and that wanted to see the economy move ahead quickly.

Everything in the bill supports our low-tax plan for Canadians. It supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. What the opposition is not talking about today is that Canada's economy grew much more in January than members opposite ever expected it would or that the economists expected it would. That is what members want to stifle.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that since the depths of the recession, Canada has had the best job creation in the G7 under this government's leadership. Over one million net new jobs have been created since July 2009, overwhelmingly full-time, well-paying jobs in the private sector. Private sector employers across Canada say that the biggest challenge they are facing is a lack of skilled workers. This is particularly problematic in certain sectors and regions, where thousands of jobs are going unfilled, because not enough skilled workers are available to fill them.

Given this government's success in previous years in job creation and in connecting Canadians with available jobs, would the Minister of State (Finance) please tell this House about the measures in the bill that would contribute to this aspect of the economy?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank that member of Parliament for the very important and strong work he is doing, first, on the Ukraine file, as he was undoubtedly the most supportive in bringing that issue forward.

I also want to thank him for hosting me as we went across the country on a pre-budget consultation. He brought a group of businessmen and chambers together, and they, again, shared what they hoped would be in the budget.

In response to his question, I would like to highlight a couple of important initiatives found in this budget.

First, it would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process. All of us understand the need there as we meet with constituents. This would help ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

We would also provide $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system. This, again, would help support Canada's labour market needs.

Budget 2014 is a budget that would equip apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

Last, we would help reduce red tape. We want to see red tape cut for more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

There is much in this budget. Those are just a number of the points that would help with job creation and would help strengthen our economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #97

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Questions and comments, the hon. opposition House leader.

[Peter Julian, NDP, House Leader of the Official Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the government House leader stood up and gave a speech, one of the few from the government side, and then promptly shut down debate for most of the government and most of the opposition members by putting in place time allocation measures, which means that most Conservatives and most opposition members will not have an opportunity to speak on the bill.

We might ask why, when it is a Conservative budget bill, the Conservatives would want to shut down debate on it. Here is one of the reasons: the foreign account tax compliance act, which is something that has been protested by a million Canadians of American origin in this country, Canadians upon whom penalties are being imposed unilaterally by the IRS.

The Conservatives said that they would stand up against this kind of unilateral action by the American government. In fact, I went to see the American ambassador myself, along with a number of NDP MPs, and we advocated strongly for those one million Canadians.

This Conservative government has sold them out. Basically it is shipping that information to the United States, even though there are constitutional issues and privacy issues.

My question to the hon. government House leader is simply this: is that why the Conservatives want to shut down debate? Is it because they are afraid of those one million Canadians finding out that they were sold out on FATCA?

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep struggling with this issue, because it seems some folks have still not yet grasped our rules. Of course, time allocation is not used by this government to shut down debate, because here we are debating, which we will be doing tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. It is used as a scheduling device so that all members of this House can have certainty and confidence about when the debate will occur, and more importantly, about when the vote will occur and when the decision will ultimately be made. That is very important.

This is reflected in Beauchesne's at page 162. I have referred to this point before, but the opposition House leader seems not to have grasped it yet. It is at paragraph 533:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

There we have it in black and white, from one of those important green books that we rely on that tells us what the rules are.

There was an interesting observation today from one of the more knowledgeable observers of parliamentary procedure, who said this:

...the...bill will get a total of five days of second reading debate, which is pretty reasonable.

We have provided for ample debate, more debate than has often happened on many bills of this type historically, and I am very pleased to see that we are doing it in a fashion that allows full debate, but more importantly, lets decisions get made. That is what is important: that we make decisions, get things done, and do the job that people sent us here to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the government House leader's distortion of reality, which is in fact what we just witnessed.

At the end of the day, we need to recognize that the budget bill before us takes into consideration the passing of numerous amendments, numerous clauses, that would affect dozens of laws. These are laws that should have been brought in individually, as stand-alone pieces of legislation. The member is using the back door of a budget debate and then putting on time allocation, which prevents all members of the House from participating and getting engaged in the debate, in order to pass a series of what should have been a number of pieces of legislation.

The Conservative/Reform majority government has a terrible record in terms of respecting due process and democracy in Canada, whether it is the budget bill or the unfair elections act.

My question to the government House leader is, when can we anticipate that there will be more democracy inside this chamber? When is the government going to take that crutch of time allocation away? It clearly denies the ability of members of Parliament to hold government accountable, and the government House leader knows that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be young, or young enough that he would not have been around in 1861, when in the British Parliament, our mother Parliament, they reverted to what was the earlier practice of taking all major financial measures as one. The chancellor thus got the paper duty provisions through as part of the finance bill.

The business of implementing a budget through one budget implementation bill goes back some 150 years. It is nothing new under this government.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me indicate at the beginning that I will be sharing my time. Unfortunately, I do not have much of it, but being a team player, I am sharing my time with the member for Gatineau.

Let me say how disappointed I am that once again debate on this important measure has been limited. We may get 10 hours altogether in debate at second reading on the bill, which means that the vast majority, two-thirds of the members in the House, will not have an opportunity to stand and represent their constituencies. It is shameful.

We are talking about a budget implementation bill of 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and it amends dozens of bills. The budget for the department that I am the shadow critic for, Fisheries and Oceans, has a budget of $1.6 billion, and I am being given 10 minutes in the House.

The other day we had the opportunity to talk to the minister at committee on the main estimates, and I had 10 minutes that I had to divide among my colleagues in our caucus. The level of accountability by the government is absolutely shocking, frankly. We continue to see it.

One of the things that the Conservatives are changing is something that affects the region I am from, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Not only are they getting rid of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation altogether, which is losing that voice, that on the ground voice, but they are getting rid of the board of ACOA. They are taking away the requirement that the CEO of ACOA is to report on the progress of that organization in contributing to economic development in the region every five years.

Talk about removing accountability at every step along the way. It seems interesting that ECBC, for example, is being disbanded, at a time when there is an investigation under way by the Auditor General into wrongdoings in the ECBC's decision to provide $4 million in new funding for a new marina at Ben Eoin. One might say that sounds familiar; it sounds a lot like what is happening under Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. Conservatives are getting rid of the provisions that would allow Elections Canada to press forward with charges against some of the Conservative members who have been under investigation for flouting the rules in the way they have prosecuted their own elections.

Again, it is a pattern by the government. It does not seem to give a hoot about democracy and things like fair elections, or about accountability. As I said, for a $1.6 billion budget at Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we get an hour altogether, and most of that is taken up by government in discussion with the minister. It is not good enough, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the constituents that I represent from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I have very few minutes, but I want to talk about some of the things that the government could have done. There are a lot of things that it did that I do not agree with. Some things I do agree with. However, there is a lot that the government did not take the opportunity to do. These are things like investing in innovation, economic development, and high-quality middle-class jobs. We had hoped that Conservatives would continue to build on an existing job creation tax credit for small and medium-size businesses. They decided not to do that.

We wanted them to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with persistent structural youth unemployment and under-employment throughout this country, to create and help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, and to crack down on the abuse of unpaid internships to ensure young people are paid for the work that they perform.

There is a serious problem occurring in this country, where young people, whether getting out of high school or out of university, are having a terrible time trying to find jobs to match their skills. They are having a terrible time finding jobs to develop experience and pay their own way forward, whether it be supporting a family or going on to post-secondary education. The jobs are not there, and the Conservatives have not come up with a plan to help deal with that, other than the Canada jobs plan which does not help students. It was announced last year, and it is only now being agreed to by some of the provinces. It attacks labour market agreements that provide funding for the most vulnerable Canadians, literacy training and job-readiness training in my province of Nova Scotia and throughout the country.

Provinces were forced, frankly at gunpoint, to sign this deal, knowing they were going to be losing funding that they had already committed for these labour market agreements, supporting organizations like the Dartmouth Learning Network and others throughout my province, and programs throughout the country. It is extraordinarily short-sighted, and an example of the lack of appreciation that the Conservatives have for the complexities of job training in this country.

We had hoped that the government would provide explicit transparent criteria for the net benefit to Canada test in the Investment Canada Act, with an emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions, and new capital investments. I have heard a lot of employers in my constituency asking me why the Americans can protect jobs in their country but Canada does not seem to care what happens to jobs in this country. People are extraordinarily frustrated that companies that compete in the United States are prohibited from doing that, while at the same time American companies come up and displace Canadian companies.

Finally, we had hoped there would be a study conducted into the methods to encourage value-added domestic production in the energy sector.

There is a long list of things, but one of the things I am particularly concerned about is the fact that the Conservatives failed to restore the ecoENERGY home retrofit program. It was an initiative that worked well and was an investment into the renewable energy sector. It was an investment in Canadians actually taking control of the amount of energy they use and it was a good way forward. In their lack of judgment, the Conservatives have decided not to move in that direction again.

Let me finish by saying how disappointed I am as a member of this House of Commons, the representative from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, that I participate in debate after debate where the current government is shutting down our democracy. It is taking away my rights as a member of Parliament to examine legislation, to examine budgets, to give voice to the concerns of my constituents on these issues every single day. The Conservatives have been doing it repeatedly.

I am hearing from the people in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that it is not good enough. They want to ensure that every time I have the opportunity I send that message because they are going to be sending their own message in 2015.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I would grant that the member is misinformed about the Canada job grant and its impact on the labour market agreement, which is $500 million in annual federal transfers to provinces and territories for skills development and job training for individuals who have been unemployed long term or who have never been employed.

In fact, the Canada job grant agreements that we have signed in principle with all 13 provinces and territories permit the provinces and territories to fund their portion, the public portion of the job grant, from any source of funds. The source of funding is not restricted to the labour market agreement, which the Conservative government introduced in 2007, I remind the member. There was zero LMA funding and zero programming of that nature prior to the government's creation of that program.

It would be nice to hear a little thanks from the member if he thinks those are good programs, and also recognition that they are completely unaffected by the Canada job grant agreement, which seeks to increase the private sector investment in skills training.

I am with the unions on this. I am where the NDP should be, which is thinking we have to find ways to get employers to put more skin in the game in training. That is what the job grant does, by leveraging more investment from private sector employers.

Does the member not agree that it is a good objective? Does he not also agree that it is a good idea to try to get employers to nominate people for training where they are offering them a guaranteed job at the end of it? Surely he is willing to admit that there has been too much training for jobs that do not exist and training for the sake of training, and that we need some reforms in this area.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that employers in Canada have not put enough skin in the game, as the member says.

I was around in 2007 in Nova Scotia and involved in the training field. We were devastated when the federal government pulled out of the national program that existed and dumped all of the responsibility on the backs of the provinces. It was complete chaos and it took a couple of years for the Province of Nova Scotia and other provinces to develop their own programs, infrastructure, and skills.

Now that they have done that and they are producing good skills and providing training for all levels, including the most vulnerable, the government comes along and says it thinks it will take it back because it has seen a political use for those dollars. What the government has done, despite what the minister claims, is put the funding in serous jeopardy that went to these labour market agreements and supported training for the most vulnerable.

That is the shame about the direction in which the government has gone. It has forced provinces to agree to take the money that was already on the table or lose it all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that one of the largest, most significant shortcomings of the Conservative budget is the fact that there is absolutely nothing in terms of recognition of what Canadians hold very dear to their hearts, which is the health care accord.

The health care accord is something that just expired at midnight on March 31. If we ask Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we will find that health care is a very important issue to them; yet the government has failed in developing a replacement accord that would provide the types of assurances that Canadians want to see going into the future.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment about how important it was for the Government of Canada to have renegotiated a new accord for the next decade?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a great point. The government says it is increasing health transfers by 6%, but that is in the total pot and it is being distributed on the basis of per capita. As a result, Nova Scotia is not going to get a 6% increase; it is going to get a 2% increase at a time when health costs are increasing by 5%.

Alberta is going to get an increase of $1 billion. Nova Scotia, where there is a high percentage of the aging population, which requires more health care dollars, is going to get less money from the government.

That is simply wrong.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Albertans are worth less?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

No, Nova Scotians are not worth less.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That is a fascinating conversation, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. Would the two members take their debate outside? The member for Gatineau has the floor now.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure they will stop talking soon because what I have to tell them is very important.

First, this is another week where I must rise in the House to talk about a bill that is subject to a time allocation motion. That is unfortunate, but not surprising. We are starting to get used to it. I think that time allocation has been imposed more than 60 times. I do not know whether the Conservatives have set a goal to reach 100, but if so, they are off to a good start. That is unfortunate for democracy.

It is even more unfortunate when we are dealing with a bill such as this. It is 359 pages long. What is more, the Conservatives are trying to sneak provisions into this budget implementation bill that, in my opinion, do not belong in a document of this nature. Why? Because each part of this bill deserves to be closely examined. Perhaps the different parts are good and perhaps they are not, but they should all be analyzed by the committee that specializes in the subject in question, not by the Standing Committee on Finance, which will examine the over 350-page document, likely at lightning speed.

If we do not have the right to debate the bill in the House, more than 200 MPs will not have any opportunity to express their views.

I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to rise today in the House to speak about this bill, because I am very concerned about some parts of it. I want to send a clear message to the people who will examine it in committee, because we should not let this bill go through like a letter in the mail. By the way, it is now very expensive to send a letter in the mail.

That being said, I would first like to talk about a positive aspect of this bill. I am extremely pleased to see that the government listened to the call from the governments of Quebec and Alberta for more judges. That is confirmed in clauses 164 and 165 of division 5. The New Democratic Party certainly has no objections to these two clauses. We have been calling for this for a long time. On several occasions, we asked the Minister of Justice in the House to heed the call from the justice ministers of these provinces.

Considering the many pieces of legislation related to justice that this government introduces and the serious problems that exist regarding access to justice, there is no doubt that the system really needs resources. This is definitely good news in that sense.

However, we must not give them too many compliments. In Quebec this means four additional judges on the Superior Court, but seven other positions remain vacant. This means that this government is either dragging its feet or seeking partisan appointments, but having a hard time finding people. That is why it is taking a while to fill the vacant positions.

I cross paths with judges as part of my duties in my role as justice critic for the NDP. Judges tell me very clearly that some criminal trials can take longer. Victims of crime often have serious problems with the justice system, and one such problem is how slow the system is. When resources are lacking, including crown prosecutors and judges, that certainly does not help.

The two clauses in question are fine, but those two clauses make up barely a dozen lines in a document that is over 350 pages long.

I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Justice about the part that really worries me, but he just skated around the issue. All the experts are wondering what the Conservatives were doing putting division 29 in a budget bill. Division 29, on page 263, contains many clauses. The document practically ends with that division.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues, including my Conservative colleagues, to division 29. I cannot believe they do not do the same thing we do, which is examine these provisions. They accuse us of not reading them. It is not that we do not read them, but the Conservatives want us to comment on them 30 seconds after the bill is introduced, when they have had the advantage of examining everything already, even in caucus. They often examine bills before we even see them, and they expect us to be familiar with the content of over 350 pages in 30 seconds.

The official opposition takes things a little more seriously than that. We take the time to read the provisions. Did they think we were so complacent that we would not notice division 29, or that it would go through because it was a little too complex and technical?

Division 29 creates the administrative tribunals support service of Canada. The Minister of Justice says that the government simply wants to be more efficient and save money. Our constituents all across Canada, not just those in Conservative ridings, will surely agree with that. They really like it when they are told that the government will save money. However, that is coming from a Conservative government that, since coming to power, has increased the national debt by $123.5 billion. That is not peanuts.

In the 1990s, progress was made by dint of Canadians' hard work and cuts to our social programs, which are still struggling to recover. However, this government does not care in the least, because the Conservatives, these so-called economic geniuses, have added $123.5 billion to the debt. Future generations will have to deal with that.

After countless budget deficits and no budget surpluses, the government is proud to announce that next year, an election year, they will finally post their first budget surplus, as though by magic. There is really nothing to be proud of on the Conservative benches.

They spent almost $113 million to advertise things that do not even work. It is quite shocking to see how they claim to be great economists.

It makes me think of a certain program we debated in the House. At a number of press conferences, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and a senator working for victims said that they were taking care of victims and, thanks to this program, the parents of murdered or abducted children would be able to get employment insurance benefits.

Only 12 files have been opened. It is appalling. It has helped 12 people. Some media people asked me to explain that record. My reply was that if the Conservatives had made as many commercials to announce this program, perhaps it would have been a bit more successful. If they had set less strict criteria, instead of holding press conferences to give the impression that they were solving all the problems, perhaps it would have been successful. Basically, for the benefit of those watching us, when a Conservative tells us that he is solving a problem, you have to stop and think about it. As a general rule, that is not the case at all.

This division 29 puts under the same umbrella the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, the Review Tribunal, the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, which the Conservative government just adores, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which it adores even more, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada, the Competition Tribunal, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, which was supposed to be very strong, according to this government, the Social Security Tribunal, which affects a lot of people, the Specific Claims Tribunal, and so on.

This will all be in the hands of a deputy minister who will report to the Minister of Justice and who will be appointed by the cabinet. This is another partisan, five-year appointment. That person will hold the purse strings. Then they tell us not to be afraid in the slightest, that there is no problem with the independence of the new tribunal and that everything is above board. This is a con, and the New Democratic Party is not falling for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her very important speech.

They are sneaking these things in, as she said. This omnibus bill includes a lot of changes.

I especially appreciated her analysis of division 29, because that is one of the divisions that I have not yet read.

I have just one question for the member. How can we handle a bill as big as this one when we are facing such a quick process, which flies in the face of true democracy?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would not have a problem with examining a bill quickly if the Conservative government had even a tiny bit of respect for democracy and if it stopped laughing at people and trying to shove bills down our throats with their time allocation motions. We often try to be accommodating, even at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I think the smart thing to do would be to separate each of the parts, as I mentioned in my speech, and to send each of those parts to their respective committees. I do not think they should do what they did last year with Bill C-38. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights received some clauses and we were told that we could make recommendations but that we would not be making any decisions about the bill.

I am starting to get fed up with being part of the Conservative government's anti-democratic process, and I think Canadians are too. We are hearing that more and more in our communities. Maybe I should not wake up the Conservatives. They should continue with their anti-democratic ways. People are getting sick of it. They tell us about it, and I cannot believe that the members opposite do not hear about it in their ridings. Either they are not listening to anyone or they are not getting out.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House over the past few days' debate of this bill, and the opposition have taken more time complaining about their lack of time to debate the bill than actually debating the bill itself. The reality is that just at second reading alone, we have five days of debate. In committee there will be days and hours of debate. Then it comes back to the House again for third reading. That is just in the House of Commons. It then goes to the Senate for the same process over again. Yet the opposition members spend precious little time actually talking about what is in the bill, what they agree with and do not agree with, and spend in some cases more time talking about not having enough time. That does not make any sense. It will not wash with Canadians.

That is just a comment. I really do not have a question.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly comment on his comment because the hon. member has to make up his mind: we are either not talking about the bill or we are talking about the bill. He just said that we talk about the parts of the bill that we like. That is very important. I will stand proudly to say that this is not good, this is not the way to proceed. It is important to me that it be quite clear that I am not voting against the two or four judges in Alberta. Rather, I am voting against section 29, which is a dangerous part. Maybe by hearing me, other members in the House will be curious to read page 263 and schedule 6 and realize that it is not the kind of pink sky their finance minister or whoever said it is. They keep saying that the opposition does not read. I think the Conservatives do not.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is rising in response to a question of privilege.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Don Valley West.

I rise today to show my support for Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1. I am pleased to see our government continue to focus so squarely on the economic challenges facing our citizens, our communities, and our country as a whole.

Bill C-31 will implement key measures of the economic action plan 2014 to help create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, and to return our nation's finances to balanced budgets.

Through the steady leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Here are the facts. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the end of the recession in July 2009, of which 85% are full-time and nearly 80% in the private sector. Over that period, that has been the strongest job growth in the entire G7 by far. Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered its business investment lost during the recession.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead.

For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. Moreover, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in the Bloomberg ranking of the most attractive countries for businesses to grow.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have a rock solid AAA rating and a stable outlook from all major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. Canada's net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far. It is an impressive track record.

Throughout the year, I am always having discussions and consultations in my riding, the City of Barrie, talking to stakeholders about what they believe is in the best interests of Canada and what we can do to continue to spur economic growth.

I feel that the concerns in Barrie are pretty similar to those we see across the country in small communities. What is important in Barrie is that we focus on ensuring that good jobs are available, that taxes are kept low, and that sensible investments continue to be made to achieve our common goals of long-term growth and prosperity.

There have been many positive investments in communities across Canada in previous budgets. This budget does just that and continues that track record of strategic, smart investments.

I would like to give a few local examples. Federal investments in companies like IBM, with their university partnership, created over 100 jobs in my community; TNR Industrial Doors had a major expansion because of the support of the regional economic development agency; and Wolf Steel, which builds high-efficiency furnaces, doubled in size because of a partnership with the federal government, creating high-tech, high-paying jobs. Furthermore, my favourite local story, Southmedic, was able to move their factory from China back to Barrie. That was certainly a positive sign.

We have learned from these success stories that we must continue to work towards generating more manufacturing jobs in Barrie and across Canada, and that is achievable. Economic action plan 2014 is keeping us on that path to success.

Our Minister of International Trade attended as the keynote guest and spoke about how expanding our trade relationships can create a greater audience for manufacturers to sell their products and create jobs locally. It was a great summit. I know there was a lot of support at the summit for the economic action plan we have built because they recognize that it helps businesses in a meaningful way.

Many of the businesses at this manufacturing summit were small to medium-size businesses. They appreciated the government's commitment to further cut red tape for operations by eliminating the requirement for payroll remittances, and to support made-in-Canada products.

Companies, big and small, were all elated that we were reducing trade barriers within Canada and across the globe for the sale of their products. These stakeholders understand that these measures grow their businesses and allow them to hire more Canadians.

It is not just the manufacturing community that was pleased with our budget, but young people as well.

I am pleased to see that economic action plan 2014 confirmed our government's support for youth employment by investing $40 million for up to 3,000 internships in high-demand fields and $15 million for up to 1,000 internships in small and medium-size businesses. We are once again demonstrating our commitment to help our youth make a successful transition from school to work.

Each year, Barrie welcomes thousands of new students at Georgian College. I know they were very pleased with this budget and what it would do to help students.

Economic action plan also continues to support our seniors with an additional $5 million for the new horizons for seniors program so that more seniors can actively participate in their communities. I have seen firsthand how well this program works. I know about 30 new horizons grants that have occurred in Barrie over the last eight years and they are huge successes.

I think of the Tollendale seniors home where new horizons grants helped to finance a computer lab to connect seniors with relatives all over the world and actually trained seniors at Tollendale on computers. It was an absolute hit. At the IOOF seniors home, there was an art for the ages program. There were people who were struggling with early onset dementia, and having an active lifestyle, including things like painting, actually helps delay the onset. That was another fantastic new horizons investment. To see this program grow, I think, is a wonderful thing for Canadian seniors.

Economic action plan 2014 did something else, since I just touched upon Alzheimer's, that I want to highlight.

The economic action plan included a $15 million commitment to a neurodegeneration consortium on aging. This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my constituents, Ed Harper, who was actually a member of Parliament from 1993–97.

Just a few months ago, Ed lost his wife, Rosemary, and I attended the funeral. He told me that he was writing a letter to our Prime Minister. He tremendously believed in our Prime Minister and knows what a great job he is doing for the country. However, he wrote a letter to talk about the need for more coordination on Alzheimer's funding and neurodegenerative research.

I know that he was one of the many Canadians who were so pleased to see that $15 million allocated. I think Mr. Ed Harper's comments highlight a feeling that many Canadians have.

There are so many positive initiatives in this budget that it is difficult to touch upon all of them in the short time we have allotted to us. This is a budget that supports our commercial sectors. It supports our workers, seniors, and families across Canada.

I want to stress what I think is most important about this budget, and something that is tremendously appreciated in Barrie, which is that it puts us on an immediate track for balanced budgets. That is very impressive, given the global economic recession that took every country in the world off course. I think it is really a feather in the cap for our former Minister of Finance who did such an incredible job of shepherding the Canadian economy. I know that our new Minister of Finance and his team are going to do an incredible job in laying out the vision that was put forward in Bill C-31.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member mention Wolfgang Schroeter and his successful company in Barrie. Certainly, I would also like to applaud the success that Mr. Schroeter has had since 1976. His company was very innovative. There were 20 to 30 years where he was innovating on fireplaces, and we applaud that. Maybe he could teach the current government something about innovation because it tends to be falling behind.

My question touches more on mid-sized cities such as Barrie.

In 2013, the Conference Board, in its mid-sized cities report, found that almost 50% of mid-sized cities had still not recovered from the recession of 2008–12. Most of these cities have not regenerated the jobs they lost during the recession. This is the 300,000 or more people who are still without a job, the 300,000 fewer people employed than before the recession.

Would the member agree with us to reverse cuts of $5.8 billion to local infrastructure enacted in this last budget? Would he support reversing those cuts and create jobs in our mid-sized cities?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to correct the mistakes that were highlighted by the member opposite.

First, it is an absolute error to say that there were cuts in infrastructure. This government is responsible for the largest investment in infrastructure in Canadian history, and we are seeing that go forward in the next decade. It is a rock-solid commitment to municipalities.

I served on a city council for two terms. At the time, there was no support for municipalities. There was no audience, in Ottawa, for municipalities. The fact that we have had such an incredible investment in infrastructure has allowed municipalities, like the one I represent, to invest significantly in real and meaningful projects.

I would note that the member opposite said that unemployment has gone up and that we did not get those jobs back. The member is incorrect. I look at my own community. We had unemployment of 11.9% after the recession and we are down to 7% today. These are successful numbers. Progress is being made. If the NDP chose to support this economic progress, it would see, I think, more support in the polls.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office are really out of touch with reality when it comes to infrastructure.

The government likes to give the impression that it is giving huge increases in infrastructure dollars.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

More than ever.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the one member from across the way heckles more than ever.

The reality is that there is an 80% or higher cut to infrastructure, which means 80%-plus taken off what was budgeted last year. That is what is in the budget this year for infrastructure spending. The government refuses to acknowledge that fact.

All it needs to do is read its own budget. It is not a disputable fact. It is in the government's own budget. This year, there is a decrease in the budgeted amount from the previous year.

Has the member read the budget and will he not confirm that this is in fact what is printed in the budget?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recall when I was a city councillor, the Liberal government of the day had not a penny to support municipalities like mine in Barrie. We asked for funding to expand the GO train. Nothing.

However, when the Conservatives were elected, we expanded the GO train, built two new stations and, across our city, we have seen infrastructure investments, whether it is the expansion of the Georgian College, with the new campus, whether it is the new bridge at Duckworth Street, whether it is the expansion of the regional airport, whether it is the refurbishing of Eastview Arena. There are dozens of projects. I can tell members it is a stark contrast to what happened under the Liberals, where they did not care about infrastructure.

We have made a commitment that is a record investment in infrastructure. I am proud of that commitment to support Canadian municipalities. I am glad we have not continued the Liberal policy of doing nothing.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today in support of Bill C-31.

We Canadians are tremendously privileged to live in a country with such an abundance of natural resources. So much so, in fact, that the harnessing of those resources has had a direct link to our nation's prosperity.

Canada's manufacturing sector will be the focus of my speech today in support of economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. It is but one example of a sector that has benefited tremendously from our land's abundance of natural resources. Manufacturing in Canada began with the production of simple items in small volumes. This was due primarily to our geographic diversity and to the absence of large consumer markets. Confederation in 1867 dramatically changed this sporadic consumer landscape, stimulating growth not only in Canada's manufacturing sector, but indeed in Canada's entire economy.

Following Confederation came the Canadian Pacific Railway, which led to new settlements and further increased our nation's population, skills, and capital. In 1871, a group dedicated to promoting the growth of manufacturing in Canada came together to establish the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. Eight years later, Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy introduced high tariffs on imported manufactured items in order to protect Canada's manufacturing sector. This policy was instrumental not only to the development of Canada's manufacturing sector but also in creating a unified nation, independent of the United States.

The horrors of World War I brought about drastic diversification to manufacturing in Canada, as developments in the steel, shipbuilding, and pulp and paper industries reached unfathomable heights. By 1920, manufacturing directly employed about 17% of Canada's total labour force.

World War II brought about even more expansion and diversification to Canada's manufacturing sector, including to the automotive, aircraft, armaments, shipbuilding, and steel industries. By the mid-40s, more than a quarter of Canada's labour force was directly employed in the manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing also contributed significantly to the economic well-being and prosperity of all Canadians in the 20th century, accounting for a high of 24% and a low of 15% of Canada's GDP between 1945 and 1999.

The 21st century, unfortunately, has not been so kind to Canada's—and indeed the global—manufacturing sector. In fact, between 2004 and 2008, about one in seven manufacturing jobs disappeared across Canada, with similar declines experienced in the majority of OECD member countries. Contributing factors included production moving to countries such as China, an aging population, tariff reduction and, of course, the 2008 financial crisis.

Despite this downward trend, manufacturing is still a major contributor to the Canadian economy, accounting for almost 11% of Canada's GDP and employing over 1.7 million Canadians, with more than 95% of them being full-time, high-quality, well-paying jobs.

While manufacturing is centred on the production of goods, most Canadians do not realize that most high-value growth opportunities lie in the area of services, in such activities as research, engineering, design, marketing, and logistics. As such, manufacturing is an important source of innovation and global competitiveness for Canada, accounting for almost half of total business R & D expenditures. Incidentally, advanced manufacturing and strong knowledge-intensive industrial clusters continue to drive innovation and productivity across Canada.

The manufacturing sector employs a healthy mix of highly skilled Canadians in engineering, design, skilled trades, and research positions. In fact, the sector employed more than 58,000 R & D personnel in 2011, or 41% of all research personnel in Canada. Incidentally, the new Canada job grant will better align training and labour market needs by encouraging greater employer participation in skills training decisions and ensuring that training is better aligned with job opportunities, particularly in sectors facing skills mismatches and labour shortages, in sectors like manufacturing.

Along with the Canada job grant, our government has introduced a number of measures to continue strengthening the competitiveness of our manufacturing sector. These include reducing the corporate income tax rate to 15% from 22%, extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, eliminating tariffs on machinery, simplifying and streamlining the SR&ED tax incentive program, and doubling the IRAP program to an additional $110 million per year.

Economic action plan 2014 outlines a number of new measures that would do even more to assist this vital sector. These include building on the work of the red tape reduction commission by reducing the tax compliance and regulatory burden for small and medium-sized businesses; providing an additional $500 million over two years to the automotive innovation fund to support significant new strategic research and development projects and long-term investments in the Canadian automotive sector; moving forward with the new Windsor-Detroit international crossing; investing in federal bridges in Montreal to support the movement of goods, to create construction jobs, and to strengthen the manufacturing sector; creating the new Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion in funding over the next decade, available to all post-secondary institutions striving to excel globally in research areas that create long-term economic advantages for Canada; and finally, creating the Canada apprentice loan by expanding the Canada student loans program to help registered apprentices in Red Seal trades.

The manufacturing sector is responsible for 64% of total Canadian merchandise exports and is the number one sector for foreign direct investment in Canada. It accounted for 29% of total FDI in 2012. That is why our government is committed to opening new markets through our ambitious trade agenda. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, agreed to in principle on October 18, 2013, and the free trade agreement with South Korea, which concluded negotiations on March 11 of this year, are but two of the most recent examples.

Combined, these agreements open markets to hundreds of millions of consumers globally and are expected to boost Canada's economy by $13.7 billion. Put another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding over $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or around 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

Incidentally, since taking office in 2006, our government has signed and entered into force five free trade agreements. These include the free trade agreement between Canada and the countries of the European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. It also includes agreements with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama. In addition, Canada signed an agreement with Honduras on November 5, 2013, but this has yet to enter into force. All of these agreements have included the lowering and elimination of tariffs on various Canadian exports, which significantly benefits Canada's manufacturing sector.

Canada's automotive industry is a key component of Canada's manufacturing sector. It employs about 480,000 Canadians directly and indirectly and represents 10% of manufacturing GDP. Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's world-class automotive sector continues to have the right conditions for growth, not only in sales and jobs but also in cutting-edge technology, research, and development. The automotive innovation fund will create and maintain well-paying, good-quality jobs by supporting private sector investment in the Canadian automotive sector, increasing Canada's competitive advantage in the global marketplace. In total, the renewed fund will provide $750 million over five years, 2013 to 2018, to automotive companies in Canada in support of strategic large-scale research and development projects.

While Canada's manufacturing sector is going through some tough times, it will remain a critical component of Canada's economy. The production, sale, and distribution of finished products will continue to contribute to consumer and labour markets and to secure Canada's position as an economic leader among developed nations.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member mentioned the new bridge in Montreal. It was thanks to four months of pressure from the NDP that the government finally came around and announced that the bridge would be built. Unfortunately, it bungled the file by not consulting with the province or the people who will use this bridge. It continues to approach this bridge in an ideological manner. We still have open questions about it.

Talking about bungled files, if we look at manufacturing, and the member tends to boast about the Conservative record, three names come to mind: Aveos, U.S. Steel, and Electro-Motive Diesel. The Conservative government was asleep at the wheel on these three files when it came to manufacturing. Even with the generous tax breaks the government gave these companies, they moved out. The government just let them go, with all the innovation and technology. As I mentioned before, when it comes to trade and innovation, the Conservatives are a bunch of boy scouts.

Why should Canadians trust the Conservatives now after so much bungling in the past three years?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague missed the point of my speech. I talked about some of the successes this country is having and enjoying in manufacturing and the importance of the manufacturing sector to this country. Quite simply, it is a sector we have to work harder at developing and ensuring future success for. I spoke about the automotive innovation fund as an example.

More importantly, the member asked about trust. Let me talk about trust. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the end of the recession in July 2009, over 85% of them full-time and nearly 80% in the private sector. That is the strongest job growth in the entire G7, by far. Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession.

When it comes to trust, it is about growth and prosperity for Canadians. This government is getting the job done. I would encourage my hon. colleague to join us in this venture.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also important, given the member's remarks, that he look at the overall manufacturing industry, which has been hit hard in the last number of years. Tens of thousands of good-quality jobs have never been replaced. This is a national government that does not seem to give the attention necessary to our manufacturing industry, which is really important to all of Canada. The hit has been especially hard in the province of Ontario.

My question to the member is related to a question the Liberal Party put earlier today in question period through the member for Toronto Centre. It was with regard to the fact that the number of adults working today for minimum wage has increased by 50%.

I wonder if the member would provide comment on that issue. We have thousands more adults working for minimum wage, which is a huge increase of 50% overall. How does the government justify the lacklustre performance on that issue?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I referenced in my presentation that manufacturing has had a tough go in the last 10 years. There is no doubt about it. The recession of 2008-09 was the worst we have seen in a generation. There is no question that we lost jobs and companies. We went through a difficult time.

However, let us look at the flip side of that discussion, which is the recovery and what this government has done in rebuilding the confidence of Canadians as we have come out of that with job growth and economic prosperity.

When we talk about the jobs we have created, it is important that we acknowledge that, for example, in my province of Ontario, energy costs have been a difficult challenge and are driving business away. I do not for a minute doubt that manufacturers and companies in my province are having a difficult challenge. However, this government's lowest tax rate for businesses in the G7 is stimulating growth, creating incentives, and creating opportunity for Canadians. Frankly, we are getting the job done on our side of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for York South—Weston, Employment.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I will use my time today to express my general disagreement with yet another omnibus bill, now the trademark of the Conservatives, unfortunately. I will talk specifically about some provisions in the bill that are particularly worrisome and disappointing to the people in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

First of all, I would like to loudly and clearly denounce much of the content of the bill and the process used by the Conservatives to make radical legislative changes at lightning speed. Not only does the budget implementation bill contain no real job creation measures, but Parliament cannot do its job, given that the Conservatives introduce omnibus bills and use gag orders to excess.

How can Canadians expect us to do our jobs thoroughly and be able to measure up to their expectations if the government is constantly cutting off the debates we are supposed to have here in the House? Why has the Conservative government imposed gag orders 60 times since the beginning of this Parliament, if not to muzzle parliamentarians and Canadians, in addition to setting the sad record of having the highest number of gag orders in Canadian history? How can we look our constituents in the eye when they know that it is impossible to thoroughly examine the changes that the government is imposing because it is burying them in bills that are more than 350 pages long and amend over 500 sections and dozens of acts?

Once again, the bill is about to drastically change the face of Canadian legislation, and it deserves to be studied carefully by parliamentarians, together with civil society and experts who must be consulted. This is something the government seems to ignore every time it introduces a new bill. In addition to omnibus bills, the second trademark of the Conservatives seems to be imposing unilateral decisions, without consulting anyone other than perhaps Kijiji when the time comes to justify their misguided economic policies.

That said, in recent weeks, I have spent a lot of time in my riding taking the pulse of the constituents and finding out what their real concerns are. The first of their real concerns is that the government continues to impose radical austerity measures, simply because the Conservatives want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers and the provinces just in time for the next election. My constituents know very well that all the cuts and the austerity measures are basically all about electioneering and do nothing to improve our standard of living in the long run.

The constituents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles are also concerned about employment, health and the economy. In my constituency, many small businesses are struggling to grow, be profitable and contribute to the economy of our community. However, the government is not renewing the hiring tax credit for small business that the NDP first proposed in 2011. Moreover, the Conservatives still have no strategy to propose that will help the 1.3 million Canadians who are currently without jobs.

The government can blow its own horn about being a champion of economic policies, but the figures are clear. We have 6.3 unemployed Canadians for each available job; in the Atlantic provinces, that figure rises to 10 for each available job.

My constituents want good, full-time jobs with salaries that can provide a decent standard of living. However, from what I hear in the street, they are having more and more difficulty making ends meet. They often have to turn to credit so that they can make it to the end of the month, because their salaries are stagnant, their costs are going up, and they are not able to provide themselves with a cushion in case of unforeseen expenses.

The debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed by almost 10% since 1999. During that time, credit card and car loan debt has doubled, and debt held in lines of credit has quadrupled. The government just twiddles its thumbs, though. Why has it not adopted the measures proposed by the NDP, designed to make life more affordable and to reduce household debt by means of solid regulations that will put a stop to the abusive practices of banks, money lenders and credit card companies?

The budget implementation bill also unfortunately highlights the fact that the Conservatives have grasped nothing and have learned no lessons from the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic last summer. Whole families were shattered forever and the community had to endure one of the worst railway disasters that Canada has ever seen.

Instead of enhancing rail safety measures, the government is now allowing many rail safety regulations to be changed or repealed without public notice. This might involve engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance or performance.

Worse yet, cabinet decisions on changing safety standards for the transportation of dangerous goods will be kept secret from now on. This might involve the classification of dangerous goods, inspector skills and training, or rules on importing and exporting such goods.

From now on, with these changes, the public will not be informed when the Conservatives water down safety measures, and experts will not be able to provide their opinion to the department before the changes come into effect.

This change is rather ironic considering that at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a member, we are currently studying ways of improving access to government data in order to promote economic development. In my opinion, this is a rather underhanded way of applying a double standard on data sharing. From what I understand, the government wants more transparency when that suits its agenda, but it is tightening its grip on information that should be available to the public. After all, it is their safety we are talking about.

Still with the dangerous goods registry, this bill makes substantial amendments to the Hazardous Products Act, in order to harmonize it with American laws and apply only some of the new international standards in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. I think consumers and workers have the right to know what is in the products that they use every day. I cannot imagine why the government is refusing to apply the strictest international standards.

All these changes are in Bill C-31, and they do not meet the needs of the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. My constituents are also exasperated with other measures being introduced by this government, such as the electoral “deform”, which is grossly undermining our democracy, the senseless cuts to Canada Post, and the Conservatives' inaction on important issues such as the Quebec Bridge, the environment, and the tax havens where well-off Canadians are hiding their money.

Let us not forget the $36 billion in cuts to health, which will have a huge impact on the quality of the services provided to individuals and our seniors.

All these things combined are causing the public to become disillusioned with our role as parliamentarians and with our institutions. Unfortunately, this is creating cynicism that only the Conservatives can take pride in fuelling.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to repeat what the NDP thinks makes sense in terms of public policy and, at the same time, what should be in a budget when Canada is facing the kind of economic, environmental and social challenges we are facing today. Unfortunately, our recommendations fell on deaf ears during the budget consultations.

In the NDP, we believe that the government needs to invest in innovation, economic development and high-quality jobs for the middle class. It needs to work with the private sector to help Canadian businesses grow, create jobs and increase their exports. It should continue to use the current job creation credit for SMEs.

Canada should also work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle unemployment and recurring structural underemployment among young people and strengthen sectors where labour shortages are anticipated.

In terms of energy, Canada would benefit from doing a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production. The government would also do well to reintroduce the eco-energy retrofit--homes program, which was very popular and helped homeowners save money while protecting the environment.

With respect to workers at the end of their career, the retirement age needs to be brought back to 65. People who have worked hard all their lives need to be given access to old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement so that they can have a decent retirement.

Once again, is the government going to listen to Canadians and agree to what they are asking for? I wonder. In the meantime, I can only fiercely oppose this bill, which offers nothing that will help the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles prosper and improve their situation.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

She said that she had talked to her constituents. The Conservative government has gotten into the habit of introducing massive bills and throwing other measures in with the budget. Moreover, the government blatantly refuses to discuss these measures. We saw that earlier when my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques suggested that we create a budget bill and that all the other measures be removed from the bill.

I would like to ask my colleague what her constituents have to say about the whole idea of massive bills. Do they like that the government chooses to proceed in this way? What do they think?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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

People are not happy that the government is hiding all kinds of sub-measures in a massive bill, so that they do not know what the effects will be. The Conservatives do not give the public enough information, so the public cannot take action.

For example, SMEs will lose the hiring credit, but they will have no way of knowing because the government will not make a big announcement about that. The government is taking away that subsidy, but has hidden that in a bill.

This massive bill eliminates all kinds of measures that helped SMEs, local and regional development, and Canadian society.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is rather disappointing because it does not present a vision of society. Does my colleague agree with me?

For example, in the Quebec City region, we have Université Laval, and the lack of investment in research and development, especially in basic research, is causing us to lose ground within the OECD, particularly in the area of research practices.

What does my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles think about investments in research and development?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know how research and development can aid a society's development, as well as the development of small, medium and large businesses.

We see this in very specific sectors like health and education. It is very important for chemical discoveries and the development of new projects.

Our universities must be better subsidized when it comes to research and development. Education is under provincial jurisdiction and the government looks after higher education, but investments are crucial to research and development. We cannot abandon the regions as the Conservative government is doing.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am finding interesting is that we are hearing about issues over and over again from the Conservatives regarding this budget, but we are not hearing enough about what they are going to do for small businesses. What they have done, I should mention, is get rid of the small business tax credit. They wrote about merchant fees in the budget back in March, but in the BIA they did not talk about them. Small business owners are having to pay up to $20,000—even higher in some cases—to the big banks and credit card companies because of all of the extra hidden fees costing them money, and the government chooses not to act on that.

I know my hon. colleague has a lot of small businesses in her riding. I would like to know from my hon. colleague what those small businesses are saying in relation to how they are struggling to get by, with the government refusing to pick up the mantle and support small businesses.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, cancelling the hiring tax credit is bad for businesses. Not putting a cap on credit card interest rates is also bad for retail businesses. Furthermore, the government's excise tax increases in recent budgets are bad for our businesses, too.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the bill. It is just unfortunate that the bill is what it is. We have seen yet another giant omnibus budget bill arrive from the Conservative government, which really does nothing to correct the major flaws that the government has imposed upon Canada and Canadians since taking office.

As for the major flaws, I have just written a few of them. We have seen a reduction in many of the things that we think of as part of what Canada holds dear, the things we treasure as part of Canada. The Conservative government has systematically dismantled or reduced things like VIA Rail, Canada Post, the CBC, Veterans Affairs, EI, and Service Canada behind it. All of those things have lost something since the government took office.

In health care, there is a new reduction in the amount of money the provinces will get. The Canadian Wheat Board is gone. The gun registry is gone. Elections Canada is now having its powers taken back, and voting will be more difficult for many Canadians under the Conservative government, if not impossible.

The environment took a huge hit under the Conservative government with the first of these mammoth budget bills when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was eviscerated. That was two years ago, and the regulations for that act have still not been published, so we still do not know how an environmental assessment will deal with human health.

Rivers in this country have lost their protection. Almost all of them across the country—rivers, lakes, and streams—are no longer covered by environmental protection. We think that is because the government wants the pipeline companies to transport oil across them more easily.

Rail safety has taken a big hit under the Conservative government. One only has to think about the tragedy that befell Lac-Mégantic and the fact that, when that train was operating, it was operating with a one-person crew that was authorized by the Minister of Transport.

Food safety has taken a hit under the government. In addition to the listeriosis outbreak, we also had the largest ever recall of meat in Canada after many hundreds of people were made sick by the government's inaction.

Regarding airline safety, we heard today that the government is suggesting there will not be flight attendants for every door on a plane. Does that mean that, when I get on a plane, I am going to be told which door will not have somebody to help me out? Will I get a discount if I take an unsafe seat on an airline? It makes no sense, and we cannot continue to allow this kind of reduction by the government in what we hold dear as Canadians.

The OAS, or old age security system, has been reduced by the government. People will now have to work until they are 67. The Canada pension plan disability has had its definitions changed again. The new regulations have never been promulgated, so we still do not know exactly how that is going to work, but there is a gap between the Canada pension plan disability and OAS that the government has not yet filled. People are going to go for two years without any income.

The government has defunded or taken away money from such organizations as CIDA, KAIROS, and women's groups in this country, which used to have government funding to help them express themselves and take legal action where necessary.

Drug safety has taken a hit with the government's refusal to make sure that the OxyContin-like drugs are as safe as they can be.

Transparency and accountability have taken a big hit under the Conservative government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer had to go to court to get the government to tell us what the budget really means in terms of how many cuts there will be.

The national childcare program was, of course, the first thing the government tore down. Affordable housing is taking a hit every day as the amount of money the government is spending on affordable housing—of which my riding is in dire need—is dwindling as time goes on, every day and every week. Of course, the government voted against the Jack Layton budget that would have put in some money for affordable housing. That money is going to disappear.

We have a situation in my riding of York South—Weston where 90% of the people who live in the concrete apartment buildings that were put up in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—and there are a lot of them—are in precarious housing. They have some kind of precariousness about them. That is an enormous number, and about 60% of the people in my riding live in them. They are not receiving government subsidies. There is no government amount that is going to disappear, but they are already in need.

There are 33% of those individuals who are in critical need and are an eyelash away from being homeless. That is thousands of Canadians in my riding of York South—Weston. This budget has absolutely nothing for that critical need of many Canadians.

This budget and this budget implementation bill is another big mess of things that have nothing to do with the things that Canadians need to have happen.

In fact, several of the things that the government promised, in this budget and in the last, have never been implemented. For example, in 2013, the former finance minister stood in this House and promised that whenever the government spent money on infrastructure, it would incorporate apprenticeships into that infrastructure spending. I thought, “Great. We've been pushing for this for a long time. Let's look for it in the budget implementation bill”.

One budget came along, and it was not there. Another one came along, and it was not there. This one came along, and there is still nothing to tie infrastructure spending—the government does spend some money on infrastructure—to training and development of the youth in need in this country.

We have a promise that was made by the government in this budget speech to do something about pay-to-pay billing. It is not there. It is not in the budget implementation bill. Phone companies, cellphone companies, and Internet companies are still going to be able to charge extra money for people to get their bill in the mail. To add insult to injury, those individuals, when they get their bill in the mail, are going to have to walk several blocks to get it because mail delivery to their homes is going to be stopped.

We have the Minister of State for Democratic Reform suggesting that persons can take a utility bill, a phone company bill, and use that to prove their identity. They cannot do that if it is from the Internet, though, because Elections Canada has already ruled that is inadmissible.

We have the government suggesting that people will be able to get their bills for free in the mail, which it did not provide for in this budget implementation bill, and at the same time suggesting they can use that same utility bill to prove their identity in an election. The government is being hypocritical in its suggestion that one thing can do one thing and one thing can do another. It does not make sense.

The government has also promised transparency and accountability. Where have we seen that? Nowhere.

One of the things that is most frightening about this budget implementation bill is the attachment to FATCA. For those who do not know FATCA, it is the way that the U.S. government is going to tax some Canadian citizens, about a million of them. Some of them are accidental Canadian citizens, who have never lived in the United States in their lives. They were born in Canada, lived in Canada all their lives, and now are being told that they are somehow American citizens because of their parents.

The government has in this bill suggested that it will now be all right, without notice to the individuals, for the banks to give information about the RRSPs, RDSPs, RESPs, and other assets that individuals have, to CRA, for the purpose of giving that information to another country. One assumes that the reason they are giving that information is so that somebody can come and take that money out of their bank accounts.

This is outrageous. We are a sovereign nation. Canada is a country unto itself. The ability of this country to protect its citizens should include the ability against another country coming after those citizens' money. I am talking about Canadian citizens here, not persons who are living in the United States and who are American citizens. Let the U.S. government come after them, but not Canadian citizens. We should not be assisting another government to manufacture a reason to come into a Canadian citizen's bank and take that money. That is not something we should be doing, and it should not be in this budget implementation bill.

If we need to have that discussion, let us have that discussion, but let us not do it in a budget implementation bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what about what the member is not saying? He is not telling the rest of the story here, about the moves our government made to negotiate with the United States to ensure it was not able to impose the sanctions it was looking at imposing, which would have been highly detrimental to all Canadians with dual citizenship. If it were not for our government's intervention and action on this, the consequences to Canadian banks and to Canadians with money in American banks would have been tremendous.

However, the member is not saying that. He is not talking about the intervention by the Canadian government to save a lot of dual citizens a lot of grief. The United States of America has the ability to create its own legislation and to oppose those things as it wants. The damage done to dual citizens would have been astronomical if our government had not taken the steps it took, and had it not been prepared to take these immediate measures that we are putting in this budget.

The hon. member needs to tell the rest of the story when he stands up and talks about that because the consequences he has not outlined would have been dire.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what went on behind closed doors in the negotiations with the Americans. All I am aware of is what is in this bill. If somebody wants to say it could have been a lot worse, well, there are lots of things that could have been a lot worse.

The problem is that this bill imposes an obligation on Canadian banks to eventually disclose to American authorities Canadian assets, Canadian dollars in Canadian banks. That is deserving of a much fuller discussion than this bill is ever going to get.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that particular point in terms of the additional discussion that is necessary.

When we take a look at this massive budget bill, as I said earlier, the government is making changes to dozens of pieces of legislation through the back door by passing it through a budget implementation bill, when in fact it should be stand-alone legislation.

Some of that stand-alone legislation, for example, deals with rail safety, which is a very important, very topical issue. There needs to be a lot more discussion on that aspect of this bill. There are other things, including dealing with food safety.

I am wondering if the member could provide comment in terms of how he feels that the bundling of all that legislation, and then bringing it in under the budget bill, will have a negative impact in terms of giving due diligence on legislation that should be debated and have consultations with Canadians. Through committee work, we can hear stakeholders. Many opportunities have been lost because we have bundled all that legislation into one budget bill.

This seems to be the Conservative norm since it has had a majority. It bundles in as much legislation as possible in order to avoid true accountability on the wide and varied important issues facing Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the member talks about rail safety immediately after the discussion about FATCA.

The minister has suggested that the reason for the change is to make it quicker for her to change Canada's rail safety regime, and to change it without consultation and discussion, to harmonize it with the U.S.

We live in Canada; we do not live in the United States. It is true that the rail networks cross the border, but I would like to think that the Canadian government would want to protect its citizens in a way that is at least as good as they are doing today, not water it down to make it amenable with some U.S. regulation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious. Our families are carrying too much debt, and the Conservatives laugh and heckle during question period when we talk about the decline in the manufacturing industry or when we talk about the middle class.

Could my colleague tell us whether we should not be taking care of the middle class and the manufacturing industry in this country in order to create jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good that my hon. colleague raised that issue. In my riding of York South—Weston, the middle class used to be supported by manufacturing jobs. There used to be good manufacturing jobs, tens of thousands of them. They are all gone. Where did they go? They went to other countries. They went out of the riding.

The people who used to be supported by those jobs are now supported by part-time, temporary, minimum wage jobs, if they have a job at all. They cannot get EI because they have not worked long enough.

It is a dire situation, and there is nothing in this budget to help recreate the kind of middle class that we used to enjoy, particularly in the city of Toronto.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I enjoy listening to the debate in the House of Commons, and I like to hear the different points of view, but I would like to point out one observation that I have made over the last nearly six years. If we are here that long, we find that we hear everything at least twice or three times.

I think back to 2009, at the height of the economic downturn. Some of the New Democrats used to sit down here. I can remember the member for Halifax at the time, when we were debating a bill and talking about the home renovation tax credit. The NDP was totally against it, at least at that point in the debate, and hon. members can check the blues from that day.

I remember the NDP member's comment about the home renovation tax credit, saying we were giving people a bunch of money to build a bunch of decking for homes. However, that program and that tax credit was one of the single largest reasons why we came through the downturn as well as we did.

I have heard other comments here today about the size of the bill and what is in the bill. I think back to at least last year, or the year before, when we were talking about environmental screening and whether we would need to do an environmental screening in a national park if we were installing a cedar bench. That is what we used to have to do. The opposition fought tooth and nail to keep that in.

The world has not come to an end, and the environment is probably much better. Municipalities have more money, and certainly civil servants have a lot more time to do more important work than doing environmental screenings on cedar benches.

My only comment to the opposition members would be for them not to get so wound up. Things are going in the right direction, and I will get into the direction that this country is taking in a few moments.

Where is Canada relative to G7 nations, debt to GDP, for example, deficit to GDP, job growth, employment insurance, some of the key drivers, key indicators, of an economy's health? If we look at debt to GDP, obviously in G7 countries, Canada is far and away the best. With regard to deficit to GDP, we are absolutely the best, with a near balance this year and a surplus next year. No other country in the G7 can even come close to that. In fact, most of them are in structural deficit positions at this point.

On employment and records, and I am not a partisan person, I can assure hon. members of that, the opposition has failed to recognize there has been over a million new jobs created since July 2009. Those are the indisputable facts.

It is the leadership of this government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and the members of caucus, who have led us to this point. We should not forget the economic downturn in 2007, 2008, and 2009. We should not forget the budget that was delivered in 2009, which saved the day, in my opinion, for this country. We need to focus on that.

What have we done? People say that we have ridden the coattails of the U.S. out of the recovery. That is not true. We came out of it much sooner than the U.S., and in much better condition. What have we done? Long before I came to this House, we lowered taxes for businesses, families, and individuals. That has allowed people to keep more of their own money. A dollar in the hands of business, or a dollar in an individual's or a family's hands, is far more productive than it is going through the inner workings of government.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate of any other developed country. We have expanded trade. We cannot point to one trade deal that saved the day; we have trade deals with 43 countries. They are not all fully implemented, but regarding the ones that we have fully implemented and the ones that will be implemented, for example, Canada-Korea, the benefits of these will be felt for decades. Long after I am gone from this House, the impacts and the benefits will be felt.

Let us take, for example, tariffs. I live in a rural riding. The tariffs on pork products, the tariffs on beef products, the tariffs on identity-protected soybeans, adzuki beans, navy beans, white beans, et cetera, are all over 400%. The tariffs on pork products are over 30% or 40%. The tariffs on beef products are in that same range.

The U.S. and the European Union have signed agreements with Korea that are being implemented now, being phased in, and what has happened? Our trade with Korea has dropped 30%. That is not good. Some of these tariffs would come right off immediately, and over the next number of years tariffs would be reduced. This is going to help our economy.

This is not creating fake economies through quantitative easing or by injecting money into frivolous things. This is making investments, reducing tariffs, and letting business do what it does best, which is create jobs and economic prosperity.

What else have we done? We have invested in innovation. When I first came to the House, the member for Cambridge was the minister for FedDev and science and technology. Look what took place in southern Ontario. There were investments from one end of the province to the other that made a difference. There were investments in universities from coast to coast. The universities are still very appreciative of those investments because the investments made them more competitive. They are more attractive to international students when those students know there are world-class campuses right here in this country.

Let us take a look at the member for Brant from Brantford. Wilfrid Laurier University has a campus there. Look at what that has done to the downtown of Brantford. I used to work in Brantford.

Through the auto innovation fund, we have invested in the auto sector. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in increased productivity, capacity, and performance in auto assembly plants here in this country, in spite of my good friend Ken Lewenza.

Border perimeter agreements with the United States are another one. Years from now, when we look back at how we got to such a favourable position with the world, this will be another one. Rules and regulations that cause burden, red tape, and encumbrances on business are being improved and streamlined to allow products to cross our border each and every day at lower cost and with less labour and less burden.

Just wait until the bridge is built in Windsor. That will make a big difference, as I know the Speaker will attest to. We have reduced red tape. I have already announced some of our initiatives to reduce red tape, but we are continuing on.

For example, in the budget this year alone, we are talking about payroll deductions, such as Canada pension and employment insurance deductions, that come off at source. The employer or an employee has to take time out of the day to do these deductions from the payroll. We intend to raise those limits, those thresholds, so that CPP and EI remittances would not have to be sent in every two weeks. Now it would be every month.

I want to talk about what a decade will do. Let us take a look at what a decade in Ontario has done to the Ontario economy. An Ontario Liberal government has absolutely destroyed the economy in Ontario. That is the truth. What has a Conservative government done in Canada in the last eight years? We have set this country up for economic success and prosperity for, I am guessing, probably 40 or 50 years. It is the clearest example I can give. It is why I entered politics, and I am sure it is why most of my colleagues have. I am sure that 40 years from now our grandchildren will have great jobs because of what this government has done.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what a decade will do. If we look, we see that the health care accord has expired after 10 years, with nothing in its place. The member's constituents are asking questions about this situation. Mary Straus of Walton, one of his constituents, is asking about it. With the absence of a health care accord, she is concerned that there will be increased privatization.

She cannot receive an answer from the member because she says he toes the party line. Therefore, I am asking for her, in her place, in the House of Commons, what the government will do about health care. Will our children be better off 10 years down the road without a health care accord that has guaranteed funding to health care for the past 10 years?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know Mary, and not surprisingly, Mary is a member of the retired CAW union. Therefore, we will take that in context.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

She is your constituent.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know she is a constituent. I am telling the House her background. I talk to Mary all the time by email. The member can be assured that if she has any questions on health, she can come into my office anytime.

However, let me tell you what we have done. We have increased health care transfers every year by 6% per year. Look it up. You will be very interested to read about it. I will also tell you that there was hardly a comment from the provinces about the funding. Why is that? What do they want? They want stable funding that applies to the five principles of the Canada Health Act. It is pretty straightforward. I am not surprised.

I will tell you one thing you could do. You could tell people like Ken—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The member for Huron—Bruce must address his comments to the Chair and not to other members.

I do not know if he wants to complete his answer, which he has time to do.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

What I was going to say is you can talk to people like Ken Lewenza and tell them to stop wasting money on organizations like Leadnow and actually protect the union workers.

I am going to tell you a story. I have gone to bat for the CAWs in my riding. I have gone to Kitchener with them, fighting for them for WSIB. Guess what national members like Ken Lewenza said? They said to hire a lawyer. That is what they said.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member. In his speech, he gave us an entire history; he talked about 40 or 50 years from now, but we are talking about a budget that has been tabled. I would like to hear what he has to say about this budget.

In his view, what in this budget will help individuals in my riding, middle-class individuals, immigrants and newcomers? I had the same question for the Minister of Finance. Does he feel comfortable with this omnibus bill, a catch-all that includes everything from the Champlain Bridge to measures with the United States, hiding the economic importance of the economic plan that Canada needs to have?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question, one of them is skilled trades. We have this huge skilled trades deficit in our country, particularly in Ontario. I would suggest that the Ontario Liberal government is at the root of that problem.

However, we have $100 million in this BIA, which the opposition will vote against, that would help young men and women who want to get into the trades to have interest-free loans.

He asked about things in the budget, so I will give you one item from the budget: rural broadband. I am from a rural riding. In order for rural businesses to conduct their business in the year 2014 and beyond, we need rural broadband.

There are two examples in about 15 seconds. I could go on for 45 minutes. I do not think you are going to let me do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member is correct.

Resuming debate, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Huron—Bruce for sharing his time with me and for his very informative and well-researched speech. It was very good.

I am honoured to add my voice in support of today's debate on Bill C-31, which proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014.

Economic action plan 2014 would play a key role in strengthening Canada's economy now and in the future, with positive measures that would advance economic progress and prosperity. Today I would like to highlight some of the act's key measures that target the financial sector.

Canadians should be proud of our financial services sector. It plays a fundamental role, transforming savings into productive investment in the economy; facilitating the efficient management of risk; and providing the payment infrastructure necessary for the exchange of goods, services,and financial assets.

Canada's financial system is widely considered one of the most resilient and best-regulated in the world. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has recognized our banking system as the soundest in the world. Moreover, five Canadian financial institutions were among the top 20 in Bloomberg's most recent list of the world's strongest financial institutions, which is more than any other country.

Since the start of the global financial crisis, the government has implemented a number of measures to maintain Canada's financial sector advantage. These measures are designed to reinforce the stability of the sector and to encourage competition. Today's legislation proposes new initiatives that would build on Canada's financial sector advantage.

We have Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime. This measure, as I have just said, concerns strengthening Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime. Our government is committed to a strong and comprehensive regime that is at the forefront of the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and that safeguards the integrity of Canada's financial system and the safety and security of Canadians. Canada's regime remains strong and effective and is consistent with international standards. However, it is important to continually improve Canada's regime to address emerging risks, including virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, to strengthen Canada's international leadership in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Following an extensive multi-year review process, our government is proposing various updates, including enhancing the ability of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to disclose to federal partners threats to the security of Canada, consistent with the government's response to the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. This measure would help keep Canadians safe and would strengthen our financial institutions against white-collar crime.

Next, let us talk about the co-operative capital markets regulator. While Canada's financial system has been rated one of the soundest in the world, we have a capital markets regulatory system that can and must be improved. At a time when talented people and sought-after capital are flowing across borders as never before, competition in financial markets today is fierce. If we want Canadians to succeed in the global marketplace, we need to continually improve our system. Critics of the current system believe that it is overly complex, inefficient, and a barrier to foreign investment in Canada, and they are right. That is why, last September, our government and the Governments of British Columbia and Ontario agreed to establish a co-operative capital markets regulator. In fact, Terry Campbell, president of the Canadian Bankers Association, applauded today's move by the Governments of Canada, British Columbia, and Ontario to establish a co-operative capital markets regulator, which would offer improved investor protection and greater efficiencies in capital markets in participating provinces.

He further stated that:

We appreciate the federal government's perseverance and leadership on this important economic issue as Canada's current fragmented system puts us out of step with other countries around the world. Today's announcement by these three governments is a significant first step and we encourage other provinces to participate in the proposed system.

Today's legislation includes authority for payments to eligible provinces and territories for costs related to the transition to the co-operative capital markets regulatory system. The co-operative regulator will better protect investors, enhance Canada's financial services sector, support more efficient capital markets, and more effectively manage systemic risk in national capital markets.

Along with British Columbia and Ontario, our government continues to invite all other provinces and territories to participate in the implementation of the co-operative system.

In recent budgets, the government has introduced a number of measures to strengthen Canada's regulatory regime for over-the-counter derivatives consistent with its G20 commitments. Canada's major banks, the largest participants in this market, are subject to effective prudential supervision by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on their over-the-counter derivatives transactions. Major jurisdictions are deciding whether to let foreign banks transact over-the-counter derivatives in their markets based on Canadian rules or their own rules.

Bill C-31 would amend the Bank Act to create an explicit regulation-making power for banks regarding over-the-counter derivatives. This would facilitate the integration and consolidation of over-the-counter derivatives regulations with the co-operative capital markets regulator when it becomes operational. It would also make it easier for foreign regulators to assess the Canadian regulatory framework in their equivalency determinations, which would benefit Canadian banks when transacting with foreign counterparties.

Our government has taken significant steps to make our financial system more stable, reduce systemic risks, and ensure we have the flexibility and power to support financial institutions during a crisis.

For example, in budget 2008, our government modernized the authorities of the Bank of Canada to support the stability of the financial system. The bank used these enhanced powers to redistribute liquidity to financial institutions, a key element in preserving the flow of credit to Canadians and businesses during the so-called “credit crunch”.

Bill C-31 builds on initiatives such as this by proposing amendments to permit the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Lastly, I want to briefly highlight how our government is making Canada an even better place to create and expand a business. For example, promoting the exploration of Canada's rich mineral resources by junior mining companies offers important benefits in terms of job creation and economic development right across the country, including rural and northern communities.

Economic action plan 2014 is building on the responsible resource development plan launched in economic action plan 2012 with new and renewed measures to support further investments in Canada's natural resource sectors. For example, the 15% mineral exploration tax credit helps junior mineral exploration companies raise capital by providing an incentive to investors in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration.

The Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia noted that it is pleased to see the return of the mineral exploration tax credit in the budget: “Many of our members are having difficulty raising capital in these financially challenging times, and the renewal is much appreciated”.

To conclude, our government will remain focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. Ensuring Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton will have five minutes of questions and comments when we return to this debate.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I must say, it is a bit of a challenge to address such a large bill in only 10 minutes, but I will give it my best shot.

Within the Liberal Party, we have talked a great deal about the middle class over the last period of time. We believe that the government is not doing what needs to be done to assist the middle class of Canada. I would suggest that some of the questions we have raised, and the general of lack of a response from the government, speaks volumes about the way the government treats the middle class of Canada.

I thought it was most interesting yesterday when my colleague from Toronto Centre made reference to median household income. The government really needs to understand how the middle class has been neglected. When we look at median household income, 50% of Canada's population has received an increase of $100 since the government took office. In fact, if we look at the bottom 20%, we are talking about a decrease of $500.

We need to put in proper perspective how difficult it is for our middle class today and why the government needs to give more attention to this issue.

Look at personal debt today. Never before has it been as high, and the government seems to pay no attention. The government has failed to address what are important and critical issues for our middle class.

Health care is an issue all Canadians are concerned about. There is no issue more important in terms of a social service provided by the government than the issue of health care, with the possible exception of some of our pension programs and veterans' services.

What have we seen? The government has dropped the ball in a significant way. It is a government that does not recognize the important leadership role it is supposed to be playing in what is one of the most important issues for Canadians, that being health care.

Why has the Prime Minister not met with his premier counterparts? Why have we not seen an attempt by the government to build on the 2004 health care accord? It was put in place under Paul Martin. Canadians and politicians from coast to coast saw the merits and benefits of that accord.

What has the government done? It has let the clock run down. As of midnight, March 31, that ten-year health care accord has expired, and the government let it go without a whisper. There was no action. There was no indication that it really cared about the future of health care in Canada.

The Conservatives will say that they have increased health care spending to record highs. I will agree that health care spending from Ottawa going to our provinces is at record highs. I will agree on that point. However, it is not the Conservative Party that established the amount of money going to health care today. It was under Paul Martin that the Liberal Party of Canada signed off on the health care accord.

It was the actions of the Liberal Party that allowed the government to claim that we have record amounts of health care dollars going to our provinces.

A member across the floor is heckling with regard to health care cuts during the 1990s. Let me remind the member and the Conservative government that prior to Jean Chrétien, we were allowing the transfer of tax points as a way to finance health care. During the 1990s, I was in the Manitoba legislature, and we were saying that if that was allowed to continue, the federal government would not be financing health care at all in the future. It was Jean Chrétien, during the 1990s, who established the floor and gave the guarantee of health care funding.

No matter how the Conservatives try to rewrite history, former prime ministers Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin are the reason we have health care cash flowing.

However, Canadians are saying that they want more than that. They want to ensure that the five fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act are being enforced. They want the federal government to demonstrate leadership on the health care file. There must be standards.

Canadians are concerned about the number of doctors in our communities. They are concerned about wait times in our emergency wards. This is what Canadians want the Government of Canada to show an interest in, but it has not done that. For whatever reason, the current Prime Minister does not believe in the health care Canadians want. I find that most unfortunate. We will continue to push this issue.

Grain has been a very important issue over the last number of months in the Prairies and in my home province of Manitoba. I have had the opportunity to talk a lot about grain in recent months, because there is a crisis on our family farms in Manitoba and in the Prairies.

Imagine having piles of grain in our fields, a lot of it just covered in plastic. Yet we have empty ships in the Pacific Ocean. The problem is that the Conservative government has failed to establish transportation to get that prairie grain to the Pacific Ocean. The people who are paying the price are the prairie farmers, the farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, because the government has not recognized that it needed to take action. Yes, it has taken some action, but the government has fallen short, and it is the prairie farmer who is having to pay the price.

I could talk about citizenship and the backlog in processing. It is absolutely terrible the amount of time it is taking to process citizenships.

On crime and safety issues, the government needs to do more in regard to getting tough on the causes of crime and on preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.

As my time has expired, my last thought will be in regard to the size of the budget and the undemocratic actions of the Conservative government. It is wrong the way the Conservative government is compiling so much legislation and forcing it through. That is the reason I have only been given 10 minutes. The Conservatives are forcing things through on this important legislation, which is most tragic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I too am very dismayed that the bill is being rushed through. After only 25 minutes of debate, the government gave notice to shortchange us on the amount of time we could debate it.

I notice that the budget does not include very much, if anything, on housing. Housing is a critical need in the city of Toronto, in my riding, and in many places across the country.

The Liberals cut federal housing support in the 90s. It was only after Jack Layton convinced Paul Martin to not give corporate Canada a big bonus that we got a little housing money put into the budget in 2005. However, this government has really not done anything for housing. Would the member like to comment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, housing has always been of high interest to me. There is so much more we could be doing to deal with housing programs, housing co-ops, lease programs, and home renovations. People, especially within the middle class, do not have the resources to do a lot of the types of changes that are necessary. Some of those renovations are critical. We are talking about water pipes, electrical work, roof repairs, and so forth. There are wonderful opportunities. If only the government would take an interest in that whole area, we could be doing so much more.

The member made reference to the Liberal administration. I was a provincial critic for housing at a time when I was begging the provincial NDP to provide more for infill housing and renovation programs. They too fell short.

If we looked at the history of governments, we would see that the Liberal Party takes a back seat to no other party in terms of providing adequate housing. The reason we have literally hundreds of thousands of housing units across the country is in good part because it was Liberal administrations that provided the seed money to make that happen.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, the section on creating jobs and opportunities, on page 208, talks about how the government played a key role in addressing the recent economic downturn with housing-related measures in the action plan of 2009. I was parliamentary secretary for human resources at the time, so I know that the $2 billion to create new housing and to renovate existing social housing resulted in more than 16,500 social housing and first nation housing projects across Canada.

Through the $2 billion for the municipal infrastructure lending program, CMHC provided 272 low-cost loans to municipalities for house-related infrastructure projects in towns and cities across the country. Our homelessness partnering strategy for housing first, announced in 2013, was renewed.

I just wanted the member to know that if he read page 208, he would see that we have addressed housing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member made reference to that. I would ask her to reflect on the issue of infrastructure when thinking of numbers presented in the budget, because it is a very deceptive budget. Let me use infrastructure as an example. On the one hand, the government says that it is doing such a wonderful job with a huge investment in infrastructure. When one reads the budget, what has the government actually done with infrastructure? It has decreased it. If we look at how much money we have spent on infrastructure last year compared to this year, there is a decrease of 80% plus. That is a cut. No matter what one calls it, a cut is a cut. That is what the government has done.

When the government says that it is doing a wonderful job in certain areas, I would remind people that they need to look at it year over year, such as with infrastructure. When the government says that it has actually increased infrastructure funding, it is not true, when we look at it from budget year to budget year. There is an actual cut.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this budget implementation bill.

The government has introduced this bill in order to implement the provisions contained in the budget that was delivered just over a month ago in the House of Commons. The budget was the ninth budget from the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Whitby—Oshawa. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the minister well in his future endeavours, and to thank him for his service to Canada and his home province of Ontario, where he served for many years in the provincial legislature. The former minister has earned a great deal of respect on both sides of the aisle, including mine. That does not mean that I agree with everything that has occurred since 2006; actually, it is quite the opposite.

There has been much that has transpired since 2006 that has negatively impacted the Atlantic region of the country, my province of Prince Edward Island, and indeed my home city of Charlottetown, a city that is coined “the birthplace of Confederation”. It is a constituency for which I am immensely proud and honoured to serve.

Canada is an enormous country. Sometimes it is worth remembering just how large it is. It is home to a proud people from diverse backgrounds. We are a country of languages, culture, and geography, but we are bound together by a common citizenship. We have a duty to strengthen the bonds of that shared citizenship, if for no other reason than to enhance our sense of unity. I believe that the Canadian government has a critical role to play in this regard.

When I think of citizenship, I think of rights. I think of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the diversity of our languages, our culture, the anthem, and, yes, hockey. For those reasons and many others, we have managed to maintain, in difficult times and in good times, the sense of Canadian pride. I am further reminded of this as a member of the House of Commons, where I see individuals from across the country, from all parties, all cultural and ethnic backgrounds, attempting to do their best for Canada.

When I think of citizenship, I think of shared responsibility. A budget, any budget, whether it is a family budget or a federal budget, is constructed on the basis of one's means, the amount of income one has, and the obligations we all have that require certain expenditures. A federal budget provides insight into the values of the government of the day. It certainly provides insight into its priorities. It gives insight into whether or not it seeks to strengthen the spine of our citizenship. Do we craft a budget to leave out the vulnerable, to pit one region against another, to pit one Canadian against another, or do we seek to strengthen the spine of our citizenship?

The Canadian government is the only government with the obligation to act in the interests of all Canadians and, in the case of the budget, to allocate its collective resources in a way that signals we are all equal and we are all to be treated fairly, knowing that every region and province has particular needs. I am sorry to say that much of what the current government has done since 2006 has hurt people. It has hurt good people in my community and province. Much of what it has done has loosened the bonds of unity and shared citizenship. Allow me to give a few examples of what I mean by that.

I believe it is the role of the Canadian government to provide services that are equal and accessible to all Canadians, regardless of where they reside. That, to me, is fundamental. I reject the notion that the role of government is to get out of the way, that there is no role in levelling the playing fields of opportunity. This idea has seeped into our national discourse over the last eight years.

I reject the notion that we are merely taxpayers and not citizens, implying that the only voices that matter are from those whom the Conservatives call taxpayers. We are more than taxpayers; we are Canadians. There is a large number of fellow Canadians who do not pay income tax simply because they do not make enough money to pay taxes. For example, there are seniors who have spent their whole life contributing to Canada and who now, perhaps in the twilight of their years, do not pay taxes because of their low income. Are they any less Canadian?

Are the poor to be left out of the national conversation simply because they do not fit the definition of the so-called taxpayer? Is that really the central component of our citizenship? Our shared citizenship is much more meaningful than this myopic view. Unlike the members of the current government, I do not want a government that always gets out of the way; I want a government that makes a difference for all Canadians, not just those who are successful in life or who have means.

We have a serious issue in Canada as it relates to the incomes of most Canadians, and the widening gap between those who are doing well and those who are living paycheque to paycheque or worse. We do not knock success. We do not knock the people who work hard and have done well in life. Nor should we knock those who have not had the same opportunities in life, who struggle in poverty, sometimes generational poverty. We should not knock those people, then, who look to government to give them a hand up, not a handout, but a hand up. It is a message that we are all in this together and that when a large swath of our fellow citizens find themselves in a vast and wealthy country with little opportunity or hope, we have a duty to intervene, to help create opportunity.

I am reminded of the great work of community-minded people across the country, and in my hometown, who day in and day out help and advocate for more opportunities for those who are less fortunate. For over two decades, and I include my own party in this regard, we have failed to adopt a real national anti-poverty strategy. Despite the best efforts of the previous government, we did not do enough. We should have a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy, but we will not under the current government, for no other reason than that with the wave of an imperial hand, the Prime Minister of Canada has declared that caring for the poor is a provincial responsibility. It is so myopic and so unwilling to take leadership to make a difference for those in need.

The Conservative government has all but abandoned its role in health care in Canada. In doing so, the Conservatives have abdicated the Canadian government's historic role and responsibility to ensure equal and universal access to health care. That is what I mean by shared citizenship, the programs and the values that drive them and that strengthen our shared citizenship.

Then there is the matter of unemployment insurance, a program that has been decimated by the current government. In the case of my home province, the recent changes that make it harder to qualify have hurt families, caused hardship and worry. In far too many cases, they have left too many Canadians feeling left out, rejected, or, worse, made to feel like the members of the government think they are lazy or cheaters. Is this the type of shared citizenship that Canadians want or expect from their Canadian government? Is this what Canadians deserve?

What about the matter of infrastructure support and nation building? We embrace today, with a sense of reverence and sentimentality, the notion of nation building as reflected in the railroad, a railroad that linked Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When it was not possible to link islands like Prince Edward Island on land, we were linked by ferry. Or, in the case of another significant investment in infrastructure, we are reminded of the Trans-Canada Highway, again, a big and ambitious endeavour that links Canadians. These great projects helped build, literally and figuratively, this country and provide in part that sense of shared citizenship. The current government has cut its build Canada infrastructure fund by 87%. It is astonishing to think that the Conservatives would allow these cuts to occur and then cynically open the spigot for an election campaign.

On Prince Edward Island, we expect that the Canada jobs grant will be exactly like per capita funding for health care, exactly like the civil service cutbacks. The provinces that have less will be penalized and the richer onces will benefit. This has started to play out. We feel kicked to the curb, again. Never in the history of this country have we had such a narrow view of the role of the Canadian government. In the Conservative view, people are on their own. If they succeed, “Great. You're welcome”; if they do not, well that is their fault.

We can do better and we must do better. This budget is an abject disappointment for the people of Prince Edward Island and Charlottetown.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very kind of the member to acknowledge the best finance minister, probably in the world, that Canada has ever had. I believe it is very honourable that he would mention how because of that finance minister we have one of the best places in the world to do business. We have a stable economy and low taxes. In fact, the overall tax rate on new business investment is the lowest in the G7. We have the soundest banking system, the best net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, and are one of the few countries in the world with the highest credit rating possible.

The member fell short when he spoke about the best finance minister. What he said about infrastructure is false. The finance minister and the Prime Minister made it law that the gas tax is shared; it had never been shared before. It also goes with inflation. I would like the member to please acknowledge that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I was badly misquoted. I certainly did indicate that the finance minister is to be commended for his service to the citizens of Canada, but his record, unfortunately, is extremely disappointing. I pointed that out in the speech.

In terms of regional disparity and income inequality in this country, those two problems continue to plague us and are particularly prevalent in my part of the country. While the former Minister of Finance is to be commended for his service to Canada and the fact that he has won respect across the aisle, there have been a lot of people left behind, and they certainly include the constituents in my region.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after only 25 minutes of debate, the government imposed a gag order on one of the most important bills of the year. There was only 25 minutes of debate.

I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out a few things that I feel are important, including the fact that the budget does nothing to address poverty.

I would argue that nothing is being done for public transit either, and that includes rail transit. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult for me to provide any insight on that issue since there are no rail lines in Prince Edward Island anymore. They were abandoned about 40 years ago. It is true that we need a national transit plan, and it is true that our infrastructure is too old. This country has an infrastructure deficit. It is true. Unfortunately, railways are now a part of P.E.I.'s history.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the chief government whip.

I rose this morning, before rising here, thinking about how grateful I am to be in this wonderful institution in this amazing country of ours, how grateful I am just to be standing here, and what an honour it is to represent the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and to be with colleagues who champion the interests of Canadians day by day.

It is also my honour to express support for a bill that keeps Canada on track. I am speaking of economic action plan 2014, tabled by our Minister of Finance.

Our government has charted a course for this nation that has led us through uncharted waters, namely the fragility of the global market. However, despite this uncertainty, there is no doubt that we have emerged triumphant, as our nation's economy continues to thrive.

This is not a coincidence. Our government has, since 2006, relentlessly pursued job creation and economic growth with the full intention of creating a stable, sustainable, and prosperous Canada.

In my remarks today I will focus on four aspects of budget 2014, which illustrate this focus and commitment. I will be drawing direct ties to the people of my constituency who brought their interests to me and to this Parliament through me.

Canada's economic success manifests a vision set forth by our Prime Minister. We cannot witness the transition from a multi-billion dollar deficit to a predicted multi-billion dollar surplus next year without first acknowledging the efforts of this Conservative government.

With the elimination of our deficit, Canadians can anticipate lower taxes, a higher standard of living, greater opportunities for job creation, and a significantly smaller financial burden on our children and grandchildren.

Canada has already leapt from number six to number two in Bloomberg's annual ranking of the most attractive countries for doing business in the world, just behind Hong Kong. A reduced deficit will continue to attract investment and signal our nation's stability on the global stage.

What I see in front of us is a budget that reflects the priorities of our citizens. I know for a fact that this budget addresses four key areas that interest my constituents and other Canadians: the environment, the economy, health and fitness, and search and rescue. I am equally confident that it will reflect the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast.

We have seen a growing number of Canadians voice their concerns regarding our environment. Today I am proud to tell these Canadians that their government has listened. It is my long-held belief that the economy and the environment are inherently entwined. In fact, in my speech to this House last year, entitled “The environment is the economy”, I relayed the concerns of The Future of Howe Sound Society and other constituents that we must embrace the two in tandem.

Economic action plan 2014 follows the lead of innovative Canadians who continually find ways to stimulate the economy while protecting our natural resources. The economy and the environment are not at war, so the advancement of one should not prejudice the other. This is evident in B.C., where a great number of people, including constituents of mine like CaroleAnn Leishman, have expressed their concerns over proposed pipeline projects, despite their potential economic rewards.

This budget will fund the National Energy Board to review pipeline projects so that Canada's economic pursuits can be reconciled with the protection of its natural resources. Our government will not commit to specific energy transportation projects, but will sustain dialogue with the aim of reconciling economic potential with environmental restraint.

As our Minister of Natural Resources recently declared:

No project will be approved unless it is safe for Canadians and safe for the environment.

Energy exports will continue to grow and create many great jobs for Canadians, but the government remains committed to ensuring safe and responsible resource development.

Economic action plan 2014 will also invest in environmental sustainability by protecting Canada's recreational fisheries, so brilliantly championed by organizations in my riding such as the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable, the West Vancouver Streamkeepers, the Squamish Streamkeepers Society, and the Squamish River Watershed Society.

Last year, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program received $10 million, and this year the government is renewing its commitment to environmental sustainability, another demonstration of our government's ability to balance both economic and environmental goals.

The recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program commenced last year at the urging of organizations like the ones I mentioned and people around the country who care about the recreational fishery.

I congratulate the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette for his championing of this program. This is a strong encouragement to show our government has listened to and acknowledged the voices of people who are passionate about salmon and other fisheries in B.C. and throughout the country.

Increasing financial support for another great organization, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, responds effectively to advocacy by fellow Conservative B.C. members. I am proud to have championed the PSP cause along with them. It is another great aspect of budget 2014.

With our government's devotion to environmental sustainability in mind, Canadians can anticipate more economic progress without great cost to the environment. My constituents in Powell River and the Sunshine Coast and the mayors who have been so powerful in advocating for new jobs, like Wayne Rowe in Gibsons, John Henderson in Sechelt, and Dave Formosa in Powell River, can look forward to adding more jobs in their areas as Canada's economy continues to strengthen.

More than one million net new jobs have been created since the recession. When compared with other G7 nations, Canada's economic performance is among the best, leading the pack in job growth.

In this budget, the government has re-emphasized its desire to find employment for every Canadian and reduce job vacancies.

Internationally, I commend our government for securing free trade agreements with other countries. When our government came into power, Canada had three established FTAs. This number has now grown to 44, including the recent Canada-Korea trade agreement—to which the Speaker has contributed—our nation's first official trade agreement in Asia.

Under our government's leadership, Canada will continue to bolster its economy by trading with other nations in a way that is mutually beneficial.

Within our borders, our government also commits to the future employment of our youth, through its youth employment strategy. This program aims to provide young Canadians with real-life work experience that aligns with the evolving realities of the job market. We need to ensure that young Canadians can access employment in high-demand fields, like science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and trades. The government has recognized this need and proposed a $40-million investment to support 3,000 full-time internships, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Allowing our youth to gain work experience is a worthy investment and a proactive step toward reducing future unemployment and strengthening our economy.

I am also excited to see how our government has recognized health and fitness as a priority in its 2014 economic action plan, a priority I have championed, to reflect the emphasis on this area shown by my constituents in the Olympic riding.

I applaud the government's initiative to increase the rate of excise duty on tobacco products as a viable method of increasing federal tax revenue. This measure illustrates our government's desire for fiscal responsibility and, more important, for a healthy Canadian population.

This budget also addresses prescription drug abuse, another concern shared by my many Canadians, including West Vancouver police chief Pete Lepine, who has worked closely with me to bring about a national prescription drug drop-off day, which will occur this year on May 10.

The new economic action plan proposes to invest $44.9 million, over five years, to expand the focus of the national anti-drug strategy, so we can also address this emerging health and safety concern. This investment would serve a diverse Canadian population, by enhancing education on the safe use, storage, and disposal of prescription drugs, among other things.

Having watched our Olympians and Paralympians demonstrate the ultimate in health and fitness in Sochi, I am delighted to see our government's continued desire to support Canadian athletes of all levels. Sport promotes leadership. It plays a vital role in our culture, both as an expression of our national identity and as a means of inspiring more Canadians to become active and healthy. This budget would maintain our government's record level of investment for athletes without leaving anyone behind.

While our Olympians are supported through initiatives like own the podium, our government supports Paralympians, amateurs, and Special Olympics athletes, as well.

The last provision upon which I would like to touch is the search and rescue tax credit. This commemorates Tim Jones, the amazing revered volunteer who led the North Shore rescue team for 26 years and who participated in over 1,600 rescue operations. The search and rescue tax credit would recognize the important role played by volunteers who put themselves at risk for the sole purpose of serving their communities.

In conclusion, I see Canada's 2014 economic action plan as another step in the right direction.

Today, I have highlighted four of the many aspects of budget 2014 that are particularly relevant, not only to my constituency but to the whole country: environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, health and fitness, and the recognition of our nation's search and rescue volunteers.

The return to a balanced budget is the fulfillment of a long-term goal. The proposals I have mentioned are examples of our government's commitment to Canadians. It is a good time to be a Canadian. This budget would help ensure good health for our people, our environment, and our economy.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech read by my hon. colleague opposite.

My question for the member, through you, Mr. Speaker, is what are his views on the appropriateness of the government introducing a motion to limit the debate after 25 minutes on another monster omnibus budget bill, a bill that is over 350 pages, with almost 500 clauses that would amend dozens of bills, some of which have nothing to do with the budget?

I would ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, to hear his views on the appropriateness of that in a democratic parliamentary system.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

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

Where I would focus in terms of the democratic aspect of the budget is how it links the aspirations of Canadians from coast to coast, how individual Canadians and agencies have seen their aspirations realized in this budget.

We have seen, for instance, health and fitness, something that is a concern for all Canadians. We have seen specific things that were voiced by Canadians from coast to coast; we have seen the fulfillment in the budget. The $44.9 million for prescription drug abuse is something that was put on the table by individual Canadians in round tables here in Ottawa and in my constituency. My colleague, who is also from British Columbia, will know that it is the search and rescue volunteers who enable people to enjoy the great outdoors of British Columbia.

These are the kinds of things; Canadians rejoice to see their parliamentarians take their needs, put them into policy, take the policies, put them into law, and implement that law through the budget.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, under a former Liberal government, health and social transfer payments were dramatically cut to the point where it really affected youth training and post-secondary education. I am very proud that this government is focusing on jobs and connecting and helping to train our youth through universities and also through trade schools and the Red Seal program. The government has created more than one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession.

Yesterday, we heard there were more than 42,000 new jobs last month; so we are on track. Things are fragile, but we are on track.

What does the hon. member think about focusing on youth and helping them through the creation of the Canada apprenticeship loan to help our youths who are going to post-secondary and trade schools? What does he think about that?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and again how the government has supported youth—for instance, at Vancouver Island University, the Powell River campus in the riding I represent. The $40 million investment in this budget will support 3,000 full-time internships for small and medium-size enterprises.

This is a government that walks the talk. We talk about the amazing youth. For instance, some youth in my riding have created HEY Day, Helping Every Youth Day, which is an opportunity every year for youth to come together, and they bring in the top volunteer organizations from around Canada and showcase them to inspire other youth.

There are the MP book awards, something I had the honour to initiate in my riding, which challenge our young people to show their writing skills. These are young people, the leaders of tomorrow, who produce essays that address things like the economy.

From the budget through what our parliamentarians are doing, I see that we revere our youth. We know they are the leaders of tomorrow. We are behind them, and this budget supports them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the notion of apprenticeships. We have been pushing very hard in Toronto, in my riding in particular, for apprenticeships as a result of infrastructure building that is going on—some of it federally supported, but most of it provincially supported—and the province is not being very helpful.

I was encouraged in 2013 when Mr. Flaherty suggested that future federal infrastructure spending would actually require apprenticeships. Nothing happened in the 2013 budget implementation bills 1 and 2, and nothing is in this budget implementation bill.

I wonder if the member would be able to tell me why the government makes promises in budgets but does not follow through.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind all hon. members that they ought not to refer to their colleagues or ministers by their given names, but rather by their title or riding.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague raised the question, because I am sure his intent is virtuous, but his facts are ill-informed. In fact, in this budget we see $40 million invested in our youth, and the genius of that investment is that the money is to go through small and medium-size enterprises so it can be leveraged.

These youth will gain experience through internships and apprenticeships that will enable them to broaden their life experience, which is even more valuable than the money that will come to them. The money is essential as well, and the money will certainly enable those small and medium-size enterprises to hire the students. It is a boost to the economy. It is a boost to the specific companies that take advantage of this benefit. Most importantly, it is a support for our youth who are the leaders of tomorrow.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak in support of the budget implementation act. This is a very significant budget. There are two things that I would love to highlight in the budget that are particularly meaningful to me.

This year's budget is a major step forward in balancing Canada's books, and its success is a direct result of the Prime Minister's leadership, good judgment, and world-leading economic stewardship. Having created 1.1 million jobs since the recession, today Canada has the strongest job record in the developed world. We have almost balanced the budget, and we have done so while increasing transfers to provinces, investing in infrastructure and skills training, delivering real support for families, and keeping taxes low. This is a remarkable achievement.

For the sake of the members opposite, and particularly for the leader of the Liberal Party, I would like to clarify that balancing the budget did not happen all by itself. It happened because the Prime Minister has remained focused on the economy and on the priorities of our families and our communities. It happened because we have looked for ways to use taxpayers' money more responsibly and more effectively.

Even as we have focused on bringing the budget back to balance, we have continued to look for new opportunities to invest in meaningful measures that accomplish a lot with a little. It is two of these measures that I wish to emphasize today. They are two measures included in budget 2014 that are very meaningful for me and for many others, and for which I strongly and actively advocated.

The first is Lindsey's law. In budget 2014, our government committed up to $8.1 million over five years and $1.3 million per year on an ongoing basis to create a national DNA-based missing persons index.

My connection with this issue began in August 2013, when I met Judy Peterson for the first time at a teddy bear picnic in my riding. The picnic was in remembrance of her daughter, Lindsey, and took place in the community where Lindsey had disappeared 20 years earlier, in 1993. By the time this community was added to my riding in 1997, Judy had already moved away. By the time we met last summer, she had been championing a national DNA-based data bank of missing persons for most of the intervening years.

We had the opportunity to talk. She told me about what she has been through since Lindsey went missing in 1993 and how a national data bank would allow the DNA of missing persons to be compared with DNA collected through crime scene investigations.

I was shocked to learn that without a data bank, every time investigators want to test DNA from a crime scene, they have to ask the family's permission. The family does not have the option of providing blanket permission to compare against an existing sample, so they have to go through the roller coaster of emotions between hope and disappointment every time the cross-reference fails to end in certainty.

Even worse than getting these calls is not getting them. Without a data bank in place, it is much harder for investigators to link an individual crime scene with missing persons. Even when provinces have good cross-checking systems in place, they currently do not extend beyond the provincial border. Even if the missing person's family can have confidence that their loved one has not been found in their own province, there are currently too many barriers to have the same confidence with crime scenes in another jurisdiction.

A national missing persons index would solve these problems. Investigators would automatically be able to run crime scene DNA against the missing persons index all across the country and with other jurisdictions. The families would not have to go through the pain of wondering every time a search was done. In addition, this measure would be an important tool for solving crimes related to missing persons.

It was impossible not to be moved by this message, and I promised Judy that I would advocate for it in Ottawa. That job was, of course, made much easier by the fact that my colleagues quickly saw the merit in the approach and supported my efforts to move this measure forward. I will admit that when the budget speech was read and I saw Judy in the House of Commons gallery as the finance minister acknowledged all of the work she had done, it was the most memorable and emotional moment of my 20 years in Ottawa.

There was a second item in the budget that was also meaningful to me. I was an early supporter of the idea of the volunteer firefighters tax credit and was proud when our government was able to introduce this measure. However, even from the earliest days I believed that it should also include search and rescue volunteers.

Over the years, I have gotten to know a number of ground and marine search and rescue volunteers in my riding. I know how dedicated and passionate they are about what they do. They give their time, juggle their training commitments with their family, friends, and work life, and make significant personal investments in gear and training, all so that when the phone rings Sunday night at midnight, they can gear up and head out into the rain instead of going back to sleep. They are volunteers who will not hesitate to head into inclement weather and dangerous environments. They work in rough seas, swift water, high-angle terrain, mountains, and forests. They develop and maintain a high skill level as well as a profound sense of professionalism that is not diminished at all by the fact that they are not paid.

In the early fall of 2013, I was approached by search and rescue volunteers in my riding. They made such a strong case for recognition that I felt I had to take a more active role in promoting a search and rescue volunteer tax credit. Again I enjoyed great support among my colleagues, and together we were able to make it happen.

The search and rescue volunteer tax credit is not about paying volunteers. It is about recognizing the unique role that search and rescue volunteers, like volunteer firefighters, play in our communities and the sacrifices they make to keep us safe. I am proud of these volunteers in my riding and across Canada and I am happy to see their efforts recognized.

These are two examples that are meaningful to me, but I would like to point out that many items in the budget are there because MPs listened to their constituents and brought their message back to Ottawa. It is a testament to our budget process that items highlighted in the budget speech in front of the nation can begin with a conversation, with consultation, and with thoughtfulness and compassion.

For all that we do here, it is very satisfying to see the ingenuity of ordinary Canadians find its way to the national stage and to know that as members of Parliament, we had an opportunity to play a small role in making important and progressive changes happen.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired, so the questions and comments for the Minister of State and Chief Government Whip will take place when this matters returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

It is always an honour for me to rise in the House to represent my constituents in the great riding of Pontiac. However, today, I am speaking out against the fact that a bill with such a large scope is being examined in such a short period of time. This undermines Parliament's work by preventing members from thoroughly examining the bill and its impact. This is the fifth time that the Conservatives have tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their regressive economic agenda by using an omnibus budget bill. The issues put forward in these bills are important and deserve serious consideration.

That is what my constituents expect from their MP and that is what Canadians expect from parliamentarians and from their democratic institutions. We are well aware that this is another budget implementation bill designed to sneak in hundreds of changes through the back door, without their being examined properly, for the very partisan and ideological purposes of the governing Conservative Party.

The bill is over 350 pages long and contains over 500 clauses. It changes dozens of laws and contains many measures that were not even mentioned in the budget statement. I would like to point out that, after only 25 minutes of debate, after only one person had a chance to speak, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to put an end to the debate by moving a closure motion. That is shameful. It is simply atrocious.

The decisions made in the budget and the budget implementation bill are meant to be made for Canadians. It is their money the government is spending, and it must do so wisely. However, the bill does not address the real concerns of Canadians. It sets out austerity measures that make life less affordable for Canadians. These measures are stifling Canada's economic growth at a time when wages are stagnant, jobs are less stable and household debt is rising and reaching record levels. What is worse, there is nothing in the budget or the budget bill to help the 300,000 additional Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession to find work or to replace the 400,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector under the Conservative government. The government needs to think about future generations when making budget decisions.

I came back to politics because my daughters, Sophia and Gabrielle, are now six and four. When I would look at them as babies in their cribs, I remember asking myself what kind of future we would be leaving them. My leader often likes to say that we will be the first generation to leave less to our children than what we ourselves received. We will be leaving them an economic, environmental and social deficit. He is right. The future must be different. In the future, we must live in greater harmony with our brothers and sisters from all countries and in greater harmony with the planet. We need to think about future generations and about preserving that harmony when we govern and make budget choices.

This bill does not do enough to preserve this harmony. We need to focus on new technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, which leads to global conflict and causes environmental degradation. That is why my party supports investing in a 21st century economy based on clean technology.

This could come in the form of the following measures: restore the eco-energy retrofit – homes program; support the renewable energy sector to help Canada grow and prosper in the new global economy; help the industry take advantage of clean technology markets by supporting research and development for these energies; adopt an action plan to abolish the $1.3 billion in subsidies being handed out to the fossil fuel industry; support specialized training to prepare workers for the green jobs of the future; carry out a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production in the clean energy sector; and lastly, increase access to information and transparency regarding the enforcement of and compliance with environmental legislation.

Furthermore, there is almost nothing in this bill to address the lack of infrastructure in our communities. This bill could have addressed Canada's serious infrastructure deficit by cancelling the $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure set out in the last budget.

We need new infrastructure—roads especially—in Pontiac. We need to work with the provinces and territories to stop the erosion of the municipal tax base by developing a long-term infrastructure plan for cities, towns, suburbs and rural communities.

Why not invest part of the proceeds from the 700 MHz auction in developing broadband Internet infrastructure in remote rural parts of the country? That could stimulate an entire economy of online businesses. Access to high-speed Internet is critical to small and medium-sized businesses in my region.

The government could also have simplified the process rural communities have to go through to request and receive funding for infrastructure projects. It is not hard to take steps to improve Canada's productivity. The government should update our infrastructure by doubling the gas tax transfer to municipalities. That is a very simple and practical measure. However, in this bill, the government made choices that will benefit only the rich and the biggest corporations in the country. Why do the biggest ones always come out on top with this government?

As the Treasury Board critic, it is my job to criticize choices about services to Canadians. Canadians expect to get good services in exchange for their tax dollars, but the Conservatives are betraying them by making these cuts.

It is not overstating things to say that there is a crisis around access to health care services in the Pontiac. Even so, this government is determined to cut $36 billion from provincial health transfers.

In addition, the employment insurance reform was really hard on seasonal workers in my riding. We could also deal with the tax haven issue and find new sources of revenue for the government so that Canadians can get the services they are entitled to.

The last thing I want to say is that my children's future is the reason I am speaking today. We have to make different choices, choices that are more environmentally friendly, socially sound and responsible.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments.

He spoke about his children and the impact climate change will have going forward. We recently learned that the situation is worse than we thought. The very harsh winter we had is evidence of that. It was very hard on infrastructure in northern Ontario communities. Water pipes burst. Many homes were without water, and that is still a problem right now.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell us more about the infrastructure deficit. Some of the infrastructure in Chapleau dates from the world wars. Can he talk about how we should be investing in municipalities, not cutting their funding?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, investing in infrastructure would clearly stimulate the economy in my riding. The needs of municipalities must be taken into consideration.

Municipalities are far removed from power. They need many things, including infrastructure for water, waste, roads and community centres, for example.

We need a national infrastructure strategy to ensure that municipalities with the greatest need have access to funds that would enable them to stimulate their own economy by building and renovating infrastructure in their communities.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his speech here today, and I will note two things from his remarks with respect to broadband Internet.

I invite the member to look at the digital Canada 150 plan being announced by the Minister of Industry today, which has over $300 million invested for rural broadband Internet.

However, more specifically, the member suggested that the funding from the latest wireless spectrum auction be applied to some of these investments. I wonder whether he recognizes that the investments made by carriers acquiring that spectrum is not a lump sum; it is received by the government and amortized over several decades.

Would the hon. member comment on the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, announced just today, on rural broadband Internet?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it might surprise my hon. colleague, but I actually think that the $300 million is a good measure. In fact, I ensured that all of my communities were aware of it.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and one may ask whether that investment of $300 million across a country as large as ours is targeted enough. There are concerns in my community as to where that money would go, whether it would go more to the largest corporations and businesses that deal with this kind of service and not directly to the communities for building infrastructure in those communities that are the poorest and that need it the most. I am hopeful, but I am waiting to see how the money will be made accessible to the communities like mine that truly need it.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and his excellent presentation. He did a fine job explaining the NDP's concerns over the new budget implementation bill currently before us. I often see him rise in the House and stand up for the interests of his constituents. I want to commend him on his excellent work.

I am proud to join my voice to those of my colleagues to firmly oppose this new omnibus bill. This should come as no surprise from the Conservatives. They do not seem to know how to work any other way. This is the fifth time we are dealing with a such a massive bill and this underhanded approach to avoiding parliamentary oversight. The fact is, everyone here was elected for the same reason. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to stand up for their interests. When we look at the actions of this government and the bills it introduces, we see that it seems to be taking into account only the small percentage of Canadians who voted the Conservatives into power. Unfortunately, our system is designed in such a way that we have a Conservative majority government, but that does not mean that the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. I would say that the majority of Canadians are rather disgusted with the abuse of trust and abuse of power committed by the government. The Conservatives are supposed to be working for Canadians in the best interest of the country. However, that is not what we are seeing.

The Conservatives try to hide their regressive agenda from Canadians on a regular basis. Today, we barely heard one speech, and it was a Conservative speech that was far from objective. After 25 minutes, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose and introduced another time allocation motion. Once again, he could not even get through one half hour of debate. He managed to listen to one of my official position colleagues for barely five minutes and then he said that that was enough, that he knew very well that we would just blame them and shine a spotlight on all the problems with Bill C-31. For that reason, we are once again facing closure, which quite frankly is an abuse of the House. I no longer know how many time allocation motions have been imposed, but I can guarantee you that it is a considerable number.

As I was saying, Bill C-31 is another omnibus bill. It is a massive document with more than 350 pages and over 500 clauses that will amend dozens of laws. Furthermore, the bill would impose a number of measures that were not included in the budget.

Canadians must start learning the cues. The Conservatives use the same arguments with each new budget because it is the same principle every time. They tell us that there is nothing new in there, that everything was in the budget, and so on. They really take Canadians for fools. No one in this country believes them. I do not know who they are trying to convince, perhaps themselves, by repeating the same arguments that are not very convincing. However, quite honestly, no one trusts them.

Canadians also understand that it is impossible for MPs to do a proper job in the short period of time allocated by the Conservatives. I mentioned the size and content of this bill. We have just a few hours to debate it, raise issues and ask the government questions. We rarely get answers but, as MPs, it is part of our job to ask questions and try to get answers. After that, the procedure in committee is rather complicated. Even there, there is very little the members can do.

In any case, it is a known fact that the government does not listen. The opposition could propose an excellent amendment that would remedy problems with this document. Obviously, there are some mistakes in the 350 pages that were hastily thrown together on anything and everything. It takes the government some time. The government will think about it for several months. Time and time again, the opposition will raise the various problems inherent in the government's bills.

Eventually, someone will say—perhaps in a whisper—that the opposition was right and there is a problem with the bill. The Conservatives are a prime example of this. When they decided to charge GST and HST on the parking revenue of hospitals, the NDP objected. It did not make sense to take that money at the expense of people who are already vulnerable, who are going through difficult times and whose loved ones are suffering in the hospital. The Conservatives told themselves that there was no better way to fill the government coffers and deepen human misery than to take money from the pockets of people who are visiting their loved ones in the hospital.

A few months later, the Conservatives realized that the NDP was right and decided to backpedal. However, it took time. Had they listened to us from the outset, had they been more open-minded and had they not been so uncompromising and demagogic, we would not be where we are today. I would not be wasting my time pointing these things out.

Although Canadians were aware of the problem caused by this government, the government did nothing for months until it could no longer stand the pressure. These are the types of situations created by omnibus bills, massive documents filled with regressive propaganda. I urge all Canadians to flip through this bill. They are in for some nasty surprises. The Conservatives are cutting short debate so that Canadians find out as little as possible about what is in the bill. The Conservatives are preparing for the election in 2015 and they are seeing their poll support plummet across the country.

It is not just in Quebec that Canadians are starting to push the Conservatives aside and realize that they are not a viable option for ensuring the well-being of our country and equal opportunity for all Canadians. Canada is welcoming fewer and fewer people in need and refugees because of this government's incomprehensible decisions. We are losing our identity bit by bit, an identity that people abroad appreciated and respected, because of measures that the government is hiding in various omnibus bills. That is unfortunate.

I would like to have the opportunity to consult with Conservative members to see if they know what they are voting on. I am certain that the vast majority of them have absolutely no idea what is in Bill C-31. It is more than 350 pages long, so I doubt that they have read the entire thing. It is easy for them because the Prime Minister's Office feeds them lines and then they regurgitate them in public. They have done a great job so far.

We in the NDP are insisting on our right to debate in the House and raise our constituents' concerns. We want to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. The Conservatives are becoming increasingly complacent and do not seem to be taking that aspect of our work seriously anymore. I think it is abusive.

Earlier this week, we moved a motion that clearly criticized the Conservatives' systematic abuse of public funds, specifically in relation to the use of Challenger jets. That is another ethical problem that proves that the Conservatives do not care about the real interests of Canadians.

This budget does not contain a single measure to create new jobs. What is worse, it eliminates the small business hiring tax credit that was proposed by the NDP. In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are a lot of small businesses. Once again, the government is eliminating a good idea that was proposed by the NDP. It is very easy for the Conservatives to say that we vote against all of their measures. Offering a small gift here and there in an inherently insulting document does not mean that the opposition will vote for the bill. It is outrageous. If I were the Conservatives, I would be embarrassed to use that type of argument to try and discredit the opposition.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech on the bill, my colleague did not actually say much about the measures in the bill.

She talked about the process and the number of pages and she was very partisan. I would have liked to hear her suggestions and further comments on the contents of bill. I want to give her the chance to do that in the next two minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière might not really like it when I talk about the process.

The Conservatives want to convince Canadians that it is not important. They do not seem to think it is very important to let opposition members talk and express the interests and concerns of the people they represent. They want to persuade us that we should let them do as they please now that they have been elected and Canadians have given them a mandate.

Frankly, nobody buys that, and it is not up to me to mouth Conservative propaganda. We know that this budget does absolutely nothing to help Canadian families or create jobs. It is just more propaganda. It is not up to me to elaborate on it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about content, since it is worth talking about.

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent said that more than 400 veterans in Canada have severe disabilities and are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

The budget implementation bill would compensate veterans who received benefits between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012.

Why does the bill not mention the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012?

I know that the member's riding is very close to a military base.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and yes, the Valcartier military base is in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

However, in addition to that, I am the daughter of soldiers. Both of my parents are in the forces, and my grandfather is a Korean War veteran. For me, how we treat our military personnel and our veterans is therefore very important.

I am very proud to be a member of a political party that recognizes the social contract that unites us with our veterans, unlike this government, which is trying to use this absolutely appalling argument as a legal defence in Canada and set a precedent in that regard. It is absolutely inconceivable.

I am having a really hard time answering my colleague. I do not know why there is no compensation for our veterans in the bill. I cannot understand it. Actually, I would like the government to answer that, because it is completely unacceptable.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and one thing that stood out was her suggestion about the EI credit for small businesses. But is she aware that this government provided important temporary stimulus when it was needed during the global recession? When we look at the job numbers of today, we see that we are now at over one million net new jobs.

Would the member not agree that the government should be looking at getting back to balanced budgets, which this budget does? After we have put temporary measures in place for economic stimulus and economic action, how important is it for her children and grandchildren that we actually have the discipline to then have a balanced budget by the end of 2015?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing the Conservatives. They are always talking about the economy and all the jobs they have created. Most of those jobs are part-time, but they do not mention that. I suspect that they also got that information from Kijiji. I am therefore having a really hard time answering these questions, because I do not believe that this is coming from a credible source.

Any credible source of information that could help this government make informed decisions has been cut or pushed aside completely, because the Conservatives did not like the message they were hearing. Statistics Canada is just one example.

I have a hard time listening to my colleague's economic argument when we know very well that this government is misrepresenting itself regarding its economic competence.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would just inform the House that we have reached the five-hour point in the debate, which means that from this point forward, presentations will be 10 minutes long rather than 20.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House of Commons to speak on economic action plan 2014 and the budget implementation act flowing from it, because in many ways they complete a very important journey. That journey, in the next year, will see a return to balanced budgets here in Canada. What is most important to us as Conservatives is that the journey has taken place without increasing taxes, an approach and a journey that my colleagues on the opposite side, the NDP and the Liberals, would have turned to during the economic crisis. Our government was consistent that we were not going to raise taxes on families, on seniors, or on job creators. So, we have had no tax increases and will have a return to balanced budgets.

I would be remiss if I did not say that one of the key shepherds on that journey has been my colleague, my friend, and my neighbour, in fact, the member of Parliament for Whitby—Oshawa, who, working with the Prime Minister and our caucus, ensured that we kept our commitments that we started during the worst of the downturn in 2008-09 to get to a balanced budget and where we are now.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House where we are now. We are in a unique position of leadership in the G7. We have the best economy in the G7 right now. We will be the first G7 nation to have a balanced budget in the coming year. We lead in job creation, with almost one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession, and the vast majority of those are full-time. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio among our G7 colleagues. We have the top financial institutions and regulatory environment in the world.

In many ways, we are the envy of our friends and are not only going to continue with that success but also ensure that Canada remains a leader under our government.

It is also important, whenever I stand in this place, that I recognize my role as the member of Parliament representing Durham, which is a proud part of Canada in southern Ontario, with deep century-plus roots in agriculture; a leading role in energy with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station; and with a proud history of manufacturing, both large and small. Our government has been taking the prudent steps to ensure that all of those industries and families that derive their wealth and wellness from them thrive.

Just this week, CIBC released a report showing that in the years since the great global recession, we have stronger and more productive manufacturers. We have more small and medium-size specialty manufacturers in southern Ontario that have withstood the global challenges that some of our best friends and allies are still facing but are now starting to thrive.

I would also look to the recent report by the Lawrence Centre in the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, one of the leading business faculties in the world. It just completed a study on the future of Canadian manufacturing by looking and learning from the success of some of our leading manufacturers in southern Ontario. Its conclusion was that a revitalized Canadian manufacturing sector will rely on the private sector and that the only role for government is really to promote and support an environment that allows the private sector to flourish. I cannot think of a better report that exemplifies the leadership of our government in the last few years, and I will tell members why.

The manufacturers that are succeeding in Ontario and, indeed, across the country are not just selling their goods and services here in Canada. They are looking around the world to be globally competitive.

What has our government done? We now have 38 new countries where our exporters will have most-favoured nation status. With the work of this government and the Minister of International Trade, in particular, in delivering the agreement in principle on CETA and our first trade agreement in Asia, with South Korea, we are building new markets that will allow our exporters not just to sustain their operations but also to grow and create employment.

Looking at the budget itself, page 98 shows a variety of other factors beyond just opening new markets. We are simplifying taxes for 60,000 small to medium-size enterprises in Ontario by streamlining the GST or HST credit rebate process and creating a new class of depreciable property. That is building upon our accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing those manufacturers to become more competitive.

I also refer the people of my riding to page 124 of the budget, which talks about the auto innovation fund, our government's multi-year commitment to securing our auto sector in southern Ontario. We have just put another $500 million into that fund over the next two years, on top of the over $300 million already invested on innovation in manufacturing in southern Ontario.

We are also looking at science and technology. Canada leads the OECD on funding for research at our universities to make sure that we innovate and are creating jobs for the next generation.

Our most recent budget adds to that, with the Canada first research excellence fund, a $1.5 billion fund that will be used by researchers, innovators, and universities across Canada to make sure that Canada remains ahead in science and technology. I would like to thank Dr. Tim McTiernan and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in our area of Durham for their work in science and in training the next generation of job seekers.

Durham is also known for its rich quality of life. While my business background has me passionately speaking about business issues and our government's success on the economic front, I am also proud that we are looking at recreation, culture, and other things that make our quality of life in Durham and Canada so strong.

I am proud of our government's recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. This last budget is doubling the annual funding for that program over the next two years.

In my community, before my election to Parliament, I was fortunate to work alongside dedicated volunteers at Valleys 2000 and the Bomanville Creek Anglers Association who, for many years, had been looking at making sure that migrating fish species on the Bomanville Creek could reach their spawning grounds despite dams and obstacles in their way. With funding from this fisheries conservation partnership plan, that group of volunteers in Bomanville has created a fish bypass channel, which, for the first salmon and trout run this spring, will allow those fish to bypass a dam and spawn up creek. I have to thank those volunteers, led by the late Al Strike, Harold Hammond, Reverend Frank Lockhart, Dave Lawson, Steve Kay, Jack Hampsey, and a range of other passionate volunteers from our community who got that program to where it is at. Our government was happy to help complete some of the funding.

As a veteran myself, I have to note that, as stated on page 223, our government maintains its strong commitment to our veterans and their families. With a $108 million commitment to the Last Post Fund, we are taking this funeral and burial program intended for impoverished or indigent veterans and are expanding it beyond its mandate from World War II and Korean War veterans to modern-day veterans so that no one will slip between the cracks. That is on top of our funding increases in the last budget for those services specifically.

The budget also mentioned the Afghanistan commemoration. I will be one of many MPs here who are proud to stand with Canadians for the families of the fallen on May 9, when we commemorate one of Canada's most sustained missions abroad in which over 40,000 of our best young men and women served our country when called upon.

We are also putting a priority on hiring injured veterans. Each year, approximately 1,000 men or women from the Canadian Forces release as a result of injury. We are putting them at the top of the priority hiring list for the civil service, a measure that I hope the opposition and the public sector unions can finally get behind to put those veterans in a place that will make sure they thrive when they transition out of uniform.

We are also putting increased spending into the My VAC Account and other resources so that veterans can access their services.

It is always an honour for me to rise to represent my riding of Durham. I am happy to have highlighted a few measures that make our budget and its implementation so pivotal for Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night I went to the veterans affairs committee and we heard from the last post fund, the people who support and try to maintain funding for veterans in difficult financial circumstances. They were very clear that the current government may indeed have put more money into the fund, but nobody can access it. The Conservatives have ensured that the lower limit for accessibility at $12,500 makes it virtually impossible for families of veterans to have access to that money.

How on earth can the Conservatives brag about something in terms of the money they have provided, when no one can get to it?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on that committee, and I hope she is listening, because the question gives me an excellent opportunity to show members why this fund is actually structured in a way that targets those in need.

As a veteran, I do not expect decades later to have my funeral covered. It is only for impoverished veterans. Let me say what the member neglected to say about that $12,500 cut-off.

That amount of net assets for deceased veterans does not include their house and it does not include their car. We are talking about people who only have that amount of assets at the end of their life. The car and the house could mean that veterans have more, and so we are not just talking about homeless veterans or people like that. This is a set amount that is very reasonable to make sure that those who fall into the cracks and need support get it.

I would invite the member and the NDP to stop playing games and tell the full story on how that number is calculated.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on playing games with respect to the last post fund, the member and I served together on the veterans affairs committee when the last budget was brought down, and the member would know that in the last budget the government budgeted $65 million for the last post fund knowing full well that there was absolutely no possible way that money would be spent. Therefore, that money would lapse and go against the deficit.

My question for the member is twofold. First, can he stand up and tell us how much of the $65 million that was budgeted in the last budget has actually been spent on veterans? We both know the answer. Second, with this $108 million that he speaks of, are the Conservatives going to do the same thing?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another great question from my Liberal colleague that allows me to explain to him as well how this works, because being from Charlottetown, he too likes to play a few games on this subject, although I know his heart is in the right place.

When it comes to these funds, this government cannot predict, nor could any member of this House, how many veterans who are impoverished may pass in 10 years from now. These amounts provide a contingency reserve within the fund that will provide enough flexibility over the course of the coming decades for access.

On the amount the member referred to from the last budget, the individualized costs for funeral, burial, and services around that have come up, reflecting a higher cost than a generation ago; and so the money in this budget would now ensure that the overall fund has the ability to ensure that indigent veterans post-Korea—so modern-day veterans, even potentially some of my own colleagues from my time in uniform—would be protected by the fund.

If the member has any further questions, we would be happy to answer them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that during every question period for the last eight years Conservative members have risen in the House to rail against the NDP for not supporting their budgets. Well, I would like to let the members opposite know that there will be no change in their speaking notes today. In fact, in question period today it was the same old tired lines from the government.

I will not be supporting Bill C-31. Here are the reasons why. I hope my colleagues across the way listen, because they should be ashamed as they listen to these reasons. Given the government's record on time allocation, of course, the bill contains amendments to more than 60 acts without the time to study those changes. It continues in Bill C-31. Once again, we see the despicable Conservative tradition of forcing legislation through without adequate parliamentary debate or public consultation.

New Democrats believe that healthy debate and consultation lead to better legislation for Canadians, yet we have another omnibus bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study and little oversight. In fact, the Conservatives moved time allocation on the bill after just 25 minutes of debate. Canadians deserve better.

In addition, the bill fails to make life more affordable for Canadian families, who are still recovering from the effects of the recession. We have 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession, on this government's watch. The effects of this are painfully evident in ridings across the country, including my riding of London—Fanshawe. There is absolutely nothing in the budget, or Bill C-31, that would assist in getting the hard-working constituents of London—Fanshawe back to work, or to help replace the 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs lost on this Prime Minister's watch.

There is nothing in the budget or the bill that addresses the reasonable and affordable proposals of the NDP to strengthen the Canada pension plan. There is nothing to provide relief on heating bills, nothing for the millions of Canadians without access to a family doctor, and nothing to address the fact that we still have seniors in our country living in poverty. There are 250,000 of them.

New Democrats are focused on helping our most vulnerable seniors with an affordable increase to the guaranteed income supplement. While the government has made incremental measures in the past, they amount to much less than half of what is needed to pull every Canadian senior out of poverty. It is an amount that is far less than the billions in tax breaks the government has given to banks and big polluters.

Let us look at the history of this government. It is a government that has hiked payroll taxes, while working families struggled with the worst recession in decades. At the same time it was dishing out $21 billion in tax giveaways to Canada's richest companies. It stood by as good jobs with good wages and pensions, like those at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, disappeared as a result of foreign corporate takeovers.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides explicit and transparent criteria for the testing of net benefit to Canada in the Investment Canada Act, which place emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investments on communities, jobs, pensions, families, and new capital investments.

New Democrats propose working with the provinces to build a long-term skills training strategy to fill the skilled job shortages and to bring provinces, employers, labour, and educational organizations together to improve existing labour market development agreements. While we are at it, New Democrats would like to see the government sit down with the provinces on issues vital to Canadians, like the Canada pension plan and the Canada health accord, so we can arrive at the creative, affordable, and sustainable solutions we know are possible.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides the services Canadians rely on. Reverse the devastating decision to cut provincial health care transfers by $36 billion; that would be a good start. The government has put universal health care on death watch. Reverse changes to El that include damaging new rules that would require Canadian workers to accept as much as a 70% pay reduction or risk losing benefits. Set fair and effective contribution rates for employment insurance, and protect the money in the fund.

Unfortunately, the government is not interested in serving Canadians. It has fallen down on the issues that matter most to us. It has refused to repay seniors their missing pension earnings, despite admitting that CPP and OAS pensioners were shortchanged by $1 billion due to an accounting error.

What happened to the promise of a comprehensive patient wait times guarantee? It disappeared after a handful of pilot projects that left most patients out in the cold.

The government cancelled agreements with provinces to fund affordable child care spaces. It was child care that would have given some relief to working families. The Conservatives misled Canadians with the $100 universal child care benefit by subjecting it to unfair clawbacks and taxes, so that families who needed assistance with child care the most got the least.

This is the government that squandered $20 billion on giveaways for oil companies, big banks, cellphone giants, and other corporations, without any requirements that they stop ripping off Canadians—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

They think it is funny. It is shameful.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that they find this so amusing. My constituents are not amused.

The Conservatives expanded drug company monopoly rights. They moved to allow direct-to-consumer advertising, which would add $6.3 billion to our drug bills, even though Canadian consumers already pay some of the world's highest prices.

While the government has pandered to the large corporations, it has failed to renew the small business job creation tax credit, first proposed by the NDP in 2011, for the hiring of people by small businesses. New Democrats know that small and medium businesses fuel communities and help those communities to thrive. We believe that continuing to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium businesses would benefit Canadians.

While Bill C-31 would provide for the compensation for deductions from veterans' pay between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012, it is silent on the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012. We have already seen two ministers promise action and then fail to deliver on this issue.

With Veterans Affairs Canada, the Conservatives cut $225 million out of the budget. There is no concern for modern-day veterans. There is no concern for the young men and women who went on peacekeeping missions. There is none.

At the veterans affairs committee, we heard testimony from organizations that provide vital services to our Canadian veterans and their families. Those organizations, like the last post fund, had their budgets cut in 1995 to reduce government deficits. Those cuts have never been redressed, let alone seen an indexation for inflation, the kind we have seen over 20 years.

I should point out that this is not only the Conservative government's failure. It started with the Liberals, the same Liberals who voted in the past to support Conservative omnibus budget bills.

Those bills in the past included weakening environmental assessment in Canada. Bill C-31 would do nothing to correct that. We have a responsibility to leave clean water and breathable air to future generations in Canada, and we need to start now. We have heard that dire warning over and over.

I have received overwhelming support from the constituents of London—Fanshawe and the surrounding area to return the Thames River to inclusion in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians understand the value of environmental protection to the quality of life and a healthy economy. Why do the Conservatives not get that?

I see nothing in the budget, nor Bill C-31, to address Canada's staggering infrastructure deficit. New Democrats proposed a reversal of the $5.8 billion that the Conservatives cut from local infrastructure. We should be working with the provinces. We should be working with Canadians. We should be working to preserve rail travel and ensure that cargo transport on trains is sustainable, affordable, and safe. There is nothing in this budget that speaks to any of those needs.

In conclusion, I would like to end with my opening observation. Let the Conservatives rail that New Democrats did not support this budget or previous budgets. How could we possibly do that when these budgets harm Canadian families, veterans, and seniors?

We need something much better. Canadians deserve something much better.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on many subjects. One of them that is near and dear to my heart, as everyone heard after question period, is the Algoma Central Railway passenger service. While other countries are moving forward at a very quick pace to make sure there is passenger service and to address climate change and infrastructure issues, the Conservative government lags behind.

I want to ask the member if she thinks that the government is actually fiscally responsible and whether it should be handling the taxes and the economy.

Let us look at the history. It wasted $50 million building things like gazebos in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board, $2 billion to host a G8 meeting that could have been held somewhere else at lower cost, $14 million on advertising in one day, and millions to buy expensive advertising during a hockey game for a job program that did not exist. As well, let us not forget the $2 million fake lake.

Maybe my colleague would like to talk about whether this is a government that should be leading Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out some of the misspending. I think $14 million on ads and $50 million for fake lakes and gazebos is a little much.

I would like to also mention the $72.5 billion that the government has given away to profitable corporations in tax breaks while veterans and seniors suffer and there is no child care. It has no money for the people of this country, but it has all kinds of money for profitable corporations.

It says it is going to create jobs. Tell that to the 300,000 Canadians who are still waiting. Tell that to the people of London—Fanshawe, who have lost many good jobs in the last few years.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the member speak as an Ontario member of Parliament. I recall when the member was a minister in the Ontario NDP government that almost bankrupted the province of Ontario, that saw a million people on welfare, that saw millions of people lose their jobs and promise after promise broken.

This is a member who just criticized the fact that we are giving Canadians $100 extra every month. She criticized that. She criticizes the fact that we have increased funding for our veterans by $5 billion. She criticizes and votes against the good work done by the Minister of International Trade, who signs new free trade deals that tremendously benefit her region of the country. An incredible investment is being made. The deal that the minister signed recently will help manufacturers in her own riding, and she will stand to vote against that as well.

On every measure that counts when it comes to job creation, protecting the environment, protecting manufacturers, or enhancing the economy, the member votes against it. Her party has a record of destroying economies.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the member has mentioned some of these things, because I think he needs a history lesson.

Yes, I was in that government in Ontario between 1990 and 1995. Do members know what happened to that government? In 1989, the welfare rate was $1.89 billion. That was for people who were in desperate situations. The federal government decided that was not enough, so it changed the unemployment insurance rules, and the very next year that welfare rate was up to $6 billion.

Then the same bunch of people cut transfers for health care, training, and education. We wonder why students have horrendous debts in this country; it is because of the cuts to the very programs that were intended to maintain those people and help to make sure they had access to the economy.

He talks about free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are fine if they are fair trade agreements. What about the people who are injured by those agreements? What about the environment? What about the loss of labour rights? What about the loss of jobs because the government could not put in clauses to make sure that jobs here in Canada are protected?

Do not give me any rhetoric. I was there.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Order.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to BIA no. 1 today. We all know that the budget was introduced a number of months ago now, and there are two process whereby we turn our budget into legislation. Today what we are talking about is the first very important piece of legislation.

When I spoke to the budget a number of months ago, I talked about how we had a plan that started when we first took government in 2006. It was a plan that saw us through the global recession, and we saw how the finance minister followed this plan and was leading us into some of the best positions in the G7, including the best net debt-to-GDP ratio and the best job growth rate. We are incredibly proud of the plan that we had, which saw us through a very difficult time and coming back to a balanced budget.

That speaks to the three broad themes of this budget: returning to balance, supporting jobs and growth, and supporting families and communities. I will speak to these three themes and perhaps give some small examples that represent those themes, but first I want to make a general statement.

We hear the New Democrats frequently comment about the number of pages. I am not sure if they have challenges and do not want to read those 359 pages, but it is important to recognize that legislatively it sometimes takes a lot of pages to make a little change.

For example, making MP pensions fairer for Canadians was a small change, but it took about 20 pages of legislation to actually do that. I do not think we should be judging a budget document, a plan, in terms of its number of pages.

The other point I would like to make is that I certainly believe that if the NDP, God forbid, ever had the opportunity to present a budget, given all its national plans and tax raises, it would probably fill a bookshelf with national strategy, national strategy, tax increase, tax increase. That is one piece that we need to look at.

Of course, we know that the Liberals would probably have about one page. They know that budgets balance themselves, so one page would probably be sufficient for any budget that the Liberals might decide to present.

Our government realizes that crafting a plan is a multi-year, multi-faceted process, and it requires measures that are both large and small.

First I would like to target why it is important that we return to a balanced budget.

We know that we cannot leave debt for our children and grandchildren. It would not be fair. We would not do it as a family member and we should not be doing it as a country. We also know that when we have a good fiscal position, our debt repayment is low, which means we have more money for health care, hospitals, and all the many things that Canadians feel would add value for infrastructure. When we are not paying a lot of money in debt repayment, we have additional funds to focus in those areas. We know that it gives us the ability to keep taxes low and gives us the opportunity for flexibility and stability.

When we first took government, economic times were good. We paid down $37 billion in debt. We had to provide some economic stimulus during the years, but we are on track to be back to a balanced budget by 2015-16.

Certainly if we look around the world and compare Canada with other countries, we can be incredibly proud. How do we do that? We do it in two ways. We do it on the revenue side. We do it by creating an environment where small and large businesses can thrive and survive and create that economic benefit. We do it through our aggressive trade plan and our trade agreements, such as the South Korean and the European free trade agreements, just to name a couple.

In the province of British Columbia, my cattlemen in B.C. are absolutely thrilled with the aggressive measures we have taken in terms of what is going to open up new markets for them. They have gone through an incredibly difficult time and they see huge opportunities. It was said by the cattlemen that they now have 500 million hungry customers waiting for them, so creating the environment for revenue is really important. Ensuring that the people pay their fair share of taxes by closing tax loopholes is another part of taking care of the revenue side.

The expenditure side is another important area. Again, we are looking at the expenditure side very carefully. We are making sure that the money the government spends is very thoughtful money. We are making sure that there is value for dollars, and we have undertaken a number of measures to make sure that compensation is fair.

That was a look at the return to balanced budgets and the importance of returning to balanced budgets.

Now I have just a few comments about some measures for supporting jobs and growth. I will look at one, which is a very tiny measure. We know that in British Columbia, we have a fabulous wine industry. The member for Okanagan—Coquihalla has a private member's bill to make changes to the importation of intoxicating liquor so that if people are visiting British Columbia from Ontario, they can go to one of those wineries and pick up a bottle from Quails' Gate or another winery and take it across the border. It would really open up the market. Amazingly, in Canada, the ability for interprovincial trade has been constrained for our wine industry.

In this bill we have given craft brewers and artisan distillers the same opportunities to open up their markets. I will give an example. I used to be the mayor of Pemberton. Pemberton is well known for its seed potatoes and it is known for its pristine glacier waters.

I can remember, when I was there, that for many years people would muse that someone should make vodka in Pemberton. They had potatoes and fantastic water. What a great combination.

Entrepreneurs are out there. It did not happen when I was there, but a family moved to Pemberton, and they had the same thought. They created a new business venture, Pemberton Distillery, and they make Schramm vodka. It was a small entrepreneur setting up a business. What we are doing is opening up their opportunity to sell their product.

When that kind of environment is created across the country, what we are doing is creating success for our small and medium-sized businesses. Again, it is a small measure, but it is incredibly important in terms of what the opportunities will be.

There is another area we are looking at supporting for opportunities, jobs, and growth. Last week, the Premier of British Columbia was in Ottawa. She was speaking about skilled trades shortages. She was speaking about their goal, which is coming to fruition, of having a robust LNG industry in British Columbia. She was talking about needing the manpower to fill the jobs that are going to be created.

We did identify, and I know that it is not across the country, that there are definitely skills shortages. We have a need for apprenticeship support. We have done a lot in terms of the apprenticeship program.

If we look at someone who perhaps is going back into an apprenticeship, he might have a wife and a family. We announced support in this latest budget such that registered Red Seal programs will have access to $100 million in interest-free loans. That is $4,000 per individual per session. That can make the difference for people going back, getting their Red Seal, and opening up their opportunities in terms of the new available jobs throughout British Columbia and Alberta, and of course, across the country. Again, it is important support that is going to hopefully help generate the people we need into the future.

Finally, every one of us, in our offices, have cases that touch us. I had a case of a couple who were not able to have children of their own. They had waited many years and were able to adopt a child. This child was in another country. Of course, sometimes babies do not come according to plan. The baby was born prematurely. The family had to travel to this country to spend time with their newborn. The expenses to spend that time before they were able to bring their newborn back home were extraordinary.

The $15,000 tax credit they could have to support their adoption expenses would make a phenomenal difference.

The crafting of this budget was done with input from Canadians across this country. We see many measures that we know we submitted or that our colleagues submitted. It is a plan to move Canada forward, and it is a plan to return to balanced budgets and a successful, prosperous future.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to ask the member a question. I have been on committee with her before and I know that she is dedicated to trying to resolve some issues.

However, she comes from an area where there was a residential school in her riding, and since the residential school apology there are still a lot of wrongs being done when it comes to our first nations.

I met with a couple of people this morning, Ron Beaver and Roy Thunder, who came to talk about the native alcohol drug assessment program and the fact that they are not within the wage parity with others. For example, the wage for someone who works on reserve as an addictions counsellor is about $35,437, yet in the health care bargaining unit in an Ontario institution it is $47,736.

Does the member not believe that they should have wage parity, and why is the government always pushing back when it comes to providing proper funding, especially when it comes to the health care of first nations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to address that question. The member is perhaps not familiar with it, and I hope other provinces follow suit, but the first nations in British Columbia, in partnership with the federal government and the province, were the first to sign on to a first nations health authority. They are assuming responsibility for their services, their programs. Everyone is watching, and this will be a great opportunity in terms of creating the robust programs that meet the health care needs of our first nations communities throughout British Columbia. Hopefully, they will follow suit across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's fantastic speech really highlights the comparison and contrast between the NDP's plan and our plan. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on this. The NDP has made, I think it is $56-billion worth of unfunded promises, and so far we know it wants a $20-billion carbon tax. However, as the member knows, we have decreased taxes across the board, whether it is the GST, from 7% to 6% to 5%, small business taxes, or personal taxes. The average family of four now pays $3,400 less federal taxes with this Conservative government compared to before.

I am wondering if the member could give us an idea about the further contrast between our government's responsible approach to returning to balanced budgets and the $56-billion worth of unfunded promises by the NDP. How does she think New Democrats are going to make up that difference?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have looked very carefully at the NDP's plan, its plan on the carbon tax and the plan in terms of how it was going to spend that money. To be frank, it was a myriad and hodgepodge of social programs that the members were going to spend that money on.

In contrast, we believe that Canadians work very hard for their money and they need to keep that money in their pockets. It is very expensive these days in terms of day-to-day living. The more we can have that hard-earned money in the pockets of Canadians, the better off Canadians will be, and of course the better off Canada will be because they will be investing that money. They will be investing it into their families, their futures, their businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the hon. member's speech does not reflect the economic reality of all Canadians.

Canadians have been experiencing growing financial instability for a long time now. It is getting worse, not better. She is all sunshine and lollipops, but she needs a reality check. Every day, all Canadians are facing poverty.

They talk about cutting taxes. I am sorry, but when Canada Post doubles postage rates, that is a tax. Implementing P3 programs that people have to pay for is a tax too. Worse still, the Conservatives treat pension funds like a tax, not a savings.

What will happen when people are retired and have to live in poverty? The government will have to raise taxes to pay for the savings that people are not making now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely proud of the work that our government has done for seniors. The number who are living below the poverty line, compared with when we took office, has changed dramatically. The increase to the GIS was the biggest increase in many years, and there is income splitting available to seniors.

Again, our record on seniors is very strong and we are very proud of that record.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the enthusiasm of my colleagues across the way.

It is my honour to stand and bring the voices of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, but I believe my remarks will also reflect the views of many Canadians across Canada. I have heard nothing but complaints from members of my community about the fact that the government is once again bringing in an omnibus bill, cramming all kinds of measures into one very large so-called budget bill, making significant changes that would fundamentally affect the lives of Canadians, and then, for more than the 60th time in the House, restricting the time available for Canadians to look at the bill and for parliamentarians to effectively debate the contents of it. This bill is over 300 pages in length and seeks to legislate many distinct areas of the lives of Canadians. It is not simply on the economy.

I have to say that I am also very concerned about what it is not in the bill. There is nothing in this bill that would address the growing number of part-time jobs without benefits that are replacing good-paying, full-time, secure jobs that Canadians are losing and have lost, both during and since the recession. There is nothing for a generation of young people unable to find stable work and start their lives without massive amounts of student debt. There is nothing to address the apparent use of EI funds to balance the budget, as opposed to giving the majority of unemployed Canadians access to benefits that would help them make the transition from one job to another without an economic calamity taking place in their lives. This is the case for far too many Canadians, and it is certainly affecting many in my community.

This is also a government unwilling to protect our environment, even with international governing organizations, such as the UN, calling on Canada to be a leader in reducing climate change. In fact, as parliamentarians and a growing number of Canadians well know, the government has used these omnibus budget bills to erode and attack environmental provisions that would protect our environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I want to speak about jobs. Good jobs have been lost under the current government, but year after year there is nothing to help Canadians get back to work. This bill fails to renew the NDP's tax credit for small businesses, a tax credit that we know creates jobs. It would also nullify the existing agreements that identify which jobs are essential and which will effectively disrupt bargaining that is already under way. Over 1.3 million Canadians are still unemployed, and the government has chosen to waste its time legislating measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech rather than taking real action to help Canadians get back to work.

The vast majority of jobs created by the government have been part time, including almost 70% of the jobs created in March alone. As a result, Canadians who were able to recover employment after the recession often find themselves working two or three part-time jobs to try to make ends meet instead of working the one job they used to be able to work in order to support themselves and their families.

It is no wonder that we are seeing growing levels of income and wealth inequality in this country. A report that came out just last week showed that the wealthiest 86 individuals in this country control the same amount of wealth as the poorest 11.4 million. If that is not inequality, I do not know what is. This bill fails to address that growing inequality and, frankly, Canadians deserve much better.

I am pleased that the government has finally accepted the NDP's proposal to cap the amount that wireless carriers can charge other suppliers.

However, this is too late for many Canadian start-ups. This delay has increased convergence in the wireless market. Consumers have few options, which results in price increases.

We hear this concern over extremely high rates for telecom services from Canadians across the country.

I also want to raise the issue of FATCA. This may be something the majority of Canadians do not know much about, but for Canadians who hold dual Canadian-American citizenship, the bill is very troubling. An entire bill about FATCA is enclosed in this omnibus budget bill. It would impose the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act amid questions in the United States about the constitutionality of the act. However, the government does not seem to care if FATCA would be found to be unconstitutional because it is not bound by the U.S. Constitution. It is one of the only governments happy to give out the private details of its citizens' financials. In other words, Canadians' private banking information is to be made available to the U.S. for tax reasons to comply with—wait for it—American law. The bill would give the Minister of National Revenue the power to make any regulation necessary to carry out this highly controversial act.

It is entirely inappropriate for the government to present this legislation by burying it in an omnibus bill with time allocation so that we do not get adequate time to study and debate this bill within a bill. The government is just hoping Canadians will not notice, but I suggest that Canadians are taking notice and are very concerned about these tax changes.

I also want to speak a bit about rail safety and transparency. The government does not seem to care about keeping legislation transparent, but it also seems cavalier about Canadians' safety. For example, the bill would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without even informing the public. Any cabinet decisions that change the safety requirements for the transport of dangerous good would now become secret.

This includes changes to the classification of dangerous goods, the training and qualifications of inspectors, and rules regarding the importation and transport of dangerous goods. The public would have no way of knowing the government has weakened safety measures because it does not have to be made public. The bill would even prevent experts from advising the minister before the changes would come into effect.

So much for allowing big data to inform our government policies, as the hon. member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam promised yesterday.

As well, the bill demonstrates to Canadians that the government thinks that our parents and grandparents are a burden. It would make it more difficult for families to reunite in Canada, and new Canadians would have to live an extended period in Canada before receiving GIS or the OAS survivor's allowance. Not only would sponsors be financially responsible for new Canadians for a significantly longer period of time, but this measure would also clearly set a distinction between those Canadians who were born here and those who were not.

Employees in the private sector work hard, whereas those in the public sector twiddle their thumbs.

Apparently wealthy single-income families deserve $3 billion in tax breaks while the other 86% of Canadians do not. New Democrats believe the government has a responsibility to all Canadians, no matter what their income, where they work, or where they were born. That is why, despite the cherry-picked New Democrat policies included in the bill, my hon. colleagues and I cannot support it. We believe Canadians deserve better, and New Democrats are going to keep fighting every day to ensure Canadians get the better treatment they deserve, despite this government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is related to what I and we in the Liberal Party believe is a critically important issue to all Canadians, and that is our health care system.

As we know, at the end of March the health care accord expired. That was signed by Paul Martin back in 2004. It was the way in which we ultimately ensured that the national government played a significant role in health care through all regions of our great country.

Unfortunately, the budget and the government have failed in terms of being able to deliver a replacement for the health care accord, which raises a lot of concern about the commitment the Conservatives have toward a national health care program.

I am wondering if the member might want to provide some comment on how important it was for the government to have found a replacement for the health care accord, which actually expired at the end of March.

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

Mr. Speaker, health care remains the top priority of Canadians. Especially with an aging population, Canadians want to ensure that our publicly funded, publicly delivered, regulated health care system remains in place and is not eroded and does not face death by a thousand cuts.

Unfortunately, the government has not renewed the health accords with the provinces, and more than that, it will erode funding for health at a level of 6% less per year. That is going to create great hardship, and the provinces are going to have to manage that reduced amount of money they are receiving for health care. That cannot have any other impact but to affect the health care services Canadians want and need.

It is another great omission in this budget and this budget implementation bill that the Conservatives have not stepped up to the plate and provided security for health care funding that Canadians want.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a correction. Canadians are not treated differently, as the member tries to suggest in her speech.

One of the areas we are working on with taxes is enhancing reporting and verification, trying to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. That is something I believe the NDP would want to support.

To misrepresent any of our clauses in the budget by saying we are treating the American Canadians differently is incorrect, and I just want to put that on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact that is exactly what is happening. Those Canadians who hold dual Canadian-American citizenship are in fact going to have their bank records turned over to a foreign country, which is the United States of America, which is treating Canada as though we are a tax haven.

New Democrats certainly want to go after legitimate tax havens where there are tens of billions of dollars being squirrelled away around the world. It was this party that fought for a study of tax havens at the finance committee, but it was the government that then subsequently laid off CRA staff who are the people who actually collect that money.

We would rather go after the real tax havens, the real tax evaders, than honest, hard-working Canadians who happen to hold Canadian-American dual citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of FATCA, there are probably hundreds of thousands of accidental American citizens who will also be found in this great schism of sending their data to the U.S.

Those are the children who were born in Canada, who have never lived in the United States, who have never been a United States citizen, who the U.S. is now declaring are United States citizens as a result of their parents having been American. Those children would now be subject to having their banking information sent to the U.S.

It would create a divide. Two children born on the same day in the same hospital in Canada, one with American parents and one with Canadian parents, would be treated differently. Maybe the member would like to comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of people who are just discovering that, in fact, they hold dual Canadian-American citizenship; and the member is quite right that even if they have never worked in the United States, the fact that they are American citizens because they hold dual citizenship scoops them into this net of FATCA.

My office has been deluged with calls from concerned citizens since this initiative by the U.S. was first announced. We do not believe that the government has effectively protected the interests of Canadians.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on one specific component of this bill, which is often not discussed in this place but is one that is really dear to my heart, which is the protection of intellectual property. The protection of intellectual property has a strong correlation to how we see the commercialization of innovative products in this country, as well as the economic growth and prosperity of our country.

I would like my hon. colleagues to pay attention to division 25 of this bill, which would make amendments relating to international treaties on trademarks. This is a discussion I had been following in my professional career prior to entering politics. Prior to entering politics, I did a lot of work dealing with intellectual property management and protection.

This particular issue has been consulted on by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. I give a shout-out to the staff there from the House of Commons. A lot of hard-working staff there deal with this issue on a daily basis. I believe there was a consultation conducted in the 2005-06 period, roughly, and then another one in 2010. Additionally, the industry committee on the House of Commons side conducted a study on intellectual property, I believe, last year.

It has been interesting to follow this discussion and then see the changes reflected in this bill today. I want to speak in favour of them.

For those of my colleagues here who are not familiar with what a trademark is, the current definition, according to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, is:

Trade-marks may be one or a combination of words, sounds or designs used to distinguish the goods or services of one person or organization from those of others in the marketplace.

I am just going to talk a little bit about the rationale for division 25. The amendments contained therein would create the necessary authority to develop regulations that would implement the Madrid protocol. The Madrid protocol offers trademark owners the ability to obtain protections for their trademark in a number of countries through a single international application.

They would ensure consistency with the standards and rules established by the Singapore treaty on the law of trademarks. The Singapore treaty seeks to harmonize and streamline national trademark registration systems in ways that are user-friendly and reduce business compliance costs for trademark owners.

The amendments would adopt the Nice classification system that is used by most countries to categorize goods and services for the purposes of the registration of trademarks. The Nice system facilitates searching for and comparing different marks, which promotes the efficient administration of the trademark system, and effects other consequential amendments arising from adherence to the Madrid protocol or the Singapore treaty, such as simplifying the requirements for obtaining a filing date, eliminating the need to declare the use of a trademark before registration, which would greatly reduce the time it takes to obtain registration, and requiring use of a trademark in the Canadian market in order to seek injunction relief from the courts.

What does that mean in simple terms? If individuals are owners of a trademark or have something they want to trademark, they have to make the decision on where they want to file for that protection. This applies to other forms of intellectual property protection as well, including patents.

A lot of the time, people think that when they have a trademark, it means it is valid the world over, but that is not the case. They actually have to register it in separate jurisdictions. Usually, when people discuss whether or not they are going to do it in one jurisdiction or another, there are a few things that come into play. Are they going to sell their product in that jurisdiction? Do they need to have that trademark there in order to enforce their ownership of that?

They also have to consider the cost. When I was working in the university system, oftentimes when we had researchers come to us to ask whether or not they should seek patent protection, one of the things we had to look at was the cost of doing so. There is the cost associated with registering intellectual property protections with the various countries, but often the big cost is related to legal fees, because the owners have to use the appropriate agent or lawyer to do that.

In Canada, because we have not had adherence to these types of protocols—we are actually one of the few developed countries that has not signed on to some of them—some of our inventors and innovators are subject to more costs.

I would like to read a note. It was submitted to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office on February 2, 2010, in relation to the consultation I mentioned earlier, and it is specific to the Madrid protocol. It was submitted by somebody named Rupi Badwal.

It says as follows:

I have been registering trade-marks in Canada for my clients, the majority of which are small to medium-sized businesses. Many of them have success in Canada and wish to enter other markets. In facilitating their trade-mark applications in Canada, I am often asked if I can register the mark in the US or Europe or Asia on their behalf. When I advise that we cannot do so without use of a local agent, the cost for which can be quite substantial, many of them decline. Acceding to the Madrid Protocol would permit my clients the opportunity to obtain the protection they seek without paying inordinate legal fees.

So first, I have to speak in support of the intellectual property profession in this country. In Canada, we have an enormous wealth of knowledge, people who act as patent agents both in house with legal firms and at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, et cetera. However, at the end of the day, we have to look at ways in which we can reduce barriers to entry into the marketplace for Canadian innovators. The changes we would make to the Trade-marks Act in this bill would actually be quite significant, and I believe they would make it a lot easier for Canadian innovators to protect their intellectual property.

I know this is something that is a bit technical, but it is something that I hope a lot of my colleagues will support because it is a common-sense, practical change that a lot of people have been predicting will come to pass in this country. It is nice to see this finally happen. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak to it in the House, as someone with some domain expertise on this, because I do think it is a very good change.

This change was also recommended by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in its June 2013 report. I am looking at the government response to that, but one of the recommendations from that report was:

...that the Government of Canada (in order to support Canadian businesses on the global stage and ensure the administration of Canada's IP regime is internationally compatible and streamlined) ratify the following key international agreements: the Patent Law Treaty, the Madrid Protocol and Singapore Treaty for trademarks, and the Hague Agreement for Industrial Designs;

...that the Government of Canada work with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to introduce regulations and legislations that will reduce the time it takes to grant IP rights and bring Canada in line with other countries.

Division 25 of this bill would do exactly what was recommended in this report. Looking at the list of speakers and folks who contributed to this study, we see that it crosses the range of people, from the IP profession, to people who work in law offices, to people who are in-house, to investigators themselves.

I also looked at some of the other comments that came in during the original CIPO study. A letter from Intel Corporation states, in part:

The Madrid Protocol of 1995 (in conjunction with the 1891 Madrid Agreement) enables trademark owners to obtain a single International Registration that can extend protection to any country that has signed the Protocol by a single filing in one language, under one procedure, with the payment of one fee. The Protocol also allows for 10 year registrations and a single renewal filing. Outside of Canada, Intel often utilizes the Madrid Protocol for cost savings and efficiencies in its trademark prosecution. Canada is the only developed country not yet a party to the Protocol. Its accession to the protocol would allow trademark owners to more easily and cost effectively secure and maintain trademark protection in Canada.

If we talk to a lot of the innovative companies, many of which are small and medium-size enterprises in this country, we will see that this is a common theme. I have a strong passion for seeing innovation in Canada—certainly the work that Western Economic Diversification is doing, the ministry I am responsible for—and to see that innovation spur. However, we need to have the appropriate intellectual property regime in this country—modern and standardized with other countries—to allow that intellectual property to be protected and translated into the marketplace and, more importantly, bring us into alignment with some of our key trading partners as we seek to look at other trade agreements.

Therefore this is a very good response. While this might be something that is not top of mind for many of my colleagues, I hope they will familiarize themselves with this particular part of the bill.

Also, anytime we can talk about intellectual property protection in this place, it is a good thing. It is a signal to innovators and to small and medium-size enterprises that, when they take a risk and innovate and when they take a risk as a business and say they are going to spend time and resources on developing new products and new technologies, which are the drivers of long-term economic growth in this country, that the government gets it and that we have protection that is well in alignment.

I am happy to take questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. However, this piece of this budget implementation bill is actually 52 pages or more of fairly detailed, fairly complex material that, generally speaking, according to the parliamentary secretary, is good for Canada and good for Canadians and good for people who have trademarks. However, it is buried in a 350-page bill, which renders it almost impossible to have the kind of scrutiny and analysis that would be possible if this were introduced as its own bill.

We are now facing time allocation on this bill. We have another one and a half days of debate available to us, including debate on what may well be a very interesting piece of legislation were it to stand on its own. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have chosen to introduce it as part of something else, so it will not get the scrutiny it needs.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought this up today. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to pay attention to a wide variety of topics that are important to our constituents. That is why I talked about the long road to seeing this legislation come into place. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has consulted on this twice. All of its responses are available online. It was also reviewed by the standing committee on industry.

I did this on my own time. I used Google and found all of the responses from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office consultations. As well, I read through the committee report. Accordingly, I was able to come to this place and engage in a relevant discussion on a particular topic that is long overdue.

I am glad to see this legislation included in this bill and I hope to see it pass.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the debate here, I appreciate the hard work that the parliamentary secretary has done to inform herself about the changes to trademarks. As my NDP colleague said, they may well be positive changes, but that is the parliamentary secretary's job. She is the parliamentary secretary for an economic portfolio and her stakeholders would be interested in this.

The point remains that an omnibus bill is not supposed to be for introducing new policy elements into law. Until the current government came into power, the convention in this House was that changes that were substantive and of interest to a broad range of Canadians should be debated in their own bill, not slipped into an omnibus bill. This is a brand new area of policy. It has little to do with the budget. Hiding it in this bill is simply not appropriate and is anti-democratic.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce myself to my critic. I am the minister for the portfolio. Perhaps if she paid attention to that, she might ask some questions on western economic diversification in the House or engage with me on this topic. I was pleased to be appointed minister of state to this portfolio and I would welcome her comments on this as the critic, hopefully at some point during question period.

The member also made the false assertion that this does not have anything to do with the budget. The protection of intellectual property is one of the key components of an innovative economy. Having innovative intellectual property laws that are streamlined with other jurisdictions' in the world makes Canada a stronger place to do business and, therefore, a stronger economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that innovation is important and that it is extremely important that we address the innovation gap in Canada. This particular section of an omnibus bill is not the right way to do it.

Recently, I have been reading some of the commentary by one of Canada's better known innovators, Jim Balsillie, who has been talking about the fact that where we fall down globally in multi-factor productivity relates to our failure to protect our IPR rights globally. This section of the omnibus budget bill would not get us to where we need to be. I agree with my hon. friend that any time we talk about this issue it is a good thing, but burying it in an omnibus bill is not the right place to do this. What we find with making trademark one word and having copyright protection around trademark is that it does not go nearly far enough to protect Canadian innovation and our companies going into a global marketplace.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are talking about the length of this bill. Again, I have to say that if we talk to those in the profession or the field, they will know that these changes are a long time coming. We have consulted on these to death. It is awesome that these changes are in these bills.

However, I have to ask my colleagues why they do not take the time to look through the feedback in those long consultation processes. They stand here and slow vote or spend time on inane things when we could be talking about the good policy that is in here today. It is incumbent upon us as legislators to make the debate in this place relevant. There is a lot of good stuff in this bill that is long overdue, including this section. It is a little rich to say that we cannot accept policy that has been consulted on for over the course of a decade because it is included in a budget bill.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, having just been part of a debate about major policy changes that were put into the bill.

One of the first points I want to make is that it is an abuse of parliamentary process to take complex areas of public policy and to propose policy change to them by slipping them into a budget bill like this. It is an abuse because the members on this side of the House are not able to find out the details of that section of the bill, and because there are so many new and different policy changes that are not related. This is not an omnibus bill with housekeeping changes, but includes major policy changes, making it impossible in the short amount of time allocated for debate to cover all of the facets of the bill adequately.

It is one more anti-democratic omnibus bill that really undermines Parliament's role to properly discuss and give input, and then have a proper opportunity at committee to look at a substantive and complex public policy issue. This is because there are literally 500 separate clauses, more than 40 different pieces of legislation involved, and 359 pages in the bill. Omnibus bills are a hallmark of the Conservative government's disdain for Parliament and its function and the hallmark of its disdain for the Canadian public and its stakeholders, who deserve better.

There are some implications of the bill overall that I would like to touch on and then some specific measures that I will be discussing.

First, the bill overall misses the mark for Canadians. It is essentially designed to provide some speaking points in the next election that would be advantageous to one party, the Conservative Party. It fails to address the major concerns of Canadians. It fails to address the fact that our economy is just limping along, and the measures that the government has taken have been so driven toward partisan advantage and not to the benefit of Canadians that it has failed really to put our economy back on track.

I am from the riding of Vancouver Quadra, and in Vancouver the business community is surprised and disappointed by the dismal level of capital investment for B.C. projected for the coming year. This budget is not helping British Columbia. I will quote the Business Council of B.C. executive vice-president, Jock Finlayson, in his March blog post:

We were surprised at the weak overall investment outlook for British Columbia. Total capital spending in the province...is set to come in essentially flat this year, compared to 2013....

His remarks were based on a Statistics Canada report in February.

This budget fails to address the high unemployment rate for young people, far higher than it was when the government took office. It fails to address the fact that middle-class Canadians are staggering under record high debt loads compared with their incomes, which creates a great deal of concern about their ability to put their kids through school and just manage their day-to-day finances, and of course it createdes concerns about retirement security, which is not being addressed in any substantive way by the government, contrary to what the provinces have been asking it to do.

Last, one aspect of the budget that we Liberals are extremely concerned about is that it is essentially cutting almost 90% of the new infrastructure spending over the next two years. This is very important funding for the communities, for jobs, and for the economy.

Vancouver Quadra has the Broadway Corridor, the second largest economic zone in greater Vancouver. According to a KPMG report, the development of that economy and investment in high tech, health sciences, and all of the businesses and activities along the Broadway Corridor are being impeded by poor connectivity, including poor transportation. We need rapid transit along that corridor. It would benefit our economy, but is the kind of project that would be pushed far into the future by this budget because of its cuts to the government's current infrastructure spending.

The Conservatives' new building Canada fund had $1.63 billion for this year, which has just passed, but goes down to $210 million for the year we are now in. That is a massive reduction. However, it will be only $200 million in the following year, and it will be years before it is back at the level it was at last year. This undermines for years to come the plans and economic prospects that depend on infrastructure. This is an aspect of the bill that is taking partisan advantage over the economic realities and investments required by Canadians today.

Second, I would like to talk about the part of the bill where the Department of National Defence loses $3.1 billion. This is a claw-back of funding that had been announced before, and it is on top of a lot of other claw-backs. There will be over $7 billion clawed back from DND's budget.

The Department of National Defence is a very important to the economy of Canada. Not only does Canada need an effective, prepared, and respected military, but it also needs a military that is ready to serve the sovereignty and defence requirements of our country, as may be outlined by the leadership of the country. The National Defence budget is a huge economic driver of jobs, contracts, exports, equipment, and technological innovation.

The Conservative government raised expectation with its Canada first defence strategy funding promises, which I now call the Conservative's failed defence strategy because of how those promises have been broken. In fact, to date approximately $30 billion has been clawed back or cut from the level of funding promised by the Conservatives' failed defence strategy, according to defence analyst Dave Perry.

This has led to equipment delays, making equipment far more costly down the line when it does arrive, and it has meant that our men and women in uniform are using obsolete equipment that poses safety risks. It has also meant that there has not been proper funding for the kind of support that wounded soldiers desperately need.

I was shocked to find through an access to information request that the director of mental health for the Canadian Forces, Colonel Scott McLeod, a year ago begged to be able to hire uniformed registered psychologists in the armed forces because they were so desperately needed. He said that “...there is strong indication that the addition of a uniformed clinical psychology capability would greatly enhance the mental health care of CAF members...”. He said these positions were crucial to the effectiveness of care for ill and injured soldiers.

However, the minister ignored that request. To date, not a single uniformed clinical psychologist has been hired by the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the care is not adequate. It has been reported by the ombudsman and soldiers themselves for a number of years, and it is having tragic consequences. So why are there these cuts and the government making these kinds of uncompassionate decisions that are landing on soldiers who have risked their lives for our country? It is completely unacceptable.

In part of 1 of the bill there is a tax credit for search and rescue. We support the tax credit, but we wonder why it is not refundable so that those who are doing search and rescue—which is a very important service to their community—and who are not in a position to pay taxes will get no benefit from this tax credit.

Veterans put their lives on the line. In part 6, division 1, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that the government will withdraw its opposition to the Equitas court case. A number of wounded solders are having to go to court to get the support they need, such as increased lump sum payments for injuries, and a proper pension, which veterans have always been provided with in the past in Canada. They deserve better, and they deserve to be cared for. That is part of the sacred compact that the current government is fighting to undermine through its lawyer in the Equitas lawsuit.

I would like to talk about other elements, FATCA. Vancouver Quadra residents are very concerned about the impact of this—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague give her comments on the budget, and I would like her to reflect upon some of the history. She talked about business, so she would know that business rises and falls through a business cycle, and she would know that employment and unemployment happen along with that business cycle.

I wonder if she would tell this House why it was that when it was so desperately needed for keeping the money in the unemployment fund, the Liberals raided that fund and took $52 billion and never put that money back. Would she tell the House what her employers say about that?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little disappointing that members from the Conservative Party continue to go back decades rather than actually defending their actions over the last eight years.

This government has been in power for eight years. It has been raising taxes on small business by increasing EI premiums year after year, at a time when businesses simply could not afford that due to a recession.

I would also remind the member that in eight years this government has brought in seven consecutive deficit budgets. The only reason it was not eight is because the government cruised in on a $13-billion surplus that was left to it by the previous Liberal government which had ten consecutive surplus budgets.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments on the rationale that was used by the minister of state just now.

I think that in a sort of free of context way, it makes sense to say that all of the consultations that went in to the intellectual property section help to validate why they should move forward as legislation, although not necessarily in the middle of a huge omnibus bill.

The question for my colleague is that if we use that standard, how much of the rest of this omnibus bill would be on solid ground? I am thinking of the FATCA provisions. It seems very clear there has been absolutely no consultation with Canadians who are both American and Canadian citizens.

I also wonder whether or not the minister of state might want to talk to her colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, to suggest that standard of consultation might well have prevented him from getting into trouble, as he is now on Bill C-23.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The bill's response to FATCA raises obvious concerns about privacy and sovereignty. There was not the kind of consultations that could have avoided those concerns.

This is an element in Bill C-31 that attempts to shield Canadian banks from U.S. financial penalties. It protects Canadian banking information at the expense of those citizens of Canada who find themselves being targeted by FATCA and who are outraged that they would be required to have their banking information shared with the United States.

I think the overall point that my colleague was making is that this government is very well known for its absence of consultation.

I am very happy to hear that the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification has consulted widely on a complex issue.

That is exactly why it should be in its own bill and not wrapped up in this anti-democratic omnibus budget bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague would comment with regard to infrastructure dollars. This year there is a substantial decrease. I would ask her to comment on that, and the impact.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it has been an absolute knockout punch to the municipalities and provinces that were counting on the federal partnership in their infrastructure investments, a partnership that has existed for decades. It is nothing new for the federal government to invest in infrastructure. In fact, the federal government used to partner with the municipalities and provinces, on the basis of one-third each. The Conservative government has decided to whack off that infrastructure funding by 87%, bringing it down to a total for the next two years of $210 million a year.

To put it into perspective, on one project alone, the Canada Line in Vancouver, the previous Liberal government offered $500 million for that one project. That shows the scale of the tiny infrastructure funding that the Conservative government will put forward over the coming years. It will take years to ramp up to where it should be.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be speaking today in support of the Conservative government's budget 2014, also known as economic action plan 2014.

When some people think of budgets, they think of numbers and figures and their eyes glaze over. They think that they might have little impact on people's lives. However, I would like to point out today why this particular budget is extremely important for all Canadians, and that it has special significance for people from my constituency of Calgary Centre.

Budget 2014 responds to the number one ask of the people from Calgary Centre, and that is to balance the budget. Economic action plan 2014 not only provides a firm foundation for us to balance the books next year, but it will enable Canada to show a $6.4 billion surplus in 2015-16. This will be a promise delivered.

It is a phenomenal accomplishment, when we consider that it has just been eight years since Canada and the rest of the world was in a global recession, the worst recession to hit in 75 years.

People in Calgary Centre and across Canada applaud that leadership, the leadership of our Prime Minister. They know that it did not happen by accident. In fact, the flippant quip by the Liberal leader that the budget will balance itself is a tragic example of his misunderstanding of economics.

Unfortunately, it is in keeping with the naive and laughable statements that he is becoming well known for. However, this is not Canada's funniest home videos, and this is not leadership. The Liberal leader's response to this budget is concrete evidence that the Liberal leader actually is in well over his head.

Canadians need to know that. I am sure that all Conservatives, as well as the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc members, know it, because we see it in this House every single day.

This is not just political opponents saying it. Aaron Wherry, of Maclean's, even wrote about the Liberal leader, in a moment of understatement, I think, that “he is not the steadiest performer when in scrums or in the House”.

Warren Kinsella, a Liberal outsider, said of the member for Papineau, that he has a number of other problems, including lack of policy positions, a background that is weak, a very poor speaking delivery, and an impression that he is younger and less prepared than he should be.

Why do I bring this up? It is because this document that we are discussing today is where the rubber meets the road. In the budget, this is where Canadians need top-notch performance, and this is where we have received it from our Conservative Prime Minister.

Canadians know that we are not sitting with one of the best economies in the world by accident. They know it was the leadership of this Prime Minister that brought us through the 2008 recession, the worst recession since the 1930s.

Being from the Prairies, all of us know about the dirty thirties. After the dirty thirties, the rest of Canada helped the Prairies to recover, and now we owe it to them to help them achieve the same kind of prosperity that Alberta and Saskatchewan have today.

The west and Newfoundland are doing that now, with sustainable energy plays, with our government's strong oversight, support, and encouragement in helping Canada to recover from this recession.

Last week, at the parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources, we heard Dr. Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. He said, “The oil sands probably saved about 100,000 jobs between 2008 and going into 2009, 2010 in the recession”.

Our government is committed to the success of Canada as a nation, as well as to the economic growth of individual provinces. Energy is Canada's natural competitive advantage: make no mistake about that.

Every province and territory in Canada is benefiting from energy development. We all want the provinces to be able to share in that even more, by using their natural competitive advantages to ensure Canadian success from coast to coast to coast.

The members from the Liberal Party and the NDP were there when Mel Norton, who is the mayor of Saint John, New Brunswick, testified at the same committee meeting. He said:

We want to be a “have” place. We see what it has done in Saskatchewan, what it has done in Alberta, in Newfoundland, in British Columbia. We see so many provinces that are “have” places.

I am going to repeat that New Brunswick wants to be a “have” place.

As the many new monitoring measures our government has put in place in the budget show, we are striving every day to develop our resources more sustainably, while taking care of our environment. Canadians know that the Prime Minister is an excellent fiscal manager. They are coming to understand that under the Conservatives, energy and the environment can be nurtured and developed together. However, what will not work are the ideas of the no-development party, the NDP, or the Greens, or the mushy, mercurial, half-pregnant Liberals, who say that they might want oil sands development but are against pipelines and west coast tanker traffic. We will need all of these avenues if we want to compete with the U.S. Make no mistake, in the U.S., it is full steam ahead in oil and gas development.

With our economic leadership, hand in hand with the environmental improvements in the budget, we are moving Canada forward. That should be no surprise.

I would like to use my remaining time to talk about the things people may not have heard about, the softer side of the budget, the human side of this enterprise.

While the energy sector is helping Canada pay its bills and fund important programs, such as education, pensions, and health care, last summer, the tables were turned. Alberta was hit with the worst natural disaster in Canadian history when two rivers that meet in downtown Calgary both had 100-year-record flows at the same time. The flooding last June shut down the downtown for 10 days. It caused $5 billion in damages. It destroyed thousands of homes and lives.

Calgary is still dealing with the aftermath of the flood. To this day, there are people without homes. Many do not have the resources to rebuild their lives. In recent weeks, we advanced $500 million to the Alberta government for this purpose. We want to help these people in their efforts to restore their lives. We still have neighbourhoods that have a third or half the houses abandoned. People are living in hollowed out basements and do not have the funds to rebuild.

We have not stood by silently. The federal government announced, a record eight days after the flood, that it would cover 90% of Alberta's flood damage. It has already committed $2.8 billion to help. We urge the Alberta government to see these payments to Albertans expedited so that people can rebuild their basements and their lives.

In the last year, I have heard some people say that the federal government takes their city for granted, that it takes Calgary and Alberta for granted. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts support this. We have invested $3.3 billion in Alberta infrastructure, up from only $675 million under the Liberals. Our average infrastructure investment in Alberta is $412 million per year. That compares to $52 million per year under the Liberals. This is an average 700% annual increase for infrastructure funding to Alberta to help deal with its growing population.

We have invested in projects including improving Calgary Transit, finishing the Calgary ring road, and building the Telus World of Science. Since I have been an MP, I have had the opportunity to announce funding for 27 summer festivals, such as Sled Island, GlobalFest, and Latino fest, and $500,000 in funding for the EPCOR Centre for the Performing Arts. There are funds for a myriad of theatre groups, such as One Yellow Rabbit and the edgy women's Calgary Spoken Word Festival, which I attended last weekend. We provided $250,000 for the spectacular new Bella Concert Hall at Mount Royal University, $25 million for the National Music Centre in the East Village, and much more.

We have righted an old historic wrong perpetuated by the Liberals under Prime Minister Chrétien when he signed a deal with Alberta in 2004 giving our province less money per capita for health care than all other provinces in the country. The Conservatives have fixed that in the budget with a one-time, 38% increase in health care, $1 billion, from Ottawa to Alberta. As the western regional minister stated in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last week, this money provides Alberta only with fair and equal treatment, fairness the province is getting from our government, fairness that was sadly lacking from the former Liberal government.

The Alberta government was able to balance the budget this year, in large part thanks to those transfers.

Strengthening and supporting our provinces is happening not only in Alberta. I focused on Alberta because it is my province, but these are stories that are not often told in the media. It is similar across the country. Across the country, people's lives are better and richer because of this budget. Albertans' lives are better, New Brunswickers lives are better, and British Columbians' lives are better, and we will balance the budget in 2015. That is what leadership looks like.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I agree with what my colleague from Calgary Centre said in the introduction to her speech about the importance of stopping and studying the budget numbers, which may sometimes seem boring, because the budget has an impact on everyone's day-to-day life.

First, if we must take the time to undertake a study as important as the study of the budget, can my colleague tell us why the government is imposing a time allocation motion?

Second, why has the government included in this budget bill dozens of amendments to laws that having nothing to do with the budget itself and that will gobble up the time we have to do an in-depth study of this budget?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amused when I hear questions like this from New Democrats. The New Democratic Party, essentially, is a protest party. Its job is to protest everything. It is the no-development party, the NDP. We know this.

What Canadians want is action. This is economic action plan 2014. We have had ample time to discuss this, but we want to get money into Canadians' hands and get this budget working. For example, there is $100 million in interest-free loans that would go to apprentices so that they could take advantage of the job opportunities in Canada. That is what action looks like, and the NDP should be on board.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, she praised Alberta's transfers and its ability to balance the budget. How come the government has not done that yet?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for that interesting question, because one of the long-standing problems I talked about was the fact that the Liberal government in 2004 showed an extreme example of discrimination against Alberta in the health agreement it signed with Alberta, giving Alberta less money per capita than every other province in Canada. It was 20% less than for any other province in Canada for health care.

I am not in charge of the Alberta government, obviously, but we here in Ottawa are working very hard to make sure that Alberta is treated fairly, and that is what this budget would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed that the hon. member for Calgary Centre used so much of her speech on Bill C-31 to attack opposition parties politically instead of talking about the substance of an omnibus bill that actually has very little to do with what she also discussed, which was the budget.

She says that budgets make people's eyes glaze over because of all the numbers, figures, and columns. I would like her to answer, if she can, why it is that under this administration the document referred to as a budget actually no longer includes a budget. There is no statement of total assets. There is no statement of revenue. There is no statement of expenses, and there is no bottom line. There is no separate breakout, department by department, as in all previous budgets, under all previous governments, that I have read over the last 30 years.

I wonder why the budget is no longer a budget but rather is a very thick brochure.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a journalist, I have covered probably 15 budgets, at least. Budgets come in many shapes and sizes. We all know that. This very much is an economic action plan that lays out the budget for the next year. I am going to bring out a few numbers that I think the member opposite might want to focus on when she talks about this budget so that people understand what is being done for the environment, because we seem to always hear what is not being done.

Since 2006, this government has added more than 160,000 square kilometres to our national parks and marine conservation system. That is more than the size of Greece. That has been added since the Conservatives came to office. An amount of $391 million over five years has been provided on a cash basis to Parks Canada. There is $15 million over two years to extend the recreational fisheries and conservation partnership programs and $10 million over two years to improve and expand recreational trails across the country. These are some of the numbers. I invite the member opposite to look through the budget, because she will find them there.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want this to be a debate, but I think if the member checks, there is a 10% cut in Parks Canada's budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I guess it would be considered in the category of a dispute over the facts that may have been presented in the House but probably would not meet the pure definition of a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I just want to tell the House that this is not a protest speech, even though I am a member of the NDP. If the member for Calgary Centre wants to see a protest, she should go outside on the front lawn. That is a protest.

I am happy to rise to speak to the latest federal budget. There are few subjects as important to an MP as a government budget. After all, the budget is the document that best expresses the government's true priorities and ideology.

Like all budgets, this one is about choices. In this budget, the government makes it clear that its one and only priority is getting re-elected next year instead of delivering now on the urgent needs of Canadians.

Tim Harper of the Toronto Star put it best. With the Olympics still on, he said that the Conservatives would get a gold medal for illusion in this budget. It is a David Copperfield budget, magically making the government appear to care and appear to act on decisive national issues.

In 2015, the NDP will make the Conservative government disappear for real. We plan to make the Senate disappear as well. A New Democratic government will put an end to the many scandals the Conservative government has been caught up in, including Bev Oda, Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, Patrick Brazeau, Pamela Wallin, and the MP for Peterborough. The list goes on and on.

Until that time, we have budget implementation acts like this to talk about. The proof of the gold medal for illusion is in the fine print, when we do the math and realize the fact the Conservative government has punted incredibly important decisions to 2015, the election year. One would think it would be smart for a government to go to the voters next year with a real record of accomplishment rather than with a list of promises of what it intends to do. One would think that a government would go to the voters with real accounting on balanced books and not with this shell game, with figures on when it will actually balance the books.

This is another omnibus budget bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study or oversight. Worst of all, there is nothing in the budget to get the almost 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession back to work or to help replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the Conservative government.

There are some good measures in this bill to recognize. They are the ones the NDP promoted. The bill would reverse the government's move to make Canadians pay taxes on parking at hospitals while visiting their loved ones. Boy, did my office hear from folks on this cash grab.

The bill would adopt our party's call to cap wireless roaming fees.

During my time today, I will refer to my own national caucus's responsibilities in the mining sector and to my campaign for a national dementia strategy to demonstrate what an illusion this budget is.

I also want to talk about how this budget fails the people of Nickel Belt. First, though, I would like to say a word about the extreme politics of this budget.

In all my years as an elected official, first on the Rayside-Balfour municipal council and, as of 2008, in Parliament, I have always believed that the work of public elected officials is about one thing and one thing only: serving the public good and constituents. Still, since a budget is about choices, let us look at the choices this government has made.

New Democrats know that there would be money in the federal coffers if we put an end to government's spending scandals, absurd advertising extravaganza and tax breaks for its rich corporate friends.

I was happy at first to see recognition for the dementia health care crisis looming in Canada. The budget quotes the Minister of Health's comments at the U.K. G8 summit last December. By 2031, in just one more generation, the number of Canadians suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia disease will double to 1.4 million. The bill for Canada then will be at $300 billion, so we might conclude that the government is recognizing the problem and might also act on a solution.

The Conservatives try to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes by noting they will now flow the research money that had already been announced last year.

Then, there appears to be a bit of a shell game on brain research money, which begs the question of whether this is new money or money moved from another envelope. I know that the research is important and that funding for it is a good thing. However, Canada is lagging behind its major economic partners in not having a national dementia strategy.

The bill that I introduced in this Parliament would implement a national plan involving research, early diagnosis, training for caregivers, help for beleaguered caregivers, and leadership from Ottawa in partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

Dozens of petitions calling for a national plan are being tabled in the House. Some 200 municipalities have passed resolutions in support of Bill C-356 and the development of a national strategy. Those cities are on the ground, where the crisis is evident. Sadly, this budget could not even find the modest $3 million dollars requested by the Alzheimer Society of Canada to launch a national plan.

However, the Conservatives put a nice box in the budget report with a quote from the minister and are playing the reannounce funding game to make it appear as though they are doing something. This government is doing nothing when it comes to the dementia tsunami in Canada.

I am the chair of a 20-MP NDP mining caucus, the only such caucus in any party here. We knew that, in these tough economic times, the junior mining companies would be happy to see the flow-through share credit extended. That is a good move we can applaud from here. Capital and other financing challenges can block important projects in the boom and bust cycle of mining.

However, like many of my colleagues from Ontario and northern Canada, I had great hopes that the government would take action on the mega Ring of Fire project in the James Bay lowlands.

However, once again, this government is all illusion and neglect, blaming Ontario or economic conditions for its failed leadership on this issue, after briefly announcing last spring the appointment of the President of the Treasury Board as the minister responsible for the Ring of Fire. That minister promised to reopen talks on the Ring of Fire. He was the new quarterback in town. Well, the quarterback got sacked and the Ring of Fire went nowhere under his leadership.

A few weeks ago, I led an NDP delegation of six MPs to the Ring of Fire, where we visited both the Matawa Tribal Council in Thunder Bay and Eabametoong First Nation, as well as the mining companies exploring at Koper Lake.

Despite the disappointing news that Cliffs was suspending operations, there appears to be progress in both Noront and KWG mining camps, continuing evidence of the wealth in the ground, and the support of First Nations communities if genuine partnerships are established.

Ring of Fire would be much further ahead if the NDP's sustainable development policy had been adopted. Our policy addresses current and future concerns with regard to the economy, the environment, first nations and social responsibility. The Governments of Ontario and Canada should have been working together and leading the way.

In this budget we needed to hear about infrastructure and roads, and measures to help the local communities deal with enormous challenges in health, social services, water, and education.

This budget makes it perfectly clear that any concern this government has for the north and our communities is just an illusion. The budget makes no mention of the Ring of Fire. This government has continued an alarming trend initiated by the previous Liberal government to cut government offices and services in the north.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP as well as the Liberal Party who have spoken previously to the bill today have talked about FATCA. FATCA would be unilaterally and automatically imposed on Canadian financial institutions and their clients as of July 1, 2014. Because of the provisions in this bill, Canada has seen significant exemptions and relief, including certain accounts that are exempt from FATCA. Financial institutions in Canada will not report any information directly to the IRS versus the CRA. There are several exemptions. This is done through international negotiations.

My question to my colleague opposite is this. Given that this would be imposed on us by a foreign government as of July 1, what would he do differently that is not in this bill?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would first like to help pensioners with their CPP. We would certainly like to help first nations by supplying them with fresh water, for one thing. I would have liked to see something done for the seniors under health care, especially for dementia. As I said in my speech, it is like a tsunami is coming on the health care side of the Canada health accord. It will cost us $300 billion over the next few years, so unless we start to do something now, and this budget would have been a good time to do it, it will be too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Nickel Belt for his wonderful speech.

I want to come back a bit to the comments by the member for Calgary Centre. She talked about the billions of dollars that the government has afforded to Alberta for its storm relief, yet Toronto was told there would be no help for its storm of the century.

The government is playing favourites in terms of who it will help. Thousands of residents of my riding had hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage as a result of two significant weather events, both of which we believe are as a result of the climate changes taking place. The government is not paying attention to the climate change issues of this century.

Could the member please comment?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current government has never really helped all of the provinces equally. It picks spots where it will help certain people, especially if the help will bring Conservative votes. For example, the new undemocratic elections act targets seniors, students, and first nations, the people who do not generally vote for the Conservatives. That is the kind of undemocratic government we have.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from Nickel Belt comment on some of the statements made today by the government about the $3,400 in tax relief to Canadians under the stewardship of the current government? We hear about it in question period all the time, and I am not convinced.

The other fact it neglects to share with Canadians is that every Canadian now shoulders an additional $20,000 in accrued debt. Since the current government has taken power, every Canadian is responsible for another $20,000 in accrued debt, an amount that is added to the national debt. If there are tax savings, does my colleague see that they are at the expense of our children and our children's children as a result of putting this additional amount of money onto the accrued national debt? I would like his comments on that point.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and the member is right. It is our kids and our grandchildren who are going to pay later.

However, there are some tax cuts in this budget. He is right again. The big banks and the big profitable corporations that do not need any help get tax cuts from these governments, but ordinary hard-working Canadians have to pay more and more every day that the current government is in power.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-31.

Almost three years ago, the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville provided me with the privilege of representing them here in our nation's Parliament. We have heard something very loud and clear. Canadians gave our government a mandate to provide a strong economic environment, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safe. As we are in the second half of our mandate, I am very proud of our Conservative federal government and our commitment to promoting those fundamental values.

Canada has the strongest job creation record among all G7 countries, with more than one million new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. Canada has become an example for other nations and the envy of other nations. This is why our economic action plan 2014 continues to focus on creating more jobs and supporting the local economy in Mississauga and across our great country.

Economic action plan 2014 keeps Canada on track to a balanced budget in 2015. Canadians can be pleased that this budget contains no new taxes on families and businesses while also continuing to ensure that government spending is as efficient and effective as possible. We are continuing to deliver support for small business employers and keeping taxes at a 50-year low for the hard-working families across our great country.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which balanced budgets on the backs of provinces, our Conservative government has continued to grow provincial transfers to record levels. For Ontario, my home province, the federal budget confirms transfers will total $19.2 billion in 2014-15, a 76% increase from the previous Liberal government. These funds were instrumental in building large infrastructure projects, upgrading facilities, and ensuring that regions across the country are receiving the necessary investment in their communities.

Locally in Mississauga, we are seeing job growth and infrastructure investment in our community, thanks to our government's focus on reducing red tape while increasing investment in skills and training. For example, economic action plan 2014 would help our skilled trades apprentices registered in eligible trades, who would be eligible for loans that would be interest free until their training ends.

I would like to thank the hard-working people in our community who run small businesses. As we all know, small businesses are the great engine of our economy. Despite the economic challenges, these business owners are committed to providing jobs and spurring our economy.

I am proud of the federal commitment to economic growth through supporting local infrastructure priorities in Mississauga through programs such as the federal gas tax fund. The City of Mississauga has received almost $126 million of federal funding through the gas tax fund since 2006. I will add that the Region of Peel gas tax fund is nearly $213 million since 2006. Just over $3.8 billion, or almost $4 billion, in federal gas tax funding will flow to Ontario municipalities between the years of 2014 to 2019. This is a long-term, predictable, and environmentally stable source of funding that has helped with major projects, including Mississauga's accessible transit fleet and the transit campus.

The cost of raising a family adds up quickly, and our Conservative government understands these challenges.

It is tax return season, and in the past number of weeks I have hosted income tax clinics in my riding, and there is one coming up next week. This is where people come to have their taxes filed by professionals at no cost to them. Those who participated in our tax clinics know that, thanks to this government, their taxes are lower. The average family of four now saves nearly $3,400 per year in tax savings.

We are not stopping there when it comes to helping families.

This budget would expand on the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes.

Economic action plan 2014 would expand the GST-HST exemptions for training that are specifically designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training. It would also expand on the GST-HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors.

We would put in place the allowance of the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive a GST-HST tax credit, which would eliminate the need for individuals to apply for it.

We will continue to protect Canadian families by supporting victims of crime and punishing criminals. I am very proud to say that our Prime Minister was in my community of Mississauga just last Thursday when he introduced Canada's first ever victims bill of rights.

We are also putting Canada first by providing further support to help meet the needs of our veterans. This is important for those who bravely serve our nation, to provide support not only while they wear a uniform but also in their transition to civilian life. The consolidated veterans hiring act would build on previous government commitments as well as new ones outlined in the economic action plan 2014 to help veterans find meaningful employment after their time in uniform is complete.

In recognition of their service to Canada, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and honourably released veterans would be given more access to federal public service job opportunities.

In conclusion, our government's economic action plan 2014 is excellent news for people and families in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and throughout our country.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on his new role. I am confident that he will display excellent leadership by ensuring we stay on track and not waiver from balancing our budget and keep Canada on course for long-term economic prosperity.

We will continue to stimulate our local economies by providing support for small businesses and we will assist Canadians to get the training they need to meet the labour market demands.

We are helping and supporting families by providing a series of tax incentives.

We will always put Canada first, celebrating and defending our country and working to keep Canadians safe in their communities.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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

I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the bill contains so many elements that have nothing to do with the budget. There is one element that affects my constituents and me, which is rail safety. There will be even less transparency under this bill, and cabinet will be able to make major regulatory decisions without disclosing any information.

In February, the member for Brossard—La Prairie came to my riding and we held a consultation on this subject with more than 100 people. The train goes through residential neighbourhoods in my riding. People were critical of the lack of transparency, but this bill makes it seem as though the government is trying to make the situation worse.

I would like to know how safety issues are relevant in a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, does the member agree that there will be less transparency on such an important issue?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the member is referring to when he mentions a lack of transparency.

Our government has been working hard ensuring rail safety. Yes, in recent years, we have had very unfortunate incidents involving rail cars and trains carrying goods from point a to point b. Our government has been working hard, ensuring that the regulations are in place and that people who live along railway lines are safe and that their communities are safe, always.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have looked through Bill C-31 extensively, and a number of things my friend commented on are not in this bill. They are in other bills, such as the victims bill of rights.

This bill does not have anything about keeping communities safer. However it does, I think, have issues of interest to his constituents and anyone with any tangential connection to the United States.

I know that some members today have referred to people who are dual citizens. I can assure members there are many Canadians who are not dual citizens, but the ambit of the FATCA would require Canadian banks to turn over private information about people who have no idea that they could be considered to have any connection whatsoever to the United States, for tax purposes.

This bill, according to many constitutional law experts, would violate the charter. It is unprecedented, in terms of assuming that a foreign power could have access to information about Canadian citizens.

I would ask my hon. friend if he does not think it would be preferable to pull the FATCA sections out of this omnibus bill and subject them to a court review to ensure they are charter compliant?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the issue she is raising. As members know, our government reached an agreement with our neighbour, the United States of America, on that very issue.

Under the terms of the agreement, there would be no breach of privacy. There would be no information exchanged between the governments to which she is referring.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the same question. I am not confident that my colleague and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands really got any response to the question she asked.

It seems that what the government has done with its omnibus legislation is like what was done with the movie series Police Academy: each movie got worse, and each omnibus budget just gets worse and worse.

The bones of the particular piece of legislation are obviously not in sync with the charter.

I ask my colleague this. Why would the legislation not be viewed through the eye of whether or not it aligns with the charter?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused, because in his previous questions, the member also raised the issue of whether the $3,500 per family in tax savings is the correct figure.

In the case of the privacy issues and whether or not the legislation is aligned with the charter, we are confident that it is.

With the tax savings, the Liberal government in power previously introduced in several budgets the deepest tax cuts in the history of this country, including the deepest cuts on transfer payments to provinces. In 1993, it had something called the red book. In that red book, the Liberals said that the day they came to power, they would eliminate the GST. Guess what happened? It never happened, did it?

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

Mr. Speaker, my role here is to defend the interests of the people of Longueuil and Boucherville. I am rising to speak to this bill as a resident of Longueuil. Members will understand why I am sensitive to the fact that the Minister of Infrastructure's philosophy, that irrefutable “no toll, no bridge” dogma, was reflected in this massive bill from the Conservatives.

The government's goal is obvious. It wants to shut down debate and pass this bill as quickly as possible, and the bill's 350 pages and 500 clauses hide provisions that include relieving the government of its obligation to consult the public. This is an old tactic that the Conservatives learned from the Liberals. In this case, the student has surpassed the teacher.

I cannot believe that the Conservatives are doing this. If they were in the opposition, if they were in our place, they would be outraged to be faced with this kind of omnibus bill. This is Parliament, not a hot dog eating contest.

However, it is not just Parliament that the Conservatives are showing contempt for, but also Canadians. This is about Canadians who want information and who should be kept informed about the laws that will be imposed on them. It is also about journalists, whose job is to keep an eye on and analyze bills, so that people outside the parliamentary precinct can understand what is at stake in these sometimes complex proposals.

The bill's scope is as broad as it is bad. It contains a wide range of amendments and provisions on issues that are way off topic, that clearly have nothing to do with the budget, when, really, it is supposed to be a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, the issues at stake here are extremely important. It is not a question of simply adding a decimal or removing a semicolon. This is about things like hazardous materials and temporary foreign workers. Basically, the Conservatives are trying to push their agenda through without allowing the public to really scrutinize it.

The people of the south shore can draw some very serious conclusions from the huge bill called Bill C-31. They can see that the Conservatives want to impose tolls, from Ottawa, without any consideration for them, their opinions or those of their elected representatives. They also see, with great consternation, the very troubling changes being made to railway safety regulations. Putting forward this kind of nonsense when the entire population of Boucherville is worried makes absolutely no sense.

My role here is to stand up for the people of Longueuil, the south shore and the greater Montreal area. It is also to be here, with my colleagues, to suggest new solutions for the problems that affect the south shore. A very large gathering of business people, community groups and elected representatives from the south shore got together to do some brainstorming and come up with solutions to challenges related to public transit, particularly regarding how to fund it.

My NDP colleagues from the south shore and I submitted a brief on public transit ahead of the metropolitan land use and development plan, because the federal government has also overlooked the issue of funding for public transit. The government needs to stop neglecting this issue and start doing something substantive about it. It is essential not just for the economic reasons underlying reinvestment in public transit, but also because it is an environmental imperative. Our economy will be of little value if the St. Lawrence basin is engulfed by the rising oceans, something that scientists are projecting will happen.

That is precisely why I got into politics in 2008 with the NDP: for the seriousness of its green agenda. Nonetheless, the environment is not an ideological issue. The state of our planet goes well beyond our jurisdictions and our electoral timetable.

This requires consultation, something the government is completely inept at. Never has that been any clearer than with the outrageous abuse that the government has the nerve to call the “new bridge over the St. Lawrence”, a bridge that will be built on the ruins of the Champlain Bridge that thousands of people continue to use every day to get to work or to transport goods.

Imposing a toll in such an underhanded and hasty manner, in a bill like this, is a unilateral and belligerent move. It is an admission of failure, an admission that the federal government is incapable of or simply disinterested in consulting and listening to the public and working with Quebec and the municipalities. The Government of Quebec represents 8 million people, mayors of cities that, together, constitute the second-largest metropolitan region in Canada.

The federal government is making it perfectly clear that it is completely incapable of engaging in dialogue. It is the government's way or no way. The new Champlain Bridge will have a central place in our lives, but the federal government wants to impose its way of doing things. When it comes to bridges in an urban region, it seems clear to me that the government has to be able to talk with others. Going it alone, creating a piecemeal transit strategy applicable to a single bridge, is unacceptable. Nowhere else in the world is that done.

Deciding in Ottawa on the transit strategy for a bridge between Montreal and the south shore and telling people to like it or lump it does not work. That is obvious to everyone back home.

In Quebec, generally speaking, only brand new infrastructure, such as the highway 30 or highway 25 bridges, is subject to tolls. This is clearly not a new bridge linking these shores.

This bridge is not going to be built because having a second bridge between Brossard and Montreal would make for good feng shui. It is going to be built because the current Champlain Bridge is falling apart from one month to the next and needs to be replaced.

This charade of calling it a new bridge—as though it is a gift from Ottawa or as though it is out of its spirit of generosity that the federal government maintains existing infrastructure and ensures that they are marginally safe—is just as bad as talking about holding a contest to choose a new name while the current bridge is crumbling before our very eyes. That, too, is ridiculous.

I imagine that this sado-monarchist government will not hesitate to give the bridge an epithet that will reinforce that image. How about the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, with 1,812 beams arranged in the shape of the Union Jack? That would definitely put a smile on the faces of the agitators opposite.

It is just too bad, but that is not how this is going to play out. It will not happen that way because we will stand firm and hold the government accountable. The government routinely implies that asking for functional, safe infrastructure is like asking for a favour, particularly when the infrastructure is very important for the country's economy and is a part of everyday life for thousands of Canadians.

The government's “no toll, no bridge” position does not cut it. La Presse city columnist François Cardinal spoke this Saturday about the mess this could create. He said that if Ottawa makes the Champlain Bridge the only toll bridge on the south shore, there will be a domino effect that will bring traffic on the other bridges in the area to a standstill. In order to understand this issue, the federal government needs to work with elected officials, experts and the south shore community rather than making unilateral, irrevocable decisions in a meeting room in Ottawa.

Elected officials in Montreal and on the south shore have shown great solidarity on this issue and have been crystal clear.

The mayors of 82 municipalities in the Montreal metropolitan area are unanimously opposed to the toll the government plans to levy on the Champlain Bridge. The mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, are both opposed to this plan.

As for me, I continue to strongly oppose this plan and I would like to point out that the people of Longueuil and Boucherville are generally opposed to this plan and are fed up with Ottawa's contempt for them. All of these elected officials will continue to strongly express their opposition to this plan over the next few weeks, and I will be there to support them.

In much the same way as they are neglecting the environment, which has been their trademark and has tarnished Canada's international reputation, the Conservatives have decided to stubbornly stand alone when a consensus has already been reached.

This government's insolence and narrow-minded attitude is not only counterproductive but is also becoming more and more insulting.

The government's position is reminiscent of that of the former finance minister who said no to all his provincial counterparts when it came to public pension programs. The Conservatives refuse to listen and believe that Ottawa knows best, although they apparently came here to change that way of doing things. However, again today, the Minister of Infrastructure is telling all the mayors of the Montreal metropolitan area that they are wrong. Ottawa is going to decide how to manage our transportation. Ottawa is going to disrupt the municipalities' development plans.

What is all this for? It is important to remember that taxpayers already picked up the tab for the existing Champlain Bridge with their tax money. They will not pay twice. It is unacceptable to make people pay again because of mistakes made as a result of Conservative and Liberal mismanagement over the past 50 years.

It is also a bit disturbing to see just how oddly flexible the Conservatives' ideology is when it comes to families in Quebec, particularly since the Conservatives like to boast that they stand up for taxpayers. The people on the south shore are justifiably outraged. A petition is currently being circulated on the initiative of the south shore's chamber of commerce and industry, which is playing a key role in bringing members of the community together in support of this cause.

I would like to share the wording of this petition, which invites business people and individuals to join the movement:

We will not allow the government to impose a toll without consulting us.

Our tax burden is already heavy enough.

Traffic jams are horrendous, and the federal government's plans will make them even worse.

We cannot remain silent about this decision, which may have a significant negative economic impact on individuals and businesses.

No region or sector in Quebec should tolerate being ignored when its development and future are at stake. That is why we encourage you to sign this petition electronically by filling in this short form.

We support a bridge, but not at just any price! The greater south shore deserves to be consulted about its future!

I signed the petition, as did the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and my south shore colleagues. The people are taking action. On May 3, people will be on the ground to demonstrate against tolls.

What exactly does “No toll, no bridge” mean? Does it mean that if people refuse to be bullied by Ottawa, if municipalities in Quebec refuse to let the Conservative Party interfere with their transportation and development plans, the Champlain Bridge will fall to pieces and stay that way?

The people will not stand for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the remarks made by my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, and I sympathize with his concerns and his exasperation.

Since he was so critical of both the form and the content of this budget bill, I would like to ask him whether we should be just as concerned about the growing tendency to give ministers more and more power.

For example, Bill C-31, which exempts the Champlain Bridge from some of the key consumer protection and safety requirements in the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act, also happens to give the minister in charge the power to exempt this project from all federal laws.

Are we witnessing a strong tendency to give ministers more and more power so they can act in secret behind closed doors?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very shrewd question. When we have a look at this document—this one-inch thick, Canadian Tire catalogue—that is chock full of details, we see just how the government is retaining control, in the secrecy of its offices and with its documents, over a number of issues that are of general interest and responsibility. We cannot let it go. Once again, it is just pathetic.

I sometimes feel like we are parrots because the Conservatives are always introducing these mammoth bills that consistently contain very important issues that we can only object to. There are two or three inconsequential items that we will agree on and they will say that we did not agree. For example, in the case of rail safety, when the residents of Boucherville expressed their concerns about the transport of dangerous goods and increasingly flammable oil, they talked out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they told us that they were going to improve rail safety. On the other, and this is hidden in the catalogue, they said that there are some minor things they can fix all by themselves without having to consult anyone. That is pathetic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent and very passionate speech. People are passionate about this because it has a direct bearing on how they get to work every day.

I am a member from the north shore. There is a toll bridge on the A-25. A number of people in my riding are unhappy about this situation. However, there is another way to get to the Island of Montreal. My colleague's constituents will have no alternative if a toll is charged on the Champlain Bridge.

I would like my colleague to reiterate his position on that and to explain why it is important to learn from one's mistakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague. She is correct, and we cannot stress that enough: the Champlain Bridge is not a new addition. The existing bridge is dangerous. People drive on it and they are a little worried. I think fish even swim a little quicker when they pass under it.

The reality is that the public officials responsible for the bridge are doing their best to keep it safe. We can trust that it is safe to drive across, even though it is quickly deteriorating, as everyone has pointed out. There has been all kinds of neglect over the past few decades.

The government needs to stop going on and on about a new bridge. This is an existing bridge, an existing crossing. It will not change its name and will not cost more to the people who use it, since it has already been paid for. This reality needs to be considered as part of an overall plan. We are talking about access to an island, so it is impossible to say that this will be a toll bridge. If we were talking about Rodolphe crossing the river on his little motorized raft, we could talk about a toll, but not for an existing bridge.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher for his excellent speech.

He made a good point that this bridge already exists. This is becoming increasingly complicated, and we need to think of new ways to cross the St. Lawrence. We are building a new bridge, if this can be called a new bridge. What are the NDP's suggestions with respect to public transit for this existing crossing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We have always had an interest in public transit. These are urgent, immediate issues. We need to be talking about public transit to make it easier for people to get around and to consider the environmental and economic aspects. All companies will say that public transit is an asset because it helps ensure that people are not late for work. The same goes for delivering goods by truck.

Is public transit a priority for us? Absolutely. Is it a priority for the government? Not quite. Every time we have spoken about the new Champlain Bridge, we have hoped—and we still hope—that the Government of Quebec will get the infrastructure it needs to build an LRT.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks on economic action plan 2014 by acknowledging its author. Our former minister of finance, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, was given an extremely difficult task, but under his stewardship Canada managed to keep on the right track through a global economic recession.

As a result of this government's low-tax plan for jobs and economic growth, Canada has enjoyed the strongest economic record of any G7 nation, with over one million net new jobs created, 13,000 in Niagara alone. We are on track to balance the budget by fiscal year 2015, if not sooner, and that is good news for Canadians. One million net new jobs and a balanced budget are no small feats in the chilling aftermath of a global financial crisis.

I also worked with the former minister of finance in the Ontario provincial government, which also created one million net new jobs and balanced the budget, which were no small feats in the chilling aftermath of an NDP government. I have greatly enjoyed my years working with the member for Whitby—Oshawa at Queen's Park and in the House. I would like to thank the member for his years of service and for delivering the kinds of results that made my job that much easier. In his ninth and final budget, I believe the former minister of finance has built upon an already spectacular record.

It is also my privilege to rise today to speak on economic action plan 2014, and I would encourage members of the House to support this budget. When it comes to paper billing, for example, the budget is introducing greater fairness for consumers. One section of the budget that many people in St. Catharines have mentioned to me is the elimination of fees for paper billing. Canadians should not have to pay a fee to see how much they have to pay on their bill. It is only fair, and the government is taking action to increase fairness for Canadian consumers.

The budget also recognizes the price gap between Canada and the United States, wherein Canadians have to pay more to buy some of the very same products that Americans do. It also promotes Canadian-made products by developing a made-in-Canada campaign to promote those very same products and reduce internal barriers to trade. These are measures that would help consumers, as well as job-creating small businesses in communities close to the American border, like those in the Niagara region.

Another item in the budget is investment in the automotive innovation fund. This budget would support new projects and long-term investment in Canada's automotive sector. The automotive sector is an important part of the local economy in St. Catharines and throughout southern Ontario. I am glad to see that the federal budget would support these manufacturing jobs.

I would also like to take this opportunity to help some of my colleagues on the other side of the floor, who have been making some outlandish claims about this budget and health care. This budget is increasing the Canada health transfer. Not only is the total amount of the health transfer increasing, but all provinces and territories are also seeing an increase to their funding.

In this budget, health care funding has increased for absolutely everyone. Some members on the other side of the House cannot seem to comprehend that fact and are saying that they intend to vote against record levels of health care investment. With respect to investing in health care, the only budgets that should ever have been voted against were the Liberal budgets in the 1990s. If opposition members cared to read budget 2014, they would see that not only is overall funding going up, but health funding for every province and territory has also increased since last year. In fact, it has gone up by 60% since the current government took office.

This budget is fair for the Ontario health system just as it is fair for every other health system in this country. To quote former premier McGuinty, when the formula was announced by the government, he said:

The federal government has also addressed an outstanding concern related to the Canada Health Transfer. We are now going to be treated the same as Canadians in the rest of the country when it comes to the funding that we receive for the Canada Health Transfer.

Health care funding that is tied to population growth makes sense. If Ontario has a third of the population, then the Province of Ontario will receive a third of the funding. If it has a quarter of the population, it will get a quarter of the funding. If a province needs additional funding for extenuating circumstances preventing equal delivery of services, that is what equalization payments are for.

I would also like to address the comments made by the provincial health minister in December. She thinks that it is outrageous for Ontario to receive more health care funding than ever before. That is odd, because in recent years the federal government has been investing more in Ontario health care than Ontario's own provincial government. The federal government is paying for a larger share of health care costs in Ontario than it was in 2006. With every single budget, the federal government's share of health care costs has gone up, and it now pays for almost 25% of Ontario's health budget.

The provincial government has not released a budget for this fiscal year, so I will have to use data from 2013. That data show that last year the increase in federal health care funding to Ontario was greater than the increase in the provincial share of funding.

I am going to finish after question period and continue to show why health care funding from the federal government to the provinces, especially the Province of Ontario, is more than ever before.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have four minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage has four minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to conclude my comments.

As I was stating, the provincial government, when it comes to the funding for health care and the transfers from the federal government to the provinces, has not released a budget for the fiscal year. Therefore, I will use the data from the 2013 budget.

This data clearly shows that the increase in federal health funding to Ontario was actually greater than the increase in the provincial share of funding. The federal government provided over $635 million in increased funding to Ontario's health transfer. This represented 59% of the increase in health care funding in Ontario from 2013-14. Nearly 60% of the increase in funding for health care in Ontario, which is close to 50% of the Province of Ontario's budget, was made up from the federal transfers that we delivered to the Province of Ontario for health care for the year 2013-14.

In the first two budgets since the last provincial election, the federal government increased Ontario's health transfers by over 11.8% from 2012 to 2014. Yet, between 2012 and 2014, the Ontario government increased its share of heath care funding by only 3%, and that is over two years. The annual increases were 1.8% and just over 1% in the last budget. Therefore, with the federal government providing almost 12% in increases between 2012 and 2014, the Canada health care transfer grew by almost four times the rate of the 3% that Ontario raised in its share.

When we account for equalization, let us not forget that Ontario, under the provincial government, is now a have-not province, but it was about $1 billion above 2012 levels. One has to wonder if the Province of Ontario has invested a single penny into new health care spending that did not come from the federal government since the last election.

If anything is truly “outrageous”, as the provincial minister of health has stated, it is not only that the federal government invested more new money in Ontario's health care system than the Province of Ontario did but that the Province of Ontario's share of new money from increased equalization payments was paid for by the federal government.

I applaud this budget's move to a sustainable model of health care funding. The Canada health transfer would increase by a minimum of 3% each year and would increase above 3% when the economy grows faster than that. This budget would bring in a sustainable funding model for health care that could guarantee a predictable level of funding for provinces and territories, and could do so for generations. On our commitment, our promise, we have delivered. Even in times of recession, it would be at least 3%.

I believe those comments summarize economic action plan 2014 as well.

The budget is managing taxpayers' dollars wisely while investing in the services Canadians need and positioning Canada to experience further job creation, economic prosperity, and long-term growth, including a commitment to health care for generations to come.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member would choose to take his time to take shots at the Province of Ontario in terms of health care funding.

Two points come to mind right off hand.

One, I was a provincial health care critic in the Province of Manitoba for years, and I can tell the member that the provinces pay a far greater percentage of health care costs than Ottawa—a far higher percentage. So even a 1% increase in provincial expenditure in Ontario could easily exceed the percentage increases in terms of real dollars that the member just finished talking about. One has to be very careful of statistics.

The other point I would make is on what happened in Ontario when it became a have-not province. In good part it is because of the Conservative government's failure to be able to recognize the economic needs of Ontario. The Conservatives have to take responsibility as well, not being able to address the loss of tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs.

My question to the member is this. To what degree does he believe that the current government has to take ownership of the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only part of that question that actually resonated with me was his statement that the Province of Ontario needs to take responsibility for its actions, or lack thereof.

It has not acted on manufacturing, it has not acted on jobs, and it has not acted on building an economic system that would work. We have provided all of the social service needs in terms of investment, whether in health care, education, or social services. He should take a look. The member does not need to look too far if he wants to understand facts and figures.

The commitment that this federal government has made to all of the provinces and territories leaves the Province of Ontario to only turn its head in shame when it comes to its commitment to health care in that province, because certainly the commitments in this budget and the last eight budgets that have come forward from this federal government have all included increases in finances and in delivery of those finances to the provinces. If we were to ask any Ontarian if they are getting better health care than they did after all that investment, they would say no to that provincial government.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are areas of waste that continue to plague the spending of the current administration, and many of them have to do with outside contractors. We know from the report of retired Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie that something around $2 billion in the Department of National Defence goes to outside contractors every year. Recently it was revealed that this administration has used about $482 million for legal advice, rather than relying on the existing Department of Justice, which is fully staffed with competent lawyers who are already being paid.

Does the hon. member not agree with me that spending and outsourcing should end when we reach balanced budgets, and that we should rely on people within the civil service who are there to provide professional advice?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question. This government has always believed that when the government has the ability within its particular ministries to deliver services, it does so without having to reach to outside sources.

However, the member has been around this place a long time, both as an elected member and as a senior adviser to former ministers, and she realizes that there are incidents, examples, and circumstances that require the government to use external sources, especially when it comes to legal services and expertise, to defend the government's interests and the civil servants who represent this government in terms of defending their service and the delivery of that service as well.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to stand in this House to talk about how Bill C-31 would positively impact residents of Palliser in Saskatchewan and in all of Canada.

Our government is focused upon building strong communities with prosperous businesses and creating good high-wage jobs for Canadians. We know that this vision is achievable through creating an environment in which for business can flourish.

Just as we promised in the 2011 election and in budgets since then, we are working toward a balanced budget while not raising taxes or cutting transfers to the provinces. This budget bill would provide support where needed while being mindful of the bottom line.

I would like to add that there is $3 billion in the contingency fund to adjust for risk in the event of disaster, as we unfortunately witnessed last year in Lac-Mégantic and with the floods in southern Alberta. Canadians can be confident that we will achieve a balanced budget this year, and we will.

In my address, I will focus largely on initiatives to train the workforce of today and tomorrow. Canada needs to do much better to ensure that training reflects the needs of the labour market.

Members might be wondering what issues are facing our labour markets.

We have regional and sectoral job vacancies coupled with unemployment. We have a number of groups that are being used to fill different potentials, including recent immigrations, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, and older Canadians. I am very pleased that this budget contains a number of measures to encourage and foster skills training to help these people find meaningful employment while filling job vacancies. Creating highly skilled and well-paying jobs is very much in the national interest.

To emphasize the importance of finding solutions to skills shortages, I will mention that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce lists skills shortage as the number one barrier to Canada's competitiveness. One of the most exciting aspects to foster skills training involves allowing apprentices to qualify for interest-free loans during their four-year training period. The Canadian apprentice loan would build upon substantial support already in place to help apprentices with costs. This loan of up to $4,000 per period of technical training would assist apprentices as they complete their training and would encourage more Canadians to consider a career in the skilled trades.

It is important for apprentices to complete their training to ensure their qualifications are recognized in other parts of the country. At least 26,000 people are expected to apply for and ultimately benefit from this $100 million annual investment.

Robert Blakely, of Canada's building trades union, has indicated his support. He said:

...the way apprentices are being treated has changed and they are now, thanks to measures introduced in the 2014 Budget, treated more like their colleagues in college and those involved in university training.

Another exciting feature entails modifications to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs. This would be partly accomplished through limiting the use of LMO programs in high-employment regions. This $11 million investment over two years, and $3.5 million ongoing, would realign applications to high-demand fields.

We will continue to better meet the demands of the labour market through the newly created expressions of interest system to allow the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to actively target highly skilled immigrants who wish to establish permanent residency in Canada. This program represents an investment of $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing.

So far my words here today have focused on meeting the needs of our workforce, because this is the primary obstacle to growth facing Saskatchewan. Indeed, Saskatchewan's unemployment rate ranks among the lowest in the country, while Regina ranks the lowest among Canadian cities. In fact, as of yesterday, there were more than 15,500 jobs listed at saskjobs.ca.

As a government, we are primarily concentrating on securing the long-term financial security of Canadians. We work toward this vision through creating jobs and economic growth and keeping taxes low to allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money. Our government is known for saving Canadians money through the 160 tax cuts already in place, which save the average family of four approximately $3,400 annually. Also, one million people are now entirely off the tax rolls.

New indications of our ever-expanding list of tax cuts include increasing and indexing the adoption tax credit to $15,000 to make adoptions more affordable. Adoptions can be costly, and this measure would greatly help young growing families.

Helping Canadians save more of their own money extends to ensuring that they get better value for their service in the marketplace. Wholesale domestic roaming rates will be capped to allow the smaller cellphone companies to be better able to compete, which would lead to increased competition and ultimately to lower prices. We can look forward to lower cellphone bills.

These measures build upon existing consumer-friendly items, including reduced tariffs on baby clothing and athletic equipment and clearly displayed airfares without hidden fees.

With the keen judgment and steady hand of our former finance minister, Canada is well positioned to continue leading nations of the world down the path of economic recovery. I know that our new finance minister will continue to steer our economy down the right track, given his discipline, work ethic, knowledge, and depth of experience.

Through Bill C-31, we are continuing to support Canadians of today and tomorrow. All in all, it is a good budget that would encourage economic prosperity not only in the short term but also in the long term. We are investing in our economy today while not mortgaging our future.

I have mentioned just a few points that would greatly improve the situation for issues facing Saskatchewan and, indeed, all of Canada. I hope all members will appreciate the forward thinking demonstrated in Bill C-31 and support it.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote someone who, in 1995, said the following:

Second, in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

The current Prime Minister said that when he was a member of the opposition.

I would like to ask my colleague what has changed since 1995. Why are all of the Conservative budget bills omnibus bills that include, as the Prime Minister said, matters that are “so diverse”?

They are moving too quickly, presenting bills with proposals lumped together in bulk form, and then they have to make changes.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let me say this in reply. The bill is what it is. Are 400 pages too many in a bill? Are 300 pages too few? Are 500 pages too many? We have to read the bill and then ask if the bill covers what needs to be covered in a budgetary year. If the answer to that question is yes, then the length of the bill is not really of major concern. It is what is contained within the bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following up on that, it is one thing to have a bill of 50 or 60 pages that are all primarily aimed at budgetary issues because it is a budget bill, but it is impossible to think that anybody can pick up a so-called budget bill of 400 pages or so, analyze the items in it, ask questions, and seek amendments to improve it. That is why it is introduced in the House.

Has the hon. member read all 400 or so pages in this bill? Can he tell me how many pieces of legislation are being changed as a result of Bill C-31?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the bill. Have I read it? Yes, indeed, a couple times actually.

The bill answers a lot of questions that people have that are minor in nature but affect a lot of people in one way or another. The budget addresses that. Budgets are designed to express a government's position as it moves forward in a fiscal manner. That is found in the bill.

Does everyone like the bill equally? No, I am sure they do not. I am sure that if we took the bill apart page by page, it would generate a number of questions that we would perhaps have a hard time answering. At the same time, the bill would cover what it is designed to do, which is to bring forward the position of the government in a fiscal manner.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, budget 2014 expands the health-related tax regimes under the GST-HST and income tax systems to better reflect the health care needs of Canadians. This includes the GST-HST exemptions for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners, including acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors. My question to my colleague is, how does he view our government's tax cuts for health care services?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question was, is there some cutting of taxes that we are suggesting and how do we view that?

If we look carefully, the reduction is very minimal. In fact, the 6% that has been allocated for health care and education has been well accepted by the provinces. The bill talks about the fact that those responsibilities will be continued to try to find favour with budgets, not only this budget, but budgets in the future.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to this budget bill.

For those who are watching, it is well over 400 pages. It is quite a book. It certainly is too much for anybody, without 10 people, to analyze it individually and pick out the things that are problematic. I suspect that there is a variety of items that will go unnoticed, until Canadians feel the impact and then call us, as legislators, to ask if we knew whether it was in the budget.

Try as we might, we cannot cover all the things that are in there. Given the fact that we have time closure, there is a limited amount of time to speak to the bill. I am fortunate to be one of the few people on the Liberal side who has the chance to actually speak to the budget. I would have preferred to have much more opportunity, so that all of us could have spoken to it. However, time allocation renders that next to impossible.

As I said, I am pleased to be here to talk about the budget issue today, particularly because it is my hope that Canada will soon set aside many of the years of Conservative fiscal mismanagement in favour of something better. That could be this fall or it could be next spring, but it certainly should not be any later than next fall. We have to weather another 18 months or so of these kinds of budget bills coming in, which are so huge that people do not know a lot of what is in them.

The day before the budget was released, the Liberal caucus released what we would have hoped the budget would contain. We said that we thought the federal budget must focus on generating the kind of economic growth that would finally help struggling middle-class families, including people in York West, in Toronto.

Many are struggling with the high cost of living in apartments. They are trying to find housing, lack affordable housing, and have all of the pressures that drive many people to join the steady line at food banks every weekend. It is quite appalling for a country as wealthy as we are, and in a city as large and successful as what Toronto has been. I am sad to say that there is nothing in this budget that is going to help the residents of York West and Toronto, or there is very little, if anything.

The reality is that our economic growth rate has not been this poor since the days of R. B. Bennett. The government should have used this budget to invest in infrastructure, education, and other areas that would help to get Canada on track and help to create jobs, and to invest in making our country stronger and more effective.

Instead, this budget provides little more, again, than smoke and mirrors. It provides even less for the average middle-class family in this country.

Budget 2014 speaks directly to the government's priorities, which is why it is good to be clear about the government's priorities versus our priorities as the Liberal Party of Canada. There is nothing in here for seniors who are struggling with limited increases in their pensions while they struggle to pay for more prescription drugs that continue to become more and more expensive.

There is nothing for the many students going to York University, in my riding, and to other universities and colleges across Canada, to deal with the high tuition fees. There is nothing as far as jobs when students graduate. They may get through school with a big debt, but then they will not have jobs at the end of the day. Those are serious problems that governments need to look at and try to find solutions for.

There is nothing to address the fact that the only thing keeping pace with the GDP growth over the past 10 years has been household debt. We know, from all of our analysts, that the amount of debt that all Canadian families are carrying continues to increase every year.

What about veterans? There is nothing to help veterans make ends meet any easier.

There is nothing to deal with the fact that the Canadian middle class has not had a decent raise in over 30 years.

Indeed, those are the government's priorities, and that is its choice. Our job is to point those things out and to plan for the future and the kind of budget we would introduce ourselves, which I expect will try to meet the needs of middle-class Canadians and all Canadians, whether young or old, with their struggles.

That is enough of generalities, I want to look at the budget in a more specific way now.

The government would have us believe that it has set aside money to help veterans. However, in reality what are we hearing? We are hearing that veterans have been left out in the cold again, with $6 million for veteran funerals and $2 million to improve Veterans Affairs.

Now, in order to get access to this tiny bit of money, a veteran would have to be below the poverty line, which means that to get money to help offset a veteran's funeral cost, one has to be bringing in an income of less than $12,000. We do not want people living on less than $12,000. However, in order to be able to apply for help to pay for a veteran's funeral, one has to be down to that kind of a pocket, which means that very few people would be able to qualify to apply for it.

What about the veterans who are struggling with PTSD, physical injuries, and resettlement issues? There is a lot of talk, but the rubber hits the road when it is in the budget. The amount of money that should be in the budget to help with PTSD cannot be just talk; it has to be in the budget.

However, it is not just veterans who have been left out of this Conservative brand of so-called economic prosperity; rural Canadians have been ignored as well.

Budget 2014 allocates what amounts to be about $6.75 per rural man, woman, and child for rural broadband. That is right: after slashing the Liberal program to connect every rural and remote community in Canada to the Internet, the government is hoping that a paltry $6.75 will be enough to connect rural broadband with the rest of the country. It does not work that way.

However, we are glad to see that the government has finally put some money into connecting rural and remote Canada to the Internet. It is a lifeline, a railroad, that will help all Canadians have access to the Internet. We were disappointed when the Liberal programs had been slashed, but pleased that the Conservatives finally adopted the previous Liberal plan. They are now going ahead and realizing just how important that is.

Remember, the budget looks very similar to another example of financial planning on the fly. Phony ad campaigns and one-off cash injections did not bring prosperity when the minister was selling Ontario down the river in the 1990s. Clearly, it is not going to work here either.

In 2012, the government made ill-advised changes to environmental regulations and immigration laws. Then, in 2013, it reversed those changes. Am I shocked that the 2014 budget made more reversals? No, it is just how these guys appear to roll: one step forward and two steps back.

Worst of all, let us keep in mind that this is all just in time for an election. It begs the question: are the Conservatives minding the best interests of Canadians or their own best interests?

Of course, seniors are happy that they have been left out of the budget because recent history tells us that when they are included in the Conservative budget it usually means pain, such as moving the age of retirement to 67, the beginning of taxing income trusts, and increasing the income tax rate for low-income Canadians. The good thing is that seniors were ignored this time. They cannot take much more of the Prime Minister's kind of prosperity that they have in the past.

Now, that does not take into account the fact that the government appears to be reversing itself again on previous commitments to seniors, rural Canadians, and middle-class Canadians.

Remember the Conservative's income-splitting promise? Remember their promise to cut the excise tax on diesel in half? What has happened with those things? This is 2014, and that was a commitment from 2011. Three years later, we have not seen that happen at all.

Remember when the Prime Minister said that taxing income trusts was raiding the best nest eggs of our seniors? Well, budget 2014 has verified a full reversal on all of those commitments.

All of this is just as a leaked government report shows that middle-class Canadians, students, seniors, farmers, truckers, and nearly every other person who works for a living, are falling behind. I did not invent these things. These are facts that come from Statistics Canada, or our public policy forums, which certainly confirm this. Household bills are growing, but incomes are stagnant throughout Canada.

People in York West, who I meet with every day, are struggling to find jobs, looking to take anything. I met a fellow last night who was pumping gas. He said he has three jobs and that is the only way he can stay on top of things.

Things are tough out there. The government's role is to make it better. The Liberals are going to do that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague fromYork West, who brought forward some very salient points when we consider that some of the things in the bill fall short of what has been promised over the past several elections.

I would like the member to comment on the disturbing trend of the omnibus nature of these bills, and how we deal with things when everything is jammed into a bottleneck with stuff that does not pertain to what is considered to be the normal circumstances of budgetary policy.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, looking at the so-called bill and the content in this book, it is a pretty intimidating document. There is absolutely no way people will be able to stay on top of all the things in there.

I have to also say that on the issue of jobs and investing in infrastructure, there was an 87% cut in infrastructure. The urban task force recommended the gas tax to Paul Martin. The gas tax is not enough. We need big investments in infrastructure. The government knows that. The cities have been here knocking on its doors on a continuous basis. Cutting 87% of the infrastructure budget is clearly unacceptable.

When we are looking at the $5.2 million in surplus in EI, why not take that money and invest it in job creation? Even when we invest in infrastructure, it is also social infrastructure that creates jobs and helps people have better lives.

There are a lot of opportunities for investment out there. Clearly, if jobs and moving the economy forward were the priorities of the government, those investments would be done.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech very carefully. I have two points to make. The first is on veterans. The hon. member said in her speech that veterans were left out. If I remember correctly, she has been part of the Liberal caucus for a long time. There were no deeper cuts to veterans benefits than in the 1995 budget. The member was part of that government at the time. This government has restored some or most of the benefits the previous government cut. It is a bit rich for the member to now say that veterans have been left behind.

On promises, I would like to point out that the promise to do income splitting was done on the basis that we balance the budget first and then do income splitting.

The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST. What happened to that promise?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of income splitting has been of huge benefit for seniors, but it really benefits those who have very high incomes. When the government talks about having income splitting for everyone as part of its next election platform, that will only benefit those in the very top elements. Those with very high incomes are the ones who will benefit. The rest of Canada will not.

The $3,400 the government likes to tout, the $3,400 people have saved in taxes, again is for a very small pocket of people who are very rich. They are the ones eligible for the various programs that split income and reduce their taxation level. The average Canadian is not entitled to any of those benefits at all.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly proud to rise today to speak to our budget implementation bill.

I have listened to what members of the opposition have said about the bill. They have spent more time complaining about the lack of time they have for debate than anything else. Some finally are starting to focus on some of the issues, and that is a good and healthy thing. That is what the opposition should be doing.

However, we have had day after day of debate on the bill, and we are only at second reading. It will go to committee for hours and hours and days and days of discussion and debate. Then it comes back to the House for third reading debate, which will be several days more. Yet the opposition spends time complaining about the lack of time they have to speak on the bill. It does not jibe with reality.

I would encourage members of the opposition to focus more on dealing with the issues. If they have concerns, they should bring those forward, absolutely. That is the role of the opposition. It is an appropriate role. I encourage them to do that. It would not hurt, from time to time, to say something positive where they see strengths in the budget. In fact, the last member to speak did that, and I give her credit for it. We have heard precious little of that from the opposition in this debate, although we hear more in private conversations.

I will focus on a couple of the key issues that are important parts of the budget and of this implementation bill. First, I will focus on the government and its absolute commitment to balancing the budget by 2015. That is very important to people in my part of the country and to Alberta as a province. It would bring benefits to Canadians right across the country. It is worth talking about a little bit.

Unlike the Liberal leader, who said that the budget would balance itself, we do not believe that, and we put in place a plan back in 2006 that started the process of working toward a balanced budget. That is when we got into government.

The opposition forgets that we paid down $37 billion in federal debt before the recession hit. When the recession hit, the government took the position that it was important to provide some stimulus for the economy. Most of that was delivered through infrastructure funding, new innovation, and things that would make Canada more competitive and would allow us to compete with our neighbour to the south but also with the world. We have seen really incredible results from that over the past few years. The benefits are becoming obvious.

We have focused on balancing the budget. We will not do it by legalizing marijuana, another position taken by the leader of the Liberal Party, which is to tax it but make it more readily available for our youth and our kids. We will not do that. First, I do not think that would do the job. Second, I think it is more important that we protect our children from marijuana and from other drugs, for that matter. I do not believe that they are harmless. I believe that they are dangerous drugs that are to be kept from our children. Legalizing marijuana, as the leader of the opposition suggests, no doubt as a plan to increase taxes to balance the budget, is not an acceptable way to go, and I will not be part of that. I simply will not support that, and our government certainly will not propose that in any fashion.

Nor should we try balancing the budget by implementing a carbon tax, which has been proposed by both the New Democratic Party and the Liberals. I do not believe that is the right way to go. Our government does not believe that is the right way to go either. In fact, we believe that would stifle business and harm our economy and therefore kill jobs. That is not what we are about. We are about creating a stronger economy and creating jobs and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

We have certainly moved our country along in that direction in the past few years. I am proud to be a member of the party that is in government now. We are not willing to go the carbon tax route.

We have members of the opposition saying that we do not care about the environment. That is simply not the case. In fact, if we look at history, it is always Conservative parties that actually do something about protecting the environment. When the former Progressive Conservative government was in place, Prime Minister Mulroney was the prime minister. He was criticized and beaten upon day after day, week after week, year after year, because he was not doing enough on the environment. Who was then awarded recognition by the Sierra Club, which was led by the current leader of the Green Party, as the most green prime minister in Canadian history? It was Mr. Mulroney. What the opposition said at the time, when the Conservatives were in government, and what it said later, once it was actually recognized what they had done, were two different things entirely.

That is really what is happening with our government as well. Certainly the opposition does not recognize what we have done for the environment, nor does the national media, but the reality is that we have done a lot. We have Canada well positioned when it comes to dealing with the environment and ensuring that Canadians are going to live long into the future in a very safe environment. I am proud to be a part of that. We are doing that without a carbon tax at the same time as we are balancing the budget. That is an important focus. It is a commitment we will meet next year, if not sooner.

I think Canadians want to know that. Why should they care? They should care because once we balance the budget, we can pay down the debt. At that time, maybe we could offer some tax relief as well. Maybe there could be targeted new spending as well. Certainly the infrastructure spending we have committed to in the budget will increase as time goes on. All of that is in place. As we start paying down the debt again, as we did when we first got into government, with $37 billion in those first three years, I think it was, it means lower interest payments for Canadians. That means more money they can keep in their pockets. We are all about that.

How have we balanced the budget? I was here in 1993 when the Liberal government balanced the budget. I give it credit for that. How did the Liberals do it? They did it almost entirely by downloading to the provinces and municipalities. They did not do it by making government itself more efficient. They did not do it by improving operations within the departments. They did nothing when it comes to that. They did it by downloading to the provinces and by slashing health transfers by $21 billion. That is completely out of line.

We are balancing the budget with increased spending on infrastructure and increased spending on social transfers while at the same time keeping taxes low. We have lowered taxes for an average Canadian family of four by $3,400. At the same time, we offered these families $1,200 a year for every preschool child. We left that in place. We are not increasing taxes. We are keeping taxes low. In fact, taxes in Canada are the lowest they have been in 50 years. What a reversal.

The world is noticing. There has been a 35% reduction in business tax. The rewards are great. We have more companies moving to Canada to do business. This is a great place to do business. The example we all love to point to is the head office of Tim Hortons. It moved from the United States back home to Canada, where it belongs. That is just one example of many.

I am proud to be part of a government that has balanced the budget and at the same time has kept taxes low and is increasing transfers to the provinces for infrastructure and social programs. It is the right thing to do. I wonder why the opposition does not talk about that more.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a government member has to hide behind the bogeyman of a non-existent carbon tax, that says a lot about the quality or lack of quality of a budget and a budget implementation bill. Instead of boasting about their own measures, the member seems to have taken more time to talk about policies he attributes to us that do not exist.

However, he did talk about an award given by the Sierra Club to Prime Minister Mulroney for environmental protection. First, that was 30 years ago. Second, speaking of recognition, we should mention that this government has consistently been criticized by the international community for its poor record on environmental protection.

However, let us talk about protection and safety. My question concerns railway safety and the fact that processes, in cabinet, will no longer be transparent because of certain measures in this omnibus bill.

Does the member really believe that, with respect to railway safety, they are on the right track—no pun intended—by not being transparent about changes that are made?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments on the recognition that the Conservative governments are in fact the governments that actually do stuff about the environment. We do not tend to talk an awful lot about the environment; we just get it done.

He talked about the award to former Prime Minister Mulroney, who was a PC prime minister and not a Conservative prime minister, but I give him a lot of credit for this. That award was about seven years ago. We are not talking 30 years in the past. He was recognized as the most green prime minister in Canadian history by the leader of the Green Party in the House today. That is the reality.

We are doing the job on the environment, and we are doing it without a business-killing carbon tax. He says there will never be a carbon tax. I hope and pray that is the case. I hope and pray that the New Democrats will never be government and that the Liberals will not be back in government for some time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I did not know better, I would suggest that the member has the Prime Minister's Office's speaking notes down pat. He knows what to say. I can give him that much, even though what he says is somewhat factually incorrect.

Let me ask the member a question. He says that the Conservatives are going to balance the budget. Why should we even believe that in the first place? I suggest they have demonstrated that they are incapable of balancing the budget, but he says they are going to balance the budget and increase infrastructure dollars. That is wrong. It is actually an 80%-plus decrease in their budget document. The member needs to not only read the Prime Minister's Office's speaking notes but also read the budget. It is a decrease.

Then he said they are increasing social spending. It was the Paul Martin agreement on the health care accord that mandated the government, by law, to give increases to health care, and that is why there is a record amount of millions of dollars going to health care today to the provinces.

I am wondering if the member might want to revisit those two inaccurate facts, which were a substantial part of his speech saying that the Conservatives intend to balance the budget. Canadians just do not believe it.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, of course, to revisit those two issues, because the member is revisiting history. In fact, he is rewriting history, and he is not rewriting it accurately.

I was around in those years that the Liberals were doing what they did to this country, and it was not pretty. The budget was not balanced in the right way at all. They slashed social transfers to the provinces. We have increased them, even to Alberta, finally, the province I am from. We have increased infrastructure transfers from $52 million under the Liberal government, before we got into office, to an average of $412 million per year, which is almost a ninefold increase. That is pretty remarkable. Not only that, our new infrastructure program will deliver $50-some billion over the next 10 years.

[An hon. member]

We will do $100 billion.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is saying he will do $100 billion. Yes, and the budget will balance itself, his leader said.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order, and I trust that it will be a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is. The member said that I said from $100 billion from across the floor. I did not say $100 billion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised to night at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of this Prime Minister, Canada has enjoyed a stellar economic record. This is why I stand in this House today in full support of the measures contained in the 2014 budget implementation act.

Year after year, through our economic action plan, this government has created the economic conditions that allow Canadian businesses to prosper and Canadian citizens to benefit from a high standard of living.

There is a sentiment shared by many. Globally recognized authorities, from the OECD to the International Monetary Fund, have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. In fact, they expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next.

The international business press, including Forbes Magazine and Bloomberg News, is equally fulsome in its praise for Canada’s success in creating a climate conducive to job creation.

Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. There are over one million more Canadians working today than during the worst part of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any G7 country during this period.

Despite significant global uncertainty, the Canadian economy has continued to expand. Real gross domestic product in Canada is significantly above pre-recession levels. All of this is translated into the strongest real per capita income growth in the G7 since 2006, which means Canadians have more money in their pockets today than their counterparts have in other developed countries.

This is a testament to this government's and this Prime Minister's strong economic stewardship.

Of course, there is ongoing uncertainty in the global economic environment. That is why we must continue to encourage job creation and foster economic growth, the twin pillars of the economic action plan since its inception in 2009, while remaining on track for balanced federal budgets.

That is exactly what budget 2014 will do.

We must—and we will—continue to improve the conditions for business investment. We will keep taxes low and reduce the tax compliance and regulatory burden on businesses so they can focus on jobs and economic growth. We will also make sure everyone pays their fair share.

There are over 20 tax measures in the budget that would improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system and crack down on tax avoidance and evasion.

One of the most important of these measures would advance the work of the Red Tape Reduction Commission. Economic action plan 2014 announced that we are cutting red tape for more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of times employers need to send source deduction payments to the CRA. These are deductions companies withhold for their employees' income tax, Canada pension plan contributions, and employment insurance premiums.

At the moment, if employers withhold an average of $15,000 to $50,000 in deductions monthly, they are required to remit deductions up to twice per month. Larger organizations withholding monthly deductions of $50,000 or more have to remit them up to four times a month. This can be an onerous task for Canadians already working tirelessly to run their businesses.

To reduce the tax compliance burden, economic action plan 2014 proposes to reduce the frequency of remittances by increasing the threshold levels. Employers would only need to remit up to two times per month when their withholdings are between $25,000 and $100,000. The upper threshold would also be increased. Now only employers with monthly withholdings of $100,000 or more would be required to remit up to four times a month.

We also intend to launch a liaison officer initiative pilot project to improve compliance within Canada’s small and medium business community.

Firms will be provided with information and the support they need, when they most need it, so they get their tax obligations “right from the start”. This will help them avoid costly and time-consuming interactions with CRA, freeing up businesses to focus on doing business.

Another way we would reduce the paper burden for companies big and small would be by making improvements to CRA service delivery. For instance, authorized company tax representatives, such as accounting firms, can now submit an electronic authorization request to the CRA instead of filing paper forms.

As part of our efforts to reduce red tape, we have engaged Canada's business community and listened to its concerns. We are now acting on its recommendations.

As of October 2014, businesses will be able to update their banking and direct deposit information online.

October is also when the first free online option for paying taxes will be available for business owners registered with My Business Account. As well, a detailed payment history for all of their accounts will be available in one secure and convenient place.

Our government takes the abuse of Canada's tax laws very seriously. Unpaid taxes mean less money for programs that all Canadians depend upon. The CRA is clamping down on international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The majority of the measures announced in economic action plan 2013 to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance are now in place and are giving CRA investigators more tools to crack down on tax cheats. These measures will build on our efforts in dealing with international non-compliance.

To date the CRA has identified over $4.5 billion in unpaid tax. This includes 340 cases of high-net-worth groups using sophisticated business structures and offshore arrangements to avoid taxes.

Word of CRA's success is spreading. Disclosures received through the CRA's voluntary disclosures program involving offshore accounts or assets have increased from roughly 1,200 in 2006-07 to close to 4,000 in 2012-13. Total unreported income from this period was $1.77 billion, with just over $470 million in federal taxes owing.

To make it easier to identify more cases of international tax non-compliance, we now require Canadian taxpayers with foreign income or properties to report more detailed information, and we have extended the time the CRA has to reassess those who have not properly reported this income. As of 2015, we will have even more tools at our disposal. Banks and other financial intermediaries will be required to report international electronic file transfers of $10,000 or more to the CRA.

We have also streamlined the legal process that allows the CRA to get information from third parties, such as banks. This makes it easier to access information on unnamed individuals, such as those who hold foreign assets or are involved in foreign financial transactions.

This government is working to ensure the CRA has access to as many sources of information as possible. That is precisely why we introduced the new offshore tax informant program, which allows individuals to provide information related to major international tax non-compliance.

I could go on highlighting a long list of new tax credits in this year's budget. They range from recognizing the contributions of volunteers who fight fires or conduct search and rescue to expanding the list of eligible medical expenses and enhancing the adoption expense tax credit, initiatives that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of Canadian taxpayers.

I urge all parties to join us in passing this legislation so that we can continue on our path of job creation and economic growth.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question last week along the same lines but I did not get an answer from that side of the House, so I am hoping that the minister will answer this question.

The recent issue of The Economist shows that GDP growth in Canada is slated to be 2.3%, Australia 2.7%, the U.S. 2.8%, and Britain 2.9%. We are starting to lag behind our biggest trading partners in terms of economic growth.

Would the minister care to comment that perhaps the cuts the Conservatives have made over the last couple of budgets have been too deep and are stifling our future economic growth?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Canada is weathering the global economic turbulence better than most other countries with the help of our low tax plan. We have the lowest federal tax burden now in 55 years. Our plan is working. We have seen the most net new and full-time jobs of any of our G7 partners. We continue to lead the way. Bloomberg has said that we are the second best place in the world to do business. These kinds of accolades from around the world continue to come in. It shows that we are on the right track, albeit in a fragile global environment, and that we are doing what we should do. Lower taxes make Canada's economy stronger. This is what creates good and long-term jobs for Canadians. That is our focus.

Both the NDP and the Liberals have voted against each and every one of our job-creating tax cuts. We are keeping taxes low. The NDP believe in higher taxes. That would hurt our economy.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about what our economy needs. One of the things it needs is good infrastructure. Unfortunately, that is one of the things missing from this bill, that is, a replacement for the big gap in infrastructure spending announced in budget 2013.

In my riding of Kingston and the Islands, we have a major east-west artery that passes over the main CN rail line. We need to have an overpass. Right now it is a level crossing. In another part of my riding, on Wolfe Island, we have a road that connects the winter ferry terminal to the rest of the island. That needs to be rebuilt. These are important pieces of infrastructure that cannot be worked on for many years because the extra money in the building Canada plan has been so low for a number of years. It was cut drastically, by roughly by 87% from last year to this year.

Why is the government cutting infrastructure right now when it is so needed?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to misrepresent what we are presenting through our build Canada fund. We are proud of the build Canada fund. It is going to seed infrastructure projects across this country. Every region of the country will benefit from our investment in infrastructure. We have made the gas tax fund permanent. That is something that all municipalities welcome. This past Friday I was in one of the municipalities in my riding. I met with the mayor and city staff to talk about how they can access the build Canada fund to provide for the infrastructure needs of those communities.

The truth is that we have the support of municipalities, provinces, and territories for the way we have put together our build Canada fund. The first part of it people took advantage of, and Canadians will see the advantages of this one too.

Frankly, this misrepresentation by the Liberals is irresponsible.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue this. Why are the freezing of EI premiums; the expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which will benefit over half a million small businesses; the lowering of the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and the raising of the threshold to half a million dollars, significant measures in our economic success, leading us to being the economic model for the G7?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about our pride in our small and medium-size businesses in this country. The fact is that small and medium enterprises in Canada employ 98% of our workforce. They are the engine that drives our economy. We are doing everything we can as a government to promote their growth. We do that in many ways. One of them is by giving tax credits for apprenticeships and tax credits for internships, which I think is an important new initiative. We have also been cutting red tape drastically, as I mentioned earlier, and working with them on that.

With respect to my department, the CRA, we have a number of initiatives, including the new liaison officer initiative, whereby we will support and educate small business and tax preparers to help them do their job, which is to employ Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. First, I would like to thank our shadow minister for finance, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for all his work in preparing us for this bill and defending Canadians within and outside of the House. I am really proud to have him as a colleague, and he serves British Columbia very well.

I have to say that I am opposed to this bill for much of its substance, as well as for the process by which these laws are being passed. I will elaborate at length about my procedural objections to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 would fail to take adequate action to create jobs or reverse cuts to infrastructure funding, which is apparent from the speeches we have heard. That is why I would like to focus mostly on the process by which these omnibus bills are passed through Parliament.

Bill C-31 would fail to create jobs, it would cut infrastructure funding, and it would also continue the sorry tradition set by previous omnibus budget bills of forcing hundreds of changes through Parliament without proper oversight. This is an all too common Conservative practice, and it is disturbing as it undermines the work we do here in Parliament. The tabling of such a wide-ranging bill in such a short time frame undermines our ability to properly scrutinize the bill and denies MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications.

The bill has over 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and would amend dozens of bills, including a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget speech. This is the Conservatives' fifth attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny of their economic agenda.

In the remainder of my time, I would like to use an example from a previous omnibus budget, Bill C-38, to show the damage these omnibus budget bills can cause and why it is important that we break these bills apart and debate them piece by piece.

Among other things, Bill C-38 rammed through changes to the National Energy Board Act regarding the approval of new oil pipelines. In addition to shortening the length of time the NEB has to review new projects to just 15 months, whereas previous reviews had no time limits, the NEB is now only a mere advisory body, with the cabinet now having the final say on any project.

Now, the changes that were rammed through the House in Bill C-38 with little consideration or debate are hitting the road in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. Again, we had a large package of bills bundled up in Bill C-38 and passed through with little debate, and now the effects of those bills are impacting my riding in a negative way.

I would like to use the example of Kinder Morgan's proposal to build a new pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby to illustrate why the current omnibus bill should not be rammed through the House.

Last December, the Kinder Morgan company filed an application with the National Energy Board to build a new export-only bitumen based crude oil pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. This application includes a request for permission for a 150 metre-wide right of way to dig a trench as large as one that would be required for a subway or SkyTrain. The project would bring 400 new oil tankers to Burrard Inlet. The project will likely be built using temporary foreign workers. It will not use Canadian steel, limiting the economic benefits to B.C. However, the benefit to Kinder Morgan is obvious, with the company standing to make as much as $5 million per day if the project is approved.

Before the changes brought in by Bill C-38, any company proposing to build a new pipeline of this size would have filed an application with the National Energy Board. The NEB would have reviewed the application to determine that it were complete, and if complete, the NEB would have issued a hearing order and called for public participation. Any Canadians interested in speaking to the project could have either sent a letter of comment, given a short oral presentation, or applied to be a full intervenor. This was the case for the Enbridge northern gateway project, which, incidentally, is about the same size as Kinder Morgan's proposal.

After the changes in Bill C-38, the process has been completely changed and, I submit, undermined. First, due to a new 15-month time limit, the NEB has had to cut the public almost completely out of this approval process. To do so, the NEB has cancelled scheduled public information meetings; issued a call for participation without as much as a press release; reduced the possible participation routes from letters, oral presentations, or full interventions to just letters or a full intervention; and ruled that if the potential participant fails to register, he or she cannot even send a letter to the National Energy Board. The NEB has also issued a hearing order for this project, even though the company has filed an incomplete application. For example, Kinder Morgan has not even determined the final pipeline route.

This is serious, because if this project is approved, the company would have the right to expropriate homes and land along the proposed route through the NEB Act right of entry clauses, and we could find ourselves in the absurd position that those who might lose their homes would not even be allowed to send a letter of objection to the board. These changes were all brought about because Bill C-38 was rammed through the House without proper debate.

Although the NEB wanted this whole process to proceed without public input in order to meet the conditions prescribed in Bill C-38, 2,200 people still registered to participate in the process. However, last week we learned that all but 400 of these applicants had been kicked out of the process, including many homeowners. That means they will not even be able to make an oral submission or appear before the National Energy Board. Whereas companies were almost universally accepted, including one that filed after the deadline had closed for participation, the vast majority of those now excluded from the process are residents and landowners whose lives could be turned upside down by this project.

Not everyone is upset by how this project is being rammed through my community in British Columbia. The Conservatives are certainly pleased and have referred to these pipelines as “a national dream” and label anyone who asks questions about the logic of these pipelines—they do not even have to be opposed—as “radicals”.

However, the support for this pipeline and a process by which it is being approved does not stop there. In the January 22 edition of Metro News in Calgary, the leader of the Liberal Party said:

I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we are going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

To reiterate, the leader of the Liberal Party said he certainly hopes we would be able to get this pipeline approved. This quote was again confirmed in an article published on February 26 in the Vancouver Observer.

While others in the House may view the Bill C-38 omnibus bill as a dream, my constituents, especially those who might be negatively impacted by this project, see this process and project as a nightmare.

I too am worried. This pipeline is not only slated to run through the communities I represent, but is also slated to run through 15 first nations reserves and 80 territories, and 130 nations have signed a declaration against this pipeline.

My nightmare scenario is that bulldozers show up in B.C. neighbourhoods or reserves, start digging trenches without consent, and then we have conflict. This is a real possibility. Because of the way Bill C-38 was rammed through the House, because of the way the NEB process was undermined and shortened, now the National Energy Board really has had no choice but to limit public participation. This means excluding residents, people who own homes and land and businesses along the route, but also first nations.

Many first nations did not register to appear before the National Energy Board, thus they will be cut out of the process. They will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want the pipeline to go through their community.

This is unacceptable, and I think the changes to the National Energy Board Act and the negative impacts on my community are a direct result of these omnibus bills. They are cobbled together so that the government can force its agenda through and perhaps facilitate these very large projects like energy pipelines.

It is important to realize that now that we are here discussing a new omnibus budget bill, an implementation act, we should take the time to break it apart to make sure that we have an adequate discussion of these different clauses.

Perhaps I have not stressed enough how this project and these changes have affected my community. I have literally had hundreds of constituents call or come into my office to express their concerns, completely oblivious to the fact there will basically be something as large as a subway going through their backyard and that they will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want this to happen.

I think it is a disgrace, and I apologize to my constituents. We fought against Bill C-38 as much as we could. We will fight against this current budget implementation act until the government sees fit to make sure that Canadian voices are heard when we are debating this important legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues the government talks about a lot is citizenship.

What we have witnessed over the last number of years is an ever increasing waiting period for a person to acquire citizenship. That has been compounded by the government increasing the cost of getting citizenship by hundreds of dollars.

Quite often government requires or provides services, then it increases those fees. The individuals who have to pay those additional hundreds of dollars in fees are in fact paying a great deal more. Many would ultimately argue that it is just another form of tax on individuals, when fees are raised to the degree the government has done.

I wonder if the member would comment on service fees.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, adding extra fees onto the backs of new Canadians is always a problem.

My speech really had nothing to do with that. It was more about his leader's comments. He said:

I am, however, very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through.

I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

Again, it would have been helpful if perhaps the member had raised a question about that, because I find that quote quite disturbing.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member had a very reasonable speech, but it focused on one topic, which was how to block pipelines.

Oil and gas and natural resources are a big part of the Canadian economy. It is not the whole basket, but it is a very important part. About 13% of our economy is directly related to natural resources, and another 6% or so indirectly.

The member talks about blocking this project. There is some fantasy about maybe refining these products in Canada and selling it to ourselves. The reality is that there is a demand. Any time individuals have a business, they have to think about what their customers want and that is what needs to be sold in our markets overseas.

It is one thing to talk about trying to block this project. We have put in measures to have these projects accelerated in terms of the review, in the sense of not needing to drag this out for years and years. However, what does the hon. member propose as an alternative to this pipeline? Would we just keep this oil at home? Would we just leave it in the ground and not sell it to anybody?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of debates we should be having.

Our leader has been very clear that west-east pipelines are the way to go. He has stressed that over and over again.

I want to clarify that this is not about blocking a particular project. That is not what my speech was about. It was about the fact that, the way the process is constructed now, there are homeowners who were not informed that this pipeline would go through their property, who under the National Energy Board Act can have their property expropriated, and now under the provisions of this act would not be able to send a letter of objection.

I think that is too much. Whether one is for pipelines or against pipelines, I think the process has to be fair. If not, the whole process of government is delegitimized. We might as well just cancel the National Energy Board hearings altogether and just have it rammed through, as cabinet will probably do anyway with the northern gateway pipeline.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, for focusing on the damage that is done through the repeated use of this mechanism of omnibus bills and bringing a sharp focus on Kinder Morgan and its so-called Trans Mountain pipeline.

I have also been one of those who applied to the National Energy Board. I just found out that I am one of the few interveners, one of the 400 who was selected. I certainly hope to be able to convey the concerns of my constituents, because although the project directly affects people in his riding, as the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has said, there are also all the communities along the shorelines, the coastal communities. They are very concerned about an increase of more than 400 Aframax tankers a year carrying diluted bitumen.

To our friend across the way who asked what we would propose instead, we propose that we should not ship out diluted bitumen. We should be upgrading and refining product in Canada, so that we are not shipping it and putting it in tankers, essentially exporting to China the jobs that could have been had in Alberta.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the debate we are having here today. It would be nice to have more of these. I thank the hon. member for intervening. Our party, the New Democratic Party, has also registered as an intervener.

It gives me an opportunity to bring up how the National Energy Board selected which of the 2,200 people would be acceptable to this process. Literally, at my office, I had two gentlemen who live along the route. Both made fairly identical applications, and one was kicked out and one was allowed to participate in the process.

It really has been a botched job by the National Energy Board, brought about by the Bill C-38 changes that the government brought in two years ago.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak about the budget implementation act.

We have been down this path before in terms of the complexity involved in the challenging economic times we live in today. It requires large comprehensive budget implementation bills. This is the first of two. There will be one in the fall that we will debate.

As always, it is good to get a budget passed in the same year we propose it. We will likely get this budget all wrapped in December of this year. It is through a lot of work among all members of the House of Commons where we debate this bill.

I know they complain about process across the way, but that is the reality. These are not simple economic times. They are challenging economic times, and they do require large and comprehensive responses.

I will focus my comments on a few items that are very important to me and, I know, to the people of my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore and in Toronto.

First I will talk about what frames the budget, and we are looking to get to balanced budgets, which is really fundamental.

Before the recession hit, we paid down about $37 billion in debt between 2006 and 2009. That was very important. It actually put Canada on firm economic ground. It gave us flexibility to do certain things.

Unlike the Liberals, we do not believe that budgets just balance themselves. It does require a lot of effort to balance the budgets. We ran some deficits intentionally during the global economic crisis. There was stimulus that was required. A lot of infrastructure was built through the stimulus program and it was necessary to keep people working, but we want to get back to balanced budgets.

The way we get there is not by stifling consumer confidence, by raising taxes, or by raising all kinds of other taxes that drive people to work in the underground economy. One of the fundamental underpinnings of our approach to balancing the budget is to keep taxes low.

What we have in our plan are some sensible tax policies. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, talked about some of those sensible tax policies, such as pursuing aggressive tax avoidance and putting new plans there. It is also keeping those taxes low precisely so that the people work in the above-ground economy and pay those taxes.

We see this inverse relationship. When we are lowering taxes, tax receipts are going up. It is because it does create jobs and stimulate the economy, and more people and more companies are paying taxes.

We also have to have as an underpinning some very sound job creation strategies. I mentioned earlier that natural resources are an important plank in our economy, but there are all kinds of other places where we have seen significant job growth in Canada over the last few years. In fact, we have had the best job creation record in the G7.

A third very important underpinning is that we have to have some control on government spending. It is really important that we manage the tax spending on behalf of taxpayers. We are the custodian of these tax dollars that they send us and we have to spend those dollars responsibly.

I am proud of what we have put together in the last few years, and this budget builds on that theme of controlling expenses necessarily. We have done that. We actually have the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7 as a result of that strong hand on the economic tiller.

I want to salute the previous minister of finance for all the fine work he did over the years. I look forward to working with the new Minister of Finance to make sure we continue with that strong tradition.

What are we doing to control those expenditures?

One, the President of the Treasury Board has been in negotiations with the public sector unions to make sure the wages and benefits we are paying our fine, hard-working public servants are affordable to taxpayers. They have to be reasonable. They have to be in line with what people would get for similar kinds of jobs in the private sector.

As I mentioned earlier, we are also closing tax loopholes to make sure we strengthen tax enforcement and ensure we can keep those taxes low.

We are looking at things that control the size, scope, and cost of government. We have done some things in the last couple of years to freeze departmental spending, which is very important, by using new technologies and consolidating back-office kinds of functions, as any good business would do. The Government of Canada is a very large enterprise and we have been doing certain things that have been saving taxpayers money.

We are also looking at assets that are under the control of the Government of Canada, and where it does not make sense for the Government of Canada to be in that business, we are looking at where the private sector can jump in and play a more important role.

I will talk mostly about what the Liberals did in the 1990s, because I think there is a strong contrast between what we are doing with our plan to return to balanced budgets and what the Liberals did.

In 1993, the Liberals came in with a promise to abolish the GST. Well, of course, they did nothing of the sort. In fact, they kept it in place and even encouraged an expansion of the consumption tax base through the HST without cutting the rates at all.

They also kept EI payroll taxes very high and ran enormous surpluses in the EI account, which they then transferred to pay down the debt, which was a tax on jobs; members know that. They also kept income taxes high, and this happened through bracket creep, by stealth, so more and more people who actually had lower income were paying income taxes. What we have done with our plan is remove those people from the income tax rolls altogether, by adjusting the brackets appropriately.

One of the things the Liberals did in the 1990s to balance the budget, which we are not doing, is they failed to meet the needs of our Armed Forces. The Armed Forces needs equipment. It needs the supplies. It needs all of the materiel to ensure it can do its job protecting Canadians and engaging in places around the world. That is something we are not doing. We are maintaining those important investments in our capacity there.

The biggest dollar item and biggest contrast between what we are doing and what the Liberals did in the 1990s to balance the budget is we are not slashing transfers to the provinces. That is very fundamental. As members know, we have a record high of $65 billion in transfers to the provinces for things like health care and social services. I should mention that it is an increase of 50% since 2006.

These are important differences between how we are balancing the budgets and what the Liberals did in the 1990s.

I also want to mention that, before we can do all these things, we have to have this foundation of jobs and growth. There are some important measures that we have taken to create jobs in this country. I mentioned natural resources. However, it is also important that we talk about the employment and skills strategies that we put in place. Last year, in 2013, we talked about the Canada jobs grant. This year, we have some agreements in place with the provinces because we know that, for companies to grow, they need to have the skills. We hear over and over again from employers across the country about the skills gap and what employers need. In fact, some employers are looking to bring people from overseas, which is great for those immigrants to come to Canada and take those high-paying jobs in various roles, but at the same time it is a shame that there are not more Canadians available who can fill some of those important jobs in areas like science, engineering, and technology. That is where the job growth is in our 21st century economy, so we are doing things to ensure Canadians are connected with those available jobs.

There are some significant investments we are making in R and D that need to be pointed out. We are working with universities and working with private companies. Where Canada has been challenged has been in private sector R and D. We have always maintained a very high level of public sector R and D, but we can encourage companies to make those investments and really take their great ideas to the commercialization stage. We have some specific measures in the budget, which I firmly support. In talking to people at innovative companies in my area of the GTA, I hear them talk all the time about the need for these programs, to ensure we are building those jobs for the 21st century.

One of the last things I am going to talk about is also what we are doing to foster small business. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the importance of small business, the way it flexibly adapts to changes in the economy and creates jobs all the time. Since 2006, we have had a very firm record of supporting small business through measures like tax reductions. Some of my colleagues mentioned we have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%. It does not sound like a lot, but it is actually reducing the taxes small business owners are paying by almost 10%.

We have eliminated that corporate surtax that they were paying, which is a very big item for small business. Very importantly, we are maintaining EI rates for small businesses. These are some significant measures. We raised the lifetime capital gains exemption for small businesses. So when they build capital and build a nest egg for their future, we have raised the rate they are not taxed on to $800,000 in 2014. Importantly, it is now indexed to inflation.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the important investments in infrastructure. In Toronto specifically, $4.5 billion has been spent by this government on GTA infrastructure, on things like subways and roads: for example, the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension, the Union Station revitalization, GO Transit enhancements, and finally, with the commitment with the City of Toronto, the extension of the subway into Scarborough.

With that, I am just going to mention that our plan is to keep taxes low, create jobs, and ensure people are paying taxes; and we are not going to spend recklessly like the opposition.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question about funding agreements for co-operative and non-profit housing. By 2020, 200,000 households in co-operative and non-profit projects will lose their federal rental assistance. This is going to have a huge impact in Burnaby—Douglas, and lots of other ridings across Canada. I am wondering, will the federal government agree to renew these housing agreements and not just shovel it off to municipalities and provincial governments? These are very low-income households and they are a staple housing product for all ridings, including his own, I am sure. Perhaps the member could answer that question.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made some significant investments in the budget when it comes to affordable housing. With respect to federal co-ops, I have three of those in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. One of the funny things is that these are mortgage assistances that we agreed to a generation ago. The mortgages have been paid off, so we are not going to be renewing those mortgages.

In the bigger cities, like Toronto, and I am sure in Vancouver, affordable housing is primarily the responsibility of the province, working with the municipal government. We are there to support that, but we are trying to make sure there is no duplication, that we are not trying to do the same kinds of affordable housing projects that the province and the city are doing. That is why there are certain programs that the CMHC is doing in building small-scale, affordable housing in certain neighbourhoods. These are programs that the province and the city are not doing. That is where we can make a difference. However, overlapping bureaucracies trying to do the same thing are not productive for the taxpayer, and it does not get more affordable housing built.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is confusing social housing with affordable housing. They are two completely different things. The question was about social housing agreements.

People who rent an apartment with the help of a housing subsidy do not have the means to buy a so-called affordable house. These agreements are expiring, which is causing some problems. For example, people in Sudbury who were paying less than $400 a month for an apartment are now forced to pay more than $900 in rent.

We are not just talking about mortgages not being renewed. We are talking about rent subsidies and building repairs. That is what my colleague was talking about. He was not talking about so-called affordable housing.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we respect the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

Members on the other side of the House always want governments to compete to do the exact same thing in our municipalities, and that is not the right way to go about it.

Nevertheless, we have made rather significant investments in affordable housing. We invested $1 billion in renovations and energy retrofits, which was well received. There was no such program before.

We will take action together while respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces and municipalities.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill contains two components that are very important for my riding. This is yet another omnibus, or “omnibrick” bill, as I said to my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher. What is sad is that the two measures I am going to focus on have nothing to do with a budget. I am talking about railway safety and imposing a toll on the Champlain Bridge.

The government knows full well that railway safety is a major concern. It has been said in the House on a number of occasions. It is even more important where I come from because the rail lines travel straight through large urban centres and residential neighbourhoods. The elementary school where my mother teaches, in Otterburn Park, is located near train tracks, and trains pass by carrying the same products that caused the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We are therefore very concerned about this issue, to the point that when my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, the NDP transport critic, came to Mont Saint-Hilaire for a public consultation, more than 100 people showed up. It was a beautiful sunny Sunday, which goes to show how worried people are.

We have hammered away at many points over and over again. One interesting point was raised a number of times. It is not being talked about much, but it comes up in the bill. I am talking about the issue of transparency. One of the changes proposed by Bill C-31 would allow cabinet to make amendments to railway safety regulations without the public's knowledge.

That is extremely troubling because if Canadians wants to pressure their government into making changes and ensuring our safety, they can no longer challenge the government's decisions because they will not even know about them. That is clearly very problematic, especially because it runs counter to the current trend.

Indeed, in the United States, the trend is to investigate the various regulatory issues. We know that the U.S. also wanted to make changes because of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, among others. After all, it was an American company, and thus a somewhat shared jurisdiction. However, the fact that this falls under shared jurisdiction is not an excuse to do nothing. The government has done nothing to date. It is extremely troubling to think that the government wants to make changes without the public knowing about them, particularly since Canadians are already concerned about the government's lack of transparency. These changes are only going to make things worse. What is more, they have nothing to do with the budget.

This shows a lack of respect for Canadians, given that people are concerned. From what we have seen, people are becoming increasingly aware of this issue. The government may say that accidents rarely occur, but when they do, it prompts people to find out more. During the public consultations, I was extremely impressed to learn that people know a lot about this issue and about the various regulations. That is good for our democracy.

As MPs, this really helps us to properly stand up for what our constituents want. However, it also shows that if people are looking for information, it must be available to them. The government's desire to make decisions behind closed doors is insulting to Canadians who are clearly committed to getting informed in order to improve the regulations. We are very concerned about this.

The second point I would like to make is about the toll on the Champlain Bridge. I could never speak about this issue with as much passion as my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher showed this morning. However, I would like to say that all members of ridings in the south shore share his passion. I am not just talking about federal MPs. All elected officials in the region are united on this issue, as are ordinary Canadians and the business community.

Once again, the government is hiding measures in an omnibus bill. That seems to be a consistent trend.

Since the Minister of Infrastructure was once a mayor, he should understand the importance of consulting municipalities and businesses. He should also understand that it is a grave insult to the people when Ottawa fails to consult them and hides measures that eliminate other consultation tools. That is what is going on with Bill C-31. There is no independent consultation about the new Champlain Bridge to make sure that future tolls will be similar to tolls elsewhere in the world and that the government is following best practices.

Unfortunately, the minister's contempt for the people comes as no surprise. We may not be surprised at the lack of consultation or the government's decision to hide measures in omnibus bills, but we are nevertheless disappointed.

That being said, as my colleague pointed out, we will not let this go unnoticed. We have rallied the people. In my riding, there was a luncheon with the new president of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Bassin de Chambly. The new president and the new board have three priorities for the chamber of commerce in the coming year. Their top priority is the Champlain Bridge. A huge number of people in the Chambly basin use this bridge. We are right along highway 10, so it is easy to see why this is such an important issue.

The mayor of Chambly, Denis Lavoie, gave a presentation to the chamber of commerce during the annual mayor's luncheon. He talked about his disappointment and said that he would not let the issue drop. My colleagues and I stand firmly behind them.

In that spirit, on Saturday, May 3, we will be knocking on our constituents' doors on the south shore and in the northern and southern suburbs of Montreal, since I am in the second tier of suburbs, not the immediately adjacent suburb. My riding straddles two regions, but we are still in the south shore region. Some of our constituents commute to Montreal for work, so it is important for me to consult them. Just today some of my constituents said they are worried about this, and their concern is growing every day.

I really liked the expression my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie used. He called it bullying. Some people may find that a little strong, but the word is fair, since the situation in our region is very serious. It would seem as though I am repeating everything my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said, but that is a good sign, because it shows how united we are on this and that our constituents have the same priorities.

The lack of consultation really worries us because it was the mismanagement by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that got us here in the first place. They did not want to maintain the bridge properly. Now the government is saying that it is a disaster and that measures must be imposed immediately. They even skipped the tendering process. The government used past mismanagement to justify its current mismanagement of this file. We have a problem with that. This situation is unacceptable, and we will continue to oppose it.

This is a positive message, because an NDP government would consult Canadians, whether regarding the Champlain Bridge or on any other matter. We have the courage of our convictions and we would not hide them in an omnibus bill like the one I am honoured to oppose here today.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who did an incredible job of presenting the concerns of the people who live in the suburbs of the south shore, including their concerns about the Champlain Bridge.

Toward the end of his presentation he mentioned the omnibus bill. Once again, Bill C-31 is a mammoth bill, with countless clauses that affect many laws.

Since he did not have enough time to talk about it, I would like to know what the member and the people of Chambly—Borduas think of the fact that we are faced with yet another omnibus bill in this House?

As well, what does he think about the fact that we are being gagged with another time allocation motion, which means that not all the members will have a chance to talk in detail about Bill C-31?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

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

Indeed, we are dealing with another omnibus bill. I think my speech clearly demonstrated the problems that this causes. This is a budget implementation bill, and I have to speak to the issues that matter to the people back home, in other words, railway safety and the Champlain Bridge. Those are two of the top priorities in my riding.

This is a fine example of the problems associated with this approach. We could spend 10 or 20 minutes talking about the Champlain Bridge alone. I am sure that some of my other colleagues agree. It is not that I did not want to talk about my own concerns or those of the people I have the honour of representing, but the problem is that we cannot talk about all the other aspects of the bill. There are so many, and that speaks volumes about the shortcomings of this approach.

The people back home are fed up with this approach. They see that we want to talk about their priorities in the House, but when we are forced to do so in a roundabout way and to talk about railway safety and the Champlain Bridge during a debate on a budget implementation bill, it makes no sense.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if any of the members opposite have ever visited Longueuil or Brossard. A toll bridge to get there is unthinkable. Half of the people on that side work in Montreal, and nearly as many travel in the opposite direction. It is totally absurd.

The Conservatives claim to know everything there is to know about economics. Over the past few years, people have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in businesses on the south shore. That is how the economy developed. If, all of a sudden, people have to pay a huge toll to cross the bridge, we can kiss those Conservative buzzwords, job creation and long-term prosperity, goodbye.

I would like my colleague to comment further on that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Chambly—Borduas is the third-largest riding in Quebec by population. Two of the five municipalities with the highest birth rates in 2012 are in my riding. One of the three municipalities with the highest population growth rates in 2011 is in my riding. With all due respect to my colleagues from Montreal, that speaks volumes about the growth taking place in the suburbs, in places like my riding.

That is why we are concerned, and so are our chambers of commerce. The statistics I just shared suggest that people want to settle in my riding, raise their families there and participate in the community and the local economy. If the government creates more and more obstacles to make it harder to get into Montreal, that is extremely problematic.

In the lead-up to his question, my colleague asked if any of the members opposite had ever visited my riding. The answer is no, and that is why we are so disappointed in the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to highlight some of the key measures in the federal budget, the economic action plan 2014. It is entitled “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities”. It was recently tabled by the Minister of Finance.

Those are two very important aspects of the plan to ensure that indeed there are continuing jobs and continuing long-term prosperity in Canada.

This is the government's tenth budget since 2006. I have been here for each of the years of the budgets after that. Over that period, our country has been confronted by some unprecedented global and economic challenges from beyond our borders. We have certainly had to take action as a result.

In good time and bad times, we have never strayed from our commitment to strengthen our economy for all Canadians, with the determination to see our plan through without raising taxes—and that is an important aspect of it—while at the same time addressing of the deficit. Those are important pillars in keeping our economy strong and ensuring that we do well in the long term.

As was mentioned a number of times here today, Canada is leading the global economic recovery. The fact is that over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada, over 85% of them full time and nearly 80% in the private sector. Those areas are very important. That is where we are creating the jobs.

This has all happened since the end of the recession in July 2009. Over this period, this is the strongest job growth in the entire G7 by far.

Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment loss during the recession.

It is important that we keep on track for balancing the budget. Before the global recession hit, our government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years.

Members will remember that there was a discussion about what we should do with the extra funds that were available, and a decision was made to pay down the debt. That was in advance of the global recession that was to take place. We now find that was a very wise thing to do. That aggressive debt reduction and fiscal responsibility and good planning put Canada in the best position possible to weather the global recession.

When the global recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run a temporary deficit to protect our economy and jobs. I was there when that discussion was held as well. Would we go into deficit in order to preserve our economy, in order to create jobs? The answer was that we would indeed go into deficit, fairly significantly, but in the short term and with a plan to return to balance. Those monies were not placed or spent by putting them on some big dark black hole. The money was utilized primarily to create infrastructure.

Infrastructure was indeed needed to create jobs. In fact, infrastructure is the backbone for our economy. Businesses that want to invest and expand require infrastructure to move products to the port, especially if they are in central Canada. They require electricity. They require highways. All those kinds of things are necessary. That money was invested in infrastructure and certainly helped to create jobs in the short term, but it also ensured our economic prosperity in the longer term.

While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada remains in a most enviable fiscal position among the G7 countries.

Our Conservative government remains on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015-16. Specifically, economic action plan 2014 announced that the deficit is expected to decline to $2.9 billion in 2014-15 and that a surplus of over $6 billion is expected in 2015-16, even after taking into account a $3 billion annual adjustment for risk.

For all intents and purposes, the budget is balanced, and we are going to announce a surplus.

At the same time, federal transfers that provide important income support to individuals, such as old age security and employment insurance, and major transfers to other levels of government, including those for social programs and health care, have continued to grow.

Budget 2014 also builds on these efforts to reduce wasteful and ineffective government spending by announcing an additional $9.1 billion in ongoing savings. It is not just a question of creating a climate by keeping taxes low to ensure that income is earned and taxes are paid; it is also important to ensure that we do not spend wastefully or operate ineffectively.

We have made public service sector wages and benefits affordable for taxpayers by ensuring that compensation is fair and in line with other public and private sector employers. We have improved the fairness of the tax system by closing tax loopholes and strengthening tax enforcement to ensure low taxes for all taxpayers, not only a select few.

In addition, we have controlled the size and cost of government by freezing departmental budgets to ensure efficiency in government operations and administration. I know it is difficult to do. Once we start doing that, there are a lot of complaints that we are starting to require more efficiency to ensure that we can operate better. It is like a culture that sets in, asking if we can do more with less. Once that starts happening, the amount that is saved ends up being a significant portion. It is not just a saving in the short term; the savings continue to accumulate as the years go forward. It is important for that to happen.

Overall, since 2010, actions that we have taken to make government more effective and efficient are saving taxpayers roughly $19 billion a year, which over a number of years amounts to a significant saving to Canadian taxpayers. At the same time, since 2006 we have increased transfers by over 50% to an all-time high of about $65 billion in 2014-15.

As I said, another important pillar in ensuring that the economy continues to do as well as it has is keeping taxes low. Unlike what some others would suggest, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and in leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadians and Canadian families and in job-creating businesses.

Indeed, as has been mentioned here in the House before, we have cut taxes nearly 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to the lowest level it has been in 50 years. We have cut taxes in every way that government collects them, including personal tax, consumption tax, business tax, excise tax, and more. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant savings of nearly $3,400 for a typical family of four in 2014.

We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. That was welcomed by all Canadians. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn without paying any tax at all so that low-income earners would not have to pay tax.

We introduced pension income splitting for seniors. As we all know, we reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, placing more than $1,000 back into the pockets of the average family.

We introduced and enhanced the working income tax benefit to ensure that low-income earners could earn more and keep more in their pockets. That has been well received, and the enhancement has certainly done well for lower-income earners.

We introduced the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP.

We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%. We steadily lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%. When someone looks to invest in Canada, whether they are a business person, a corporation, or an entrepreneur, having a good tax climate is important in deciding to either expand a business or invest in a new business.

Overall, we have also removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.

Of course, the final point I want to talk about is investing in communities and infrastructure. It is an interesting area.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

I would like to mention that Bill C-31 is massive. The Conservatives have once again introduced an omnibus bill. What is more, the Conservatives are once again muzzling the other members and refusing to let them talk. The Conservatives have imposed closure. Unfortunately, not all members will have an opportunity to speak to this bill, which contains so many things that it is impossible to cover them all in a 10-minute speech.

I would like my colleague opposite to tell us whether they will introduce any more of these omnibus bills amending legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. Why are the Conservatives systematically refusing to discuss bills and stifling debate in the House?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for the better part of today, and I have not seen anyone muzzled or kept from speaking.

Members have been able to speak on any aspect of the budget that they want to. In fact, many of the comments have little to do with what is in the budget.

As for saying that it is a gigantic bill, of course, anything that is affected by way of spending money or providing a service is obviously the type of activity that would be implemented in the budget. This one is no different from ones in the past. It is certainly appropriate to deal with matters that affect the economy and that affect the budget and the spending of taxpayers' dollars in a comprehensive tax implementation bill. That is how it gets done.

There is much debate in the budget itself, which sets out the parameters of what would be done. There was debate on that, as well. This is one of two budget implementation bills, and there is freedom to speak on this also.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the member says that this is the way it is done, I think it is important that we recognize that this is not the way it has been done traditionally.

It is only since we have had the Reform-Conservative majority government that we have seen such massive budget implementation bills. That is an important point that I think needs to be recognized.

My question to the member is in regard to the median average household income. There we have seen a hundred dollar annual increase going to the middle class. The middle class are the people we should be truly caring about inside this House, and we have seen a hundred dollar increase. If we take the 20% at the other end of that spectrum, it is actually a decrease of about $500.

My question to the member is very simple. Why does he believe that this Conservative government has failed so badly in terms of addressing the issues of the middle class in Canada today?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the member is defining the middle class.

I can say that an average family of four is saving at least $3,200 in income taxes. Not only are they saving dollars in income tax and putting more money in their pocket, but we have provided a whole range of services with respect to skills training for youth, for older people, and for those transitioning to jobs, into the millions of dollars.

We have helped students by ensuring that they have the ability to get a student loan, that they can qualify for student loans with higher incomes. We have said that while students are going to school, they can continue to work.

In fact, when we start adding up all the things we have done, we have actually enhanced the position of taxpayers exponentially compared to when we took over from the previous Liberal government in the last number of years.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to work with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

At the time, he was the committee chair. I imagine that he must remember that we studied the apprenticeship programs and we recommended that the government include apprenticeship programs in federal infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, that is not in the budget.

I would like to ask him whether he is disappointed by this omission in the building Canada plan that is outlined in the budget.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have maybe not done the specific thing that the member speaks of, but we have done a number of things for apprentices. We had the apprenticeship incentive grant, the completion incentive grant, the tradesperson tools deduction, and the apprenticeship job creation tax grant. We have taken a number of initiatives in the trades and a number of initiatives for apprentices.

Can more be done? I am sure there is more that can be done, but we have had significant improvements in that area, and I know apprentices have really appreciated that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak out against the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31.

I am against this bill and I am going to try to state the reasons why as quickly as possible in the 10 minutes that I have to speak. Various measures in this bill affect the people of Laval and, today, I am speaking on their behalf.

First, I would like to talk about debt. My colleagues would be very surprised to know how many people write to me every month to share their concerns about our debt. Many people are concerned about the way their money is being spent at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. People know how to count. They expect politicians to spend the money that is available to the different levels of government wisely, and I understand that.

The federal debt went from $582.2 billion in 2011-12 to $627.4 billion in 2013-14 and, according to projections, it will reach $634 billion in 2014-15. What is more, there is no reason to believe that the Conservative government will achieve the surpluses it expects given how much the deficit has grown over the past few years.

I therefore believe that the members on the other side of the House should take the debt issue a bit more seriously and deal with it head-on. According to our numbers and forecasts, this is a very serious situation. Our national debt has increased significantly.

Furthermore, I am still extremely disappointed in the Conservatives' lack of commitment to community organizations and particularly the lack of funding given to these organizations across the country. I cannot mention them all because it would take me much longer than 10 minutes. I could spend a whole day listing them.

As an aside, I would like to talk about the chronic lack of funding for amateur sport. As a result of decisions made regarding the building Canada fund, the federal government was going to help fund an arena for amateur sport in Laval, but at the last minute it decided to back out of the project. We never found out exactly why. That is just one example.

In fact, other amateur sports organizations get very little funding. I am thinking, for example, of Josée Lepage, executive director of the Club de gymnastique Laval Excellence, which continues to work miracles with very few resources. The government is not there to help finance the work needed to maintain the organization's facilities, which costs $35,000. That does not even include the operating budget, which is practically non-existent.

There is another element that affects both the people of Laval and Canadians in all of our ridings. I am talking about funding for cadet corps, which help young people immensely. The young people I met in Alfred—Pellan are involved in community organizations and do volunteer work. For example, they help out at spaghetti suppers and are always there to lend a hand.

In addition, they successfully find ways to raise money for other community organizations, by packing groceries and so on. The people who work in cadet corps are very dedicated, and that includes not only the youth who often become civilian instructors, but also all the officers and civilian instructors.

Because of the current lack of funding for cadet corps services, some people basically use their salary to help pay for activities. I am thinking about Major Felix Macia, from the 2567 Dunkerque cadet corps in Laval, who uses his meagre officer's salary to pay for his cadets' activities.

This budget should have done more to address the challenges facing youth organizations. People can work miracles with very little.

The riding of Alfred-Pellan is an urban but highly agricultural riding on the island of Laval; its economy is largely based on many small and medium-sized businesses. They are a key part of the economy of the eastern part of Laval.

I was very disappointed to see the lack of action for small businesses in this budget and to realize that we will have to wait for the next budget, in the coming year, before small-business owners will see their tax rate drop. They asked for this relief years ago. Ottawa has already granted that privilege to big businesses but refused to do the same for small businesses. Under the Conservative government, the tax rate for big business dropped from 22% to 15% in order to kick-start investment. The government seems to be willing to show some flexibility with small businesses, but we need to wait for the next budget, during an election year, for that to happen. They are simply insulting people who own small and medium-sized businesses.

Where I come from, we are proud of our small and medium businesses. One that comes to mind is the Dolce Pane bakery in Saint-François, which makes cakes with dulce de leche. Just thinking about it makes my mouth water. Another is Ongles Royal at the Centre Duvernay, where amazing, incredibly gentle and polite women work every day. Another is Démen-Ciel, a restaurant in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, where an absolutely charming couple, executive chef Éric Côté and pastry chef-host Sophie Lapointe, devote themselves to serving local products every day. Au Féminin in Vimont is a clothing boutique run by Chantal Côté and her team that sells only clothes made in Quebec. These are extremely dedicated people who have small businesses with five, 10 or 20 employees. If the government wants to help the economy, it has to help our small and medium businesses.

I also wanted to talk about youth unemployment. Even though 1.3 million Canadians are unemployed, this budget contains not a single significant measure to tackle that problem. In January 2014 in Laval, the unemployment rate was 5.7%. In Quebec, it was 7.5%. This problem hits younger Canadians hardest; their unemployment rate is 2.4 times higher. Statistics Canada's comprehensive study of youth unemployment dynamics found that, in 2012, the unemployment rate among youth aged 15 to 24 was 14.3%, while it was just 6% among adults aged 25 to 54 and those over 55.

I am thinking about the young people in Saint-François who are going through a very difficult time and who are even more isolated than the other young people in Laval. They are having a hard time finding work. The young people in Auteuil and Vimont are also struggling to find work even though they are highly educated. Youth employment has never recovered since the 2008 recession. What is more, young people are twice as likely as adults to be laid off . Young workers with low seniority are at greater risk of being laid off by their employer. The sectors that are most affected are construction, manufacturing, retail sales, and hospitality and food services. This budget proposes far too little for young, unemployed Canadians across the country.

I would like to close by talking about arts and culture. In Alfred-Pellan, arts and culture are important to the community. Just look at all the agencies that work in arts and culture in Laval, such as Choeur Chanterelle du Collège Laval, La Chorale le 400, Corporation Rose-Art, Société littéraire de Laval, St-Vincent de Paul Art Gallery, Maison des arts de Laval, Galerie du Ruisseau, le Pépin d'Art, and the list goes on.

As far as culture is concerned, the budget earmarks $105 million in ongoing funding for a number of cultural funds such as the Canada arts presentation fund, the Canada book fund, and the Canada music fund. It should be noted that in all three cases, the allocated funding is not as high as the actual expenditures for those programs for 2012-13.

For its part, the Canada media fund is to end in 2014-15. There is nothing in the budget for now, which is causing some uncertainty and concern among culture stakeholders.

I just want to mention very quickly that the Mayor of Laval, Marc Demers, laments the federal government's disengagement when it comes to social housing. I totally agree with him because there are no measures for social housing. I hope to be able to address this point during questions and comments.

Again, I must say that I am opposed to this omnibus bill. The NDP will keep fighting for a fairer, greener, and more prosperous Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too believe that housing is a critically important issue, no matter where one lives in Canada. For example, our current housing stock needs to be renovated. I made reference to the impact of consecutive Conservative budgets on the middle class and people not necessarily being able to afford essential home repairs, for example. The idea of housing co-ops, life leases for people aged 55 plus, infill housing in older communities across Canada, non-profit housing, and making sure that all Canadians have sound housing, which is one of the basic essentials, are all critically important in Canada.The budget falls short in addressing those many issues.

The member indicated that she would like to comment more on housing. Perhaps she could provide her other thoughts.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the lack of social housing measures is extremely important in terms of the budget and what the federal government can do. Budget 2014 does not offer anything tangible to help with housing. It does not have any objectives, timetables or specific commitments to develop a long-term social housing plan.

I am relying on what Mayor Demers said, but the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has also sounded the alarm for the Conservative government.

Funding for social housing will drop by about $1.5 billion over the next five years, as federal investments start to expire. That is in addition to the lack of a long-term plan and lack of leadership on the part of the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard of shortfalls in social housing and of infrastructure that has been delayed for decades, particularly in Quebec. We have been seeing the news reports of the problems in infrastructure there. We can take it back to the government's obsession with corporate tax cuts. It took $30 billion out of our country's annual budget in its first couple of years in government. Over the last four to five years, if we had had that revenue and had it going forward, social housing would be something we could address.

The question I have is about the relationship between the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal government. It seems to me to be toxic. When they try to come together on various issues, it does not seem to be working. What is the member's experience, relative to opinions in her area, with regard to how the federal government does not work properly with other levels of government?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is getting at the crux of the problem when he talks about the toxic relationships—which is an interesting word to use—or the lack of relationship between municipalities in Quebec and the federal government. This is quite evident here; the issue of social housing and the Conservative government's lack of commitment is only one of many examples.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government made promises to Laval about building a large arena to serve a number of community and sports organizations in the city. The people had been waiting for that for years. The federal government promised to invest with the building Canada fund and to pay for its share of the project. Unfortunately, the Conservatives abandoned the idea. That is unbelievable and it is just one example.

As my colleague mentioned, there are infrastructure problems all across the country. Montreal has a glaring infrastructure problem, in both the inner areas and outlying suburbs. A few years ago, the de la Concorde overpass unfortunately collapsed onto highway 19 in Alfred-Pellan, killing about 10 people. Another overpass collapsed in Laval, the Boulevard du Souvenir overpass, which is a little further west in Laval. We have serious problems and investments are needed. We need the Conservative government to sit down and talk with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to come up with solutions to this problem.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the House on Bill C-31, the budget implementation act for budget 2014.

Life is a people business, and nowhere is that a truer maxim than in politics. A number of years ago, I decided to stand for election for reasons that most of us did, and that was to make the country a little bit better for everyone.

The last five years have been challenging for our country, even though we have weathered the recent economic storms relatively well since 2008.

Much has been made of the fact that budget 2014 puts the federal budget on a clear path to balance next year, and we in the government are very pleased and proud of that fact. However, I would like to highlight some other measures that Bill C-31 implements.

This budget implementation legislation makes improvements to the lives and economic well-being of Canadians from coast to coast. That, after all, is why we are here. We might disagree with each other on how to improve the lives of Canadians, but we all want to make things better, regardless of where we sit.

For my part, I know that budget 2014 and the measures in it would make a difference in the lives of Canadians, and particularly in the lives of my constituents. I would like to highlight some of these measures in Bill C-31 that would help our families and communities.

We all know that we face an aging population situation and that with aging comes health-related challenges. Budget 2014 expands health-related tax relief under the HST/GST and the income tax system to reflect the health care needs of Canadians. We are committed to ensuring that the tax system is representative of the changing nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians.

In economic action plan 2014, the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit would now include costs associated with service animals specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes. These are diabetes alert dogs.

Additionally, budget 2014 would provide further tax recognition of costs associated with specially designed medical therapies and training. These costs would be addressed by expanding the current HST/GST exemption for training that is specially designed to aid those Canadians coping with a disorder or a disability. Budget 2014 would now exempt services for designing these particular training plans. The amounts paid for the design of an individualized therapy plan would also be considered an eligible expense for income tax purposes under the medical expense tax credit.

The services of acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors would also be exempted from the GST/HST.

Furthermore, eyewear specially designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals with vision impairment that was supplied on the order of a physician or other specified health professional would also be added to the list of GST/HST-free medical and assistive devices.

These changes to the medical expense tax credit would apply to expenses incurred after 2013. While these measures are not large or expansive, they are recognition by our government that the expenses of Canadians are changing, and the tax system needs to change with them.

Another measure for budget 2014 I would like to highlight is the increase in the maximum allowed for the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for Canadians.

There are many Canadians out there who would make phenomenal parents, but for whatever reason, they are not able to have children. Equally, there are many children out there who are put up for adoption and need loving families, parents, and safe homes to go to, since for whatever reason, their biological parents are simply not able to take care of them properly.

I believe that no one would argue with me that we want all Canadian children to be in safe, loving homes with parents who care for them and their well-being. For some Canadians, adoption is the only road to parenthood. As such, I believe that we should help Canadians adopt children, and that is what budget 2014 does.

The adoption process however, can be costly for potential parents. Currently the adoption tax expense credit provides a tax credit of up to a maximum of $11,774 in expenses per child for 2014. To increase tax recognition of adoption-related expenses for things such as adoption agency fees and legal fees, budget 2014 would increase the maximum amount of the credit to $15,000. This change would apply to adoptions finalized after 2013. Normal indexation would apply to the new maximum amount for taxation years after 2014. By increasing the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000, we would be providing further tax relief for Canadian parents who want to adopt and would be recognizing the unique costs that arise from adopting a child.

Budget 2014 would also help parents in another critical area. It would enhance access to sickness benefits for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children and compassionate care benefits. Sometimes, when Canadians get sick, they might be unable to care for family members who are seriously ill or injured.

Our government is committed to ensuring fairness in employment insurance programs, to make sure they continue helping Canadians when they need it most. Budget 2014 would build on previous enhancements to the EI sickness benefits for parental benefit claimants, and would commit $2.4 million over two years and $1.2 million ongoing per year to enhance access to sickness benefits. This would be for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children and compassionate care benefits. These enhancements would allow claimants who are temporarily away from work to take care of a critically ill or injured child or gravely ill family member at significant risk of death to temporarily suspend their claims in order to access sickness benefits should they themselves fall sick or become injured. This is good, common sense change and speaks to the compassion of Canadians for one another.

Last, I would like to speak to another measure from budget 2014 that demonstrates the care Canadians have for one another. Speaking from personal experience, I know that Canadians have a great volunteer spirit, and that spirit is very evident in the great city of Edmonton, which I have the honour to represent in this House. I have been privileged to live in many areas of Canada, and I have never seen a city with the volunteer spirit that Edmontonians demonstrate every day and that results in Edmonton staging many large international events with spectacular results.

Canadians volunteer for many great causes, and the one that many people volunteer for is search and rescue. These Canadians volunteer in this role on the ground, in the air, and on the water.

In budget 2011, our government introduced the volunteer firefighters tax credit to recognize the important role that volunteer firefighters play in many Canadian communities. Search and rescue volunteers are another group of quiet heroes in Canada. They put themselves at risk to serve their communities by volunteering for ground, air, and marine search and rescue groups. They do this in support of the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other agencies. These volunteers are a very important part of the emergency response system, and they provide a source of well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped volunteers in the event of a natural disaster or large-scale emergency.

To honour these quiet heroes, budget 2014 announced a 15% non-refundable search and rescue volunteers tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. This credit would be available to search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue services and volunteer firefighting services in a given year. They would be able to choose between the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the new tax credit. Those search and rescue volunteers who currently receive honoraria in respect to their duties as emergency service volunteers would also be able to choose between the new tax credit and the existing tax exemption of up to $1,000 for honoraria. This measure would apply for the 2014 tax year and subsequent years, and it is an excellent way to honour the heroes of our local communities.

All these measures I have mentioned would help Canadians and their families. They would make life a bit easier and a bit less expensive, help Canadians become parents, and honour our local heroes. These measures reflect the values of Canadians: compassion, caring for others and those in need, and volunteerism, to name a few. These are values that should be reflected in our federal budgets, and budget 2014 does exactly that. It reflects truly Canadian values.

It has been an honour to address the House on such an important piece of legislation as the budget implementation bill. I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I truly look forward to casting my vote in favour of Bill C-31.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

This bill contains dozens and hundreds of pages on various pieces of legislation. Does my colleague not find it incredible that so many laws will be affected by a budget implementation bill, laws that have absolutely nothing to do with implementing the budget? The Conservatives have already done the same thing over the past few years. Once again, they have introduced the same kind of budget implementation bill.

As a parliamentarian, does he not think that muzzling other MPs and limiting the time for debate constitutes an attack on democracy?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unbelievable is that some members, not necessarily this member, have difficulty grasping that budgets and government responsibilities are extremely complex and wide-ranging.

With respect to muzzling, we have been here listening to debate today and other days, and I have not heard or seen anybody being muzzled. In fact, if they would talk about things that are actually in the budget implementation bill, rather than their concerns for political points, then we might all get a bit further and they might actually get more of their points put out, instead of just complaining about it.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the search and rescue part of the member's speech. He mentioned that these measures in the budget implementation bill are for Canadians and their families. Clearly when there is a non-refundable search and rescue tax credit, there will be family members who are doing search and rescue, putting in those volunteer hours, and helping to keep their communities safe, but they may not have enough other income to qualify for a tax credit.

I would ask the member this: given the importance of this activity, why would he cut out the Canadians and families who are not able to claim a tax credit because of their low income?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for thinking that I have the power to cut things out, which of course I do not. It is a team effort.

Simply put, there are a lot of tax credits. We have brought in many tax credits over the last number of years. This is just the latest one. They are all designed to give some financial relief to those who contribute to their communities in a variety of ways and who make taxable income. That income can then be reduced based on the wide variety of tax credits we have brought in.

Every measure does not apply to every member of society. There is a balance across the board. That is why we have done things like taking a million Canadians completely off the tax rolls. It is not that every measure has to apply to every Canadian. That is not the way it works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he really thinks that in a bill that is 362 pages long and one-inch thick it is really reasonable to include a pile of legislation and subjects that have nothing to do with one another. Can he really look me in the eye and say that he thinks that this is appropriate?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, looking my colleague in the eye, through you, I would repeat that the business of government, of finance, of budgets is very complex and interrelated. Although some things may not seem budget-related to him or to other members, virtually everything the government does is budget-related in some fashion. Virtually everything we do or anything any government does is an attempt to find ways to do things better and more efficiently. That may not have a direct dollar figure on it in a budget bill, but there is a connection and an interrelationship between all of those things the government does.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. Clearly, as you know, the Liberals will vote against it.

I will start with the temporary foreign worker program. Three hours after question period, I moved a motion in the House that, unfortunately, did not receive unanimous consent. However, that motion reflects our point of view on this program.

What I tried to do in this motion, which did not receive unanimous consent, was to propose that the section of the budget implementation bill having to do with fines being imposed on those who break the laws regarding temporary foreign workers be removed from this bill and passed immediately through all stages of the process, thereby becoming effective immediately. This would provide another tool in the kit for the government, which is seeking to punish, so to speak, employers who are breaking the rules on temporary foreign workers.

The government did not like that. I guess it does not like the principle of breaking up its huge omnibus bill, no matter how much sense that might make. However, this would have given the government the tools right away to deal with this problem. This illustrates the more general point that while we in the Liberal Party agree that the temporary foreign worker program should exist, we also believe that the government has been incredibly irresponsible in allowing the number of temporary foreign workers to more than double, from approximately 150,000 or 160,000 people when the Liberals were in government, to well over 300,000 today.

As we know from examples involving my former employer, the Royal Bank, and also a mine in British Columbia, there have certainly been abuses of this program. Now the government has created its own mess and is trying to fix it. Liberals believe that many thousands of jobs that have been occupied by temporary foreign workers should have gone to Canadians in need of work. That is becoming more evident. It was evident from the public response to the situation involving McDonald's in Victoria.

We think the Conservatives should never have gotten into this in the first place. However, now that they have a mess to clean up, we think they should have accepted our motion so they could have imposed fines right away, rather than waiting weeks and weeks until this massive budget implementation bill finally passes through both Houses and becomes law.

According to what I have heard, the NDP wants to abolish the temporary foreign worker program, which would be really stupid if that were true. That shows that the New Democrats' attitude and economic policy are devoid of any common sense.

Experience has shown that in some sectors, including agriculture, this has been a useful and vital program for decades. There is absolutely no question that we want to keep this program. However, under the Conservatives, the numbers have shot up irresponsibly. Therefore, we want to put limits on the program, not abolish it.

The danger of this program is that it risks taking us away from Canada's long-held immigration system, where people come in with their families, become citizens, have children, vote in elections, and have grandchildren. That is how most of us, if not all of us, came to this country. By having massive numbers of temporary foreign workers, who are not in many cases qualified to be here but are taking other Canadians' jobs, we are gravitating toward a Europe-style, a Switzerland-style guest worker system, where people come in for a couple of years and then are shipped out again. That is not and never has been the Canadian way, but I fear that is the way the government is taking us.

I would like to spend the rest of my limited time on two other immigration-related issues.

The first issue is the immigration investor program. I believe there are approximately 20,000 applicants to the program who would be unceremoniously dumped by this bill. Yes, they would get their fees back, but in many cases they have been waiting many years to come into this country on the basis of this program. All of a sudden they are cut off at the knees and have absolutely no possibility of coming to Canada under the terms of that program. It is perhaps coincidental, but it is a fact that a very high proportion of these people happen to be from China. Naturally, they are not at all happy about this development.

I would be the first to acknowledge that the program, which I believe was brought forward in the Mulroney years, was imperfect. It had deficiencies and things that should have been fixed. Instead of $800,000, which the people get back, maybe it should be $8 million. Maybe there should be a requirement for real job creation. Maybe this, maybe that. We do not have the resources of the government to design a precise program.

My point is that rather than cutting these people off at the knees and throwing them out the window, the government should first develop an improved version of the program and give those who were already applicants in the old program the option of transferring to the new program. That would be fair. That would be better for Canada, because those people are likely to make a major contribution to the country, especially if the requirements imposed on them are more onerous and more favourable to this country.

Therefore, rather than proposing a little pilot program, which the Conservatives do not define and for which we have no idea of when, if ever, will happen, the government should have done its homework first and reformed the existing program, giving the applicants to the old program the opportunity to apply to the new program. That would be the way to move our system forward in an efficient and effective manner, primarily for the sake of Canada but also for the sake of those who waited many years and spent many dollars to apply to come to this country.

Finally, I will speak to another provision in the bill. This provision would extend to 20 years, rather than 10 years, the time that has to elapse before a newcomer is eligible for GIS.

The poorest seniors will now have to wait 20 years instead of 10 in order to be eligible for this benefit.

This is a subset of a more general issue. The government has decided that instead of sponsors being required to look after their parents for 10 years, they will have to look after them for an extended period of 20 years. In today's volatile economy, it seems to me that this is an unreasonable imposition. One does not know over a period of 20 years whether one will lose one's job or whether other unfortunate things might happen.

The bottom line is that in imposing these changes, the government is rationing the number of parents and grandparents to be allowed into the country according to the income and wealth of those who are applying. I think it is a very restrictive approach and I do not think it reflects the long, positive Canadian traditions in the area of immigration.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the vast ignorance demonstrated by the member opposite on these matters.

The member just suggested that this government created the temporary foreign worker program. Let me be clear. What we call the temporary foreign worker program is essentially issuing work permits to foreign nationals coming to Canada. This has always existed.

In fact, the particular dimension of the program to which the member objected—namely, permitting general low-skilled workers or foreign nationals with permits to work, for example, in the restaurant business—was introduced in 2004 when he was in the cabinet. He sat around the cabinet table to introduce the general low-skilled stream about which he is now complaining.

We have not broadened the policy framework of the TFW program since coming to office. To the contrary, as any of the industry groups will tell him, we have constrained those parameters. As the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says, the worst thing our government has done is to make it so difficult to bring in TFWs.

The flow of TFWs coming to Canada has gone from 0.7% of workforce to 1.1% of workforce since 2005. In other words, 99% of people in the Canadian workforce are either citizens or permanent residents. We have not changed that in any meaningful way.

Finally, on the GIS, is the member suggesting that Canadian taxpayers should be responsible for the social costs of bringing seniors to Canada who have never lived here, paid taxes, or worked in the country? Certainly, we will be—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second question, the answer is not at all, and that is not at all what I said.

The minister can use all the vitriol and negative language he wishes, but he really misses the point. It is not so much that I am the one who is devoid of facts or knowledge; it is him, by virtue of some of the things he just said.

The point is not the point he makes. The point is that under a Liberal government, as I said in my speech, we had approximately 150,000 people. Contrary to the NDP, which wants no temporary foreign workers, we are conscious of the need for them in agriculture and other high-skill areas. We have nothing against the program in principle.

What we do object to is the irresponsible doubling of the number of such people, more than doubling, by the Conservatives, under the leadership of the minister, and bringing in people wildly inappropriately and causing scandals in a number of well-known companies. Now they have cooked their own stew, and he is doing his best to extricate himself. If he had accepted the motion I proposed—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We need some time for other members.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member for Markham—Unionville just said is not true. It is not true that the NDP is opposed to the temporary foreign worker program. What the NDP is opposed to, and we have often spoken to the minister about it, is the possibility that temporary foreign workers could be hired instead of our workers, who want to work and who are available to work. They should be hired before foreign workers.

However, let us not forget that under the Liberal government, people who worked in Prince Edward Island's agriculture industry for six months and then went home to their country for six months never became permanent residents in Canada. They wanted to stay here in Canada. That was under his government in 2004 and 2005. The same thing is happening here today.

Is the member saying that we need to bring in temporary foreign workers when unemployment is at 16% and there are people who want to work and to receive the training they need to get jobs in Canada? Is that what he is saying?

Is it not true. The NDP is not against temporary foreign workers. However, we are opposed to the idea of having them come here when our workers have no work. I would like him to acknowledge that before the House of Commons.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given what the member just said, perhaps the NDP members have changed their minds and now agree with the Liberals' policy. If so, I congratulate them because we have said pretty much the same thing he just said. We are not opposed to the program in general, but we are not okay with letting foreign workers come here to take Canadians' jobs. That is what I just said and what he just said.

At the same time, in the agricultural sector, as I said—though he may not agree—I know there is a need for these foreign workers, and in some cases, we would like these temporary workers to become permanent workers in Canada and eventually Canadian citizens.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, those of us in the Harper government are immensely proud of economic action plan 2014, and for good reason.

Once again, our government has delivered for Canadians while making plans to return to a balanced budget in the short term. Under our Conservative government's financial stewardship, Canada has seen the strongest job growth rate among G7 countries. Canada is the only G7 country to receive a triple-A credit rating from all major reporting agencies, thanks to our government's sound economic policies. Canada's net debt to GDP ratio is, by far, the strongest among the G7 countries.

In short, our Conservative government has steered Canada through a worldwide economic storm and come out on the other side stronger and better equipped for the future than any other nation.

It should come as no surprise that economic action plan 2014 delivers for Canada's aboriginal community, a segment of the population that, for obvious reasons, is very close to my heart.

A quality education is more important than ever in today's global marketplace. Economic action plan 2014 allocates $1.9 billion to first nations education. In addition, new funding of $500 million for building and renovating schools on first nations, set to begin in 2015-16, is confirmed in our new education infrastructure fund.

These investments in learning will manifest themselves not only in new schools and improved staffing, but also in building a stronger future for first nations communities and Canada itself. With quality education, first nations members will participate more fully in the world economy, providing benefits to all segments of our nation's population. Improving first nations education improves Canada.

Canada's national disaster mitigation program has been funded, to the tune of $200 million. This fund allows our government to mitigate the effects of catastrophic situations affecting Canadian communities through the assessment of risks and the implementation of measures to eliminate those risks.

These disaster elimination protocols are vigorously applied on Canada's first nations, but an additional $40 million has been set aside for on-reserve emergency management. Those of us living in northern Saskatchewan are too familiar with the disasters that can affect first nations, such as floods, fires, severe weather, and power outages. The on-reserve emergency management framework for Canada provides crisis funding to assist in combatting the effects of these disasters, including search and rescue efforts, and action to reduce the impact of community infrastructure failures such as bridge collapses.

The funding agreements between Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Canada's provincial governments ensure that first nations communities have comparable emergency services to non-aboriginal communities in the same province.This system provides assurance to provincial governments that Aboriginal Affairs will provide funds to cover emergency costs, ensuring rapid responses from provincial authorities. First nations deserve the same level of care as all other communities, and measures such as the on-reserve emergency management framework for Canada are helping to make this a reality.

With a young and vibrant populace, Canada's first nations members are entering the workforce in record numbers. Our Conservative government's job creation strategy has been wildly successful, with more than one million jobs created since 2009.

Education programs targeted at aboriginal Canadians are helping place first nations members in high-paying, high-demand jobs. With so many bright, young first nations members entering the workforce with skills in high-demand fields, we are growing that workforce at a record rate. We are reversing the near criminal neglect of a valuable segment of our workforce by helping aboriginal Canadians get the education and skills necessary to compete in the global economy.

For too long, we have recklessly squandered the talents of our first nations citizens, and our government is now taking concrete steps to address this shameful situation, allowing first nations citizens to fulfill their potential.

A healthy Canada is one in which we recognize and reward the skills of its citizens. Now that first nations members are finally getting a toehold in the workforce, there is no holding us back. By forging strong ties to our aboriginal communities, our Conservative government is now showing that working together makes us all stronger.

Violence against women is a concern for all segments of our Canadian society.

Often living in remote areas, traditionally without much in the way of support or protection, aboriginal women and girls will benefit from the renewal of our government's addressing violence against aboriginal women and girls program. This effort continues our government's mission to address the alarmingly high number of missing and murdered aboriginal women and girls. This initiative has made possible the creation of the National Centre for Missing Persons and Unidentified Remains.

Enhancements to our government's victims fund will ensure that aboriginal victims and their families as well as missing first nation members and their families have access to culturally appropriate services.

Perhaps most important, our government has materially supported the development of community-based awareness initiatives and safety plans to promote the safety of aboriginal women and girls.

With a disproportionate rate of incarceration as well as victimization, a plan is necessary to allow Canada's first nation members to emerge from this crippling situation.

Economic action plan 2014 proposes $22.2 million for the continuation of the aboriginal justice strategy. The initiative, which is showing very positive results, has allowed aboriginal people to take a larger role in the administration of justice in their communities while giving victims of crime a strong voice. By allowing first nation communities a stake in the judicial system, we are demonstrating a desire for justice rather than punishment.

Community-based justice for non-violent crimes gives aboriginal communities a say in the administration of punishment with regard to crimes affecting their neighbourhoods. It also demonstrates to the accused the impact of their crimes on the region and eliminates any suggestion of bias on the part of those administering the punishment.

Community-based justice is working, and I am proud of the part the government has played in its implementation.

More than $323 million has been earmarked for the purpose of continuing the first nation water and waste water action plan. Since 2006, our government has invested more than $3 billion in assisting first nations in the construction, maintenance, and operation of their water and waste water systems. This investment was sorely needed and has resulted in a vast improvement in water quality for first nations.

These communities have also been made safer through the enhancement of waste water management systems. Clean drinking water and the safe handling of waste water are essential to the health of any community. Through our government's investments in water on first nations, we have made them safer places to live. Insurance for these investments is provided through the disaster mitigation protocols I spoke of earlier.

A particular point of pride for me with regard to the economic action plan concerns the support provided to first nation fishing enterprises. Great progress has been made in the integration of first nation fishing enterprises with existing fishing operations since our government instituted the supporting first nation fishing enterprises initiative.

With an investment of more than $66 million over the next two years, our government is taking concrete action to improve the overall management of fishing on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. This program will continue to create new jobs and opportunities for first nation fishers.

Many aboriginal communities will also benefit from our government's improving access to broadband in rural and northern communities proposal. Social networks and the worldwide web are helping to bring people together, not only on a personal level but for the purposes of business networking and promotion as well.

Canadians in rural areas are demanding faster access to the Internet, and our government is responding. We are proposing more than $300 million over five years to improve access to broadband Internet connections for 280,000 households, with a target of five megabits per second. This would represent near-universal access to broadband for Canadians.

By improving Internet access for first nations, we will increase the ability of aboriginal businesses to compete globally.

As members can see, our government understands that the things that make Canada's aboriginal communities better make Canada better. By continuing to improve the already strong relationship between the aboriginal people of Canada and our Conservative government, we build a stronger Canada.

The healthy bond that the government has forged with the aboriginal peoples of Canada is reflected in the budget, and I am proud to stand today in support of our government's economic action plan 2014.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There will be five minutes available for the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with this bill. After all this time, one might think that we are accustomed to this kind of bill, which is so bad for Canadians, but I am not. Bill C-31 is a very important reminder of that reality.

I rise today to denounce the Conservative government's arbitrary tactics. Last Friday, the government introduced Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The problem is that this bill is another omnibus bill. It is over 360 pages long and includes a wide range of complex measures.

I would also like to remind any Canadians who are watching that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark and make changes to many laws without any consultation or parliamentary oversight.

Among the laws affected or created by the many provisions, such as the Old Age Security Act and the Administrative Tribunals Act, there is the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act, regarding a bridge linking Montreal with the south shore.

It should be noted that the Champlain Bridge legislation is well hidden in the 360 pages, and for good reason: we can see right off the bat that the bridge will not be subject to the User Fees Act or the Bridges Act. These two laws that provide consumer protection and safety guarantees will not apply to the Champlain Bridge.

What that means is that safety and inspection provisions of the Bridges Act will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. In other words, it will not have to meet the same safety standards as other bridges. That is very alarming.

Who will be responsible for monitoring the safety of this bridge?

Furthermore, the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act will not require the holding of mandatory consultations on user fees established by a regulating authority. This means that the obligations to notify and consult people, justify the fees and create an independent advisory panel to address complaints will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. That is incredible.

In other words, the government is casually deciding to make taxpayers pay for using the new Champlain Bridge, but is taking away from them the means to have a say in the matter. This is confirmed in section 9, which states:

9. Any owner of a vehicle using the bridge must pay any toll, fee or other charge that is applicable to the vehicle under this Act.

We do not yet know what the toll will be for vehicles, and it might be higher than other tolls because the User Fees Act will not apply.

The law that the government wants to impose is unfair and totally arbitrary. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where people are going to pay to use the new bridge, but would pay nothing if they used the Victoria Bridge, for example. Does the government not see that it is going to shift traffic with these measures?

That is really going to impact mobility in the region.

According to the Agence métropolitaine de transport, 200,000 people travel across this bridge each day. The toll will not only stifle Montreal's economic development, but it will also have an impact on household expenses. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have not stopped imposing taxes on households. They do not let up. The toll the government plans to levy proves once again that it is incapable of listening to Canadians and plans to keep making them pay.

The government talks about the need to get people involved in the bridge construction but has not given us any information about funding for the project. The government likes to boast that it is implementing a public-private partnership contract but has not told us how much it will contribute. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to this project.

The legislation governing the new bridge over the St. Lawrence is merely a reflection of the approach the Conservatives have been using since 2011, an arbitrary and abusive approach that is not in keeping with what the provinces want. To move our country forward, the federal government must work hand in hand with the provinces. On this issue in particular, the government should sit down with elected officials and discuss the progress on the new bridge, since Quebec's situation is special in that it has bridges that fall under federal jurisdiction.

In spite of this, the Conservatives are pretending to listen to what people want and are moving forward without consulting those who are directly involved. Given the urgent need for a new bridge, it is worrisome that the Conservative government is not listening to the Government of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal or the south shore mayors. The federal government should work with provincial and municipal partners, rather than arbitrarily imposing decisions on them.

That is why the NDP and members from the south shore—myself included—will not sit on the sidelines. My constituents and others who are affected by this toll are concerned. We live in a democratic country where the government is elected by the people. Right now, people are saying that they do not want this bill and they do not want this toll. The government needs to listen to them. It needs to listen to reason.

In closing, no other government has ever shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and Canadians. This single bill is over 365 pages long and amends more than 40 laws, making it impossible for MPs to do their jobs properly.

It is obvious that our democracy is suffering. The work being done by parliamentarians in the House of Commons is also suffering. Instead of drafting a mammoth bill that is designed to push hundreds of changes through without in-depth study, the government should be taking care of the needs of Canadians.

There is nothing in this bill to help the 300,000 Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession find work or to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost under this Conservative government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the two points the member referenced in her speech.

The first is with respect to the whole issue of the bill itself. It is important to recognize that it is only since the Conservative/Reform Party achieved its majority government that it has adopted a new attitude of a lack of respect for proceedings in the House of Commons. That is why we have, yet again, another mega-budget-bill that would change several dozen pieces of legislation by sneaking them in through the back door of a budget bill. It is anti-democratic.

The question I have for the member is with respect to infrastructure. She makes reference to the Montreal bridge, which is a very important bridge. We in the Liberal Party have been advocating for that bridge for years in terms of the changes needed and in terms of making sure that the budget dollars are there.

Does the minister want to comment on the budgeted amount last year compared to this year, 2014, when we have seen an 87% decrease in funding for infrastructure, which is what finances bridges and so forth?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for such a relevant question. As I said in my speech, ever since I was elected in 2011, this government has repeatedly introduced omnibus bills that contain everything but the kitchen sink. The government has put anything and everything in there, in a deliberate attempt to keep Canadians in the dark and impede our work.

We are in Parliament. In French, the word “parlement” contains the word “parle” or “talk”. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. We know nothing about funding for this bridge. We know that there is a public-private partnership, but the amount of the government contribution is unknown. We have no information about it.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her compelling speech. Could she tell us again how the NDP plans to make life more affordable and reduce household debt?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her relevant question. I also thank her for the work she does on her committee.

Canadian families are our priority at the NDP. I reiterated that this government is not doing anything for Canadian families. It does not even want to listen to them. It is completely disconnected from reality. We want to give these families a break.

For example, we want to lower credit card interest rates and we want to bring the age of eligibility for pensions back to what it originally was. We are primarily thinking of Canadian families and of the reality they face. We also want to help small and medium-sized businesses. We want to help the manufacturing sector, which has lost 400,000 jobs under the Conservative government.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that she wanted to help Canadian families. My question is pretty straightforward. Since forming government, and through tax breaks, we are giving, on average, about $3,400 back to Canadian families. That is more money in the pockets of Canadian families. Each one of those measures the opposition party has voted against.

How can the member say that she is helping Canadian families when she is voting against tax breaks for Canadian families?

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

Mr. Speaker, we made it very clear that we are against proposals that are not in the best interests of all Canadian families.

The Conservatives are talking about tax credits for people who want to take music lessons, play piano and so on. I do not think that a family on social assistance can take advantage of that tax credit. This is just one example. The Conservatives work for wealthy families and not for all Canadians. The NDP, on the other hand, takes everyone into consideration, regardless of their family status.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight today some of the key measures contained in Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. I would like to preface my remarks by congratulating our former minister of finance for setting us firmly on the path to a balanced budget in 2015-16 and commending his successor, our current finance minister, for so quickly and capably stepping into his new shoes.

In economic action plan 2014, our Conservative government renews its commitment to Canadians by focusing on three priorities. Number one is returning to a balanced budget. Number two is promoting jobs and economic growth. Number three is supporting families and communities.

Economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 contains a number of important measures that are designed to foster job creation and economic growth; connect Canadian workers with available jobs; improve infrastructure, trade, and resource development in Canada; and support Canadian families and communities.

Obviously, in the time I have, I cannot hope to touch on all these subjects, no matter how briefly. I will, therefore, confine my remarks to highlighting a few of the key initiatives that underscore our government's commitment to Canadian families and communities.

As members know, the government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to help hard-working Canadians save money wherever they can. In fact, because of the actions taken by the Conservative government, Canadians now pay $3,400 a year less in taxes than they did during the final year of the previous Liberal government.

We introduced the volunteer firefighters' tax credit three years ago in recognition of the important contribution volunteer firefighters make to the security and safety of their fellow citizens and community members. In the same spirit, in economic action plan 2014, we announced a new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. These brave men and women support the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other agencies and are often the first on the scene in the event of a local emergency or natural disaster. Well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped, search and rescue volunteers are an integral part of Canada's emergency response system.

Search and rescue volunteers dedicate their time and energy to ensure the safety and survival of their fellow citizens, often putting their own safety and even their lives at risk. The new tax credit is a sign of our recognition and appreciation for the important role they play and our commitment to improving the safety and security of all Canadians.

Individuals who perform at least 200 hours of service during a year would be able to claim a non-refundable tax credit on their personal income tax and benefit returns, starting in the 2014 tax year. The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit would provide up to $450 in tax savings for the eligible year. The hours volunteered for search and rescue could be combined with volunteer firefighter activities, so volunteers with at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue and firefighting services in a year would be able to choose between claiming the volunteer firefighters' tax credit and the new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit.

In total, more than 100,000 dedicated volunteer firefighters and search and rescue members might benefit from these credits. Our Conservative government is proud to recognize their outstanding commitment and the difference they make to their communities.

The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit is just 1 of more than 20 tax measures contained in Bill C-31. Economic action plan 2014 would build on previous tax relief measures the government has introduced to support Canadian families and improve their quality of life.

For example, we have included measures that would make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. We would increase the maximum amount they may claim for the adoption expense credit to $15,000 for the 2014 tax year. The amount would be indexed to inflation in future years. This is a fantastic new relief for prospective parents who are looking to provide a deserving child with a loving home.

Our Conservative government is also making sure that the tax system takes into account the health needs of Canadians and the change in nature of our health care system.

Through Bill C-31, we would exempt acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors' professional services from the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax. We would also expand the list of eligible expenses for the medical expense tax credit to include expenses incurred for service animals specifically trained to assist an individual in managing severe diabetes, as well as costs related to design of individual therapy plans for certain disorders and disabilities.

In the same vein, we have expanded the list of GST-HST-free medical and assistive devices to include prescription eyewear that electronically treats or corrects vision. Most importantly, we would remove the need for individuals to apply for the GST-HST credit. Starting with the 2014 tax year, the Canada Revenue Agency would automatically determine the credit each individual is entitled to receive. This would both simplify the process for taxpayers and improve administrative efficiency. In the case of eligible couples, the GST-HST credit would be paid to the individual whose return is assessed first. This is consistent with CRA's commitment to reduce red tape.

Finally, I would like to discuss our government's plan to correct a historic anomaly. The legislation we are debating today includes a proposal that would correct an irrelevant piece of legislation left over from the 1920s, a relic of the prohibition days. As it stands, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act prohibits Canadians from taking beer or spirits across provincial borders, even for personal use. Through Bill C-31, we would take action to remove this federal barrier, just as we did in 2012 in the case of transporting wine from one province to another for personal use. Indeed, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, our government wants to encourage and promote market competitiveness by eliminating provincial trade barriers when possible.

I wish to conclude today by saying I am proud of our government's record of achievement and our sound fiscal policies. We are on a track to balance the budget in 2015-2016, and at the same time that we are delivering on this commitment, we have cut taxes and removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls since 2006. In short, we have made Canada one of the best places in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Our government will stick to the priorities we have outlined in our economic action plan: supporting jobs and growth, supporting families in communities, balancing the budget, and reducing debt. These are the priorities of all Canadians.

I have barely scratched the surface of Bill C-31 today. I strongly encourage all members of the House to read economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 from cover to cover and give it the support it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current budget does not favour job creation, nor does it encourage Canadian businesses to invest. Major corporations rake in $576 billion here in Canada, and this money is not reinvested in job creation.

Could my colleague tell us what concrete measures the government plans on taking in this bill to ensure that businesses reinvest in creating stable, well-paying jobs in all regions of Canada, including the Atlantic region, which is where my colleague is from?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. The signing of the free trade agreement with the European Union, which the opposition so far has not supported, would create a number of jobs and great opportunities in Atlantic Canada. The closest ports to Europe are St. John's, Halifax, and Saint John, New Brunswick, so they would win by default on this trade agreement, with increased container traffic crossing the Atlantic and increased opportunities for Canadian products, especially fish and seafood.

However, the hon. member has a good point. It is not just about jobs in one region of the country; it is about jobs across the country from coast to coast to coast and, as my colleagues from Ontario like to say, to the fourth coast, which is the shores of lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior. There is a fourth coast in Canada that we often forget about, but the budget does not forget about it. It does create jobs from coast to coast to coast to coast. It does that.

We have already created one million jobs since the great recession, since we formed government in 2006, one million real jobs for Canadian citizens. In this budget alone, there are a number of actions we would implement, positive measures to create jobs and opportunities: connecting Canadians with available jobs and fostering job creation; creating the Canada apprentice loan to provide apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year; investing in the expression of interest immigration system to better respond to the needs of Canada's economy; cutting the red tape burden. These are all examples of creating jobs, all included in this budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, ministers or members of the Conservative Party often like to use the term “economic action plan”. It is almost as if someone in the Prime Minister's Office gives them a little star by their name if they make mention of that and say something positive about it. It is nothing more than a platitude for which the taxpayers have had to pay literally tens of millions of dollars in advertising. The Conservatives have invested more money in that platitude than they have in creating jobs for young people across Canada.

In regard to the whole idea of our middle class, that is a portion of society about which the government tends to have forgotten, a fairly important portion. We have a question in regard to the average household income. When we look at the bottom 20%, we see it is now receiving $500 less, on average, than when this government took office. I wonder if the member might be able to comment on how it is that the middle class is not getting the type of attention it should be getting from the government, given the standard of living, the debt ratio, and the fact that the number of youth who are still living at home has actually gone up under this regime.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. parliamentary secretary, give a short answer, please. We are out of time.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I have a short answer to a long question, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of factors the hon. member mentioned.

First, our advertising budget for this government is significantly less than the advertising budget of the previous government. It is 60% less. Those are real numbers.

Second, the hon. member talked about the bottom 20% of society. There is an extra one million people not paying taxes today because of changes we made to the taxation system. Average Canadian families, as I mentioned before, have $3,400 more in their pockets to spend on the commodities and the issues that are important to them than they had under the previous government.

These are all significant changes brought in by our government.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this Conservative government bill, which could be described as another mammoth bill.

Obviously, my colleagues and I strongly oppose this bill, because of its contents, of course, but also because of the process, which is increasingly undemocratic. This bill shows real contempt not only for Canadians, but also for Parliament, and for MPs and committees. It is particularly appalling.

This bill does absolutely nothing to support job creation. In fact, there is unfortunately nothing really positive in this bill. It is too bad, because a budget implementation bill could be very constructive and do a lot for Canadians. The government and the official opposition could work together in Parliament. It is really sad that we have to see these kinds of bills. I almost feel jaded when I speak to this kind of mammoth bill, which the Conservatives are ramming down Canadians' throats without consulting them or the opposition, without consulting anyone, really. The Conservatives bulldoze their way through and impose their agenda on everyone.

The Conservatives want to make a large number of changes without properly examining them. They are spreading misinformation. I do not have the bill with me, which is unfortunate, because it would be worth showing just how huge it is. It is over 350 pages long and has 500 clauses. It amends dozens of laws. It contains many measures that were not even mentioned in the budget statement. As I just said, it is completely undemocratic. The committees are not being given the opportunity to properly examine the sections that concern them, which I see as highly problematic. The Conservatives are making unilateral decisions without consulting anyone.

As I was saying, there is nothing in this bill to help unemployed Canadians, and there are 300,000 more of them than before the recession. Nor is there anything to replace the 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector that have been lost under the Conservatives. Nor are the Conservatives renewing the job creation tax credit for small businesses, which really need it.

It is clear to me that small and medium-sized businesses in my riding are in desperate need of a helping hand. Let us not forget that SMEs are a major economic driver. They are responsible for at least 70% of Canadian jobs. That figure might not be exact, but it is a huge percentage anyway. It is nothing to sneeze at. Small businesses need help from the government so they can hire people and stay in business. That is all the more true in a recession.

There are also a lot of changes to rail safety and transparency. That comes as quite a surprise and makes no sense considering what happened this summer in Lac Mégantic, which is quite close to my riding. These changes would allow the government to amend or remove several rail safety regulations without notifying the public. Changes could relate to engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance and performance. Basically, people will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken safety measures, and experts will not be able to express their opinions to the minister before the changes take effect.

I talk about this often because giving more discretionary power to the minister really infuriates me. I do not know why the government is giving even more power to the minister. I do not understand. There are experts in every field, and the minister should consult them.

In many municipalities in my riding, the railway is located close to residential areas, and people are worried.

Shortly after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the member for Brossard—La Prairie, the transport critic, held a public consultation in my riding in October. The people told us that they were worried about safety standards and railway transportation in Canada. It makes absolutely no sense to weaken these standards.

This budget creates another problem for immigrants, who will now have to live in Canada for 20 years, instead of 10, before they are eligible for GIS, survivor or old age security benefits.

Family reunification is also being made much more difficult. This is a step in the wrong direction. In my riding, there are many refugee families that have moved to Canada, want to contribute to our country, and want to live and work here. It is unfortunate that these people, who make a major contribution to out country, have to wait and be separated from their family for a longer period of time.

Why should we make it more difficult for them to come here and why are we complicating the citizenship and family reunification process? Why are we depriving them of what they will need later? This deplorable measure demonstrates just how closed our country is becoming. I do not understand this because we are recognized as a welcoming country.

I have just mentioned a number of problems with this bill, but we also have solutions. The NDP likes to speak out, but we also like to suggest solutions. “Working Together” is still our motto.

The government needs to go back to the drawing board and come back to us with a decent budget. It would be great if the government invested in innovation, economic development and high quality jobs for the middle class. It would also be great if it developed a strategy for youth unemployment, since it is not right that the youth unemployment rate is so high.

We need to be proactive, but the government is not. Another solution would be to offer a credit to businesses when they hire and train young people. The government did not renew that credit for SMEs, even though it would make a lot of sense to do so.

Furthermore, the government could work with the provinces to address the skills shortage and to develop the labour market. It is not currently working with the provinces. Instead, it is dumping the problems on the provinces, which is not ideal. The government should also address the serious infrastructure deficit by cancelling the $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure.

It would also be important to simplify the procedure for rural communities to request and receive funding for infrastructure projects, since the government is also dumping problems onto municipalities. What they actually need from the federal government is more help.

I see that I am out of time, so I would be pleased to take questions from my colleagues.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we are having to debate these bills in this forum yet again. One of the issues that concerns many of us in relation to budget bills is that we used to have in front of us very clear proposals on how to invest in Canada and in our communities. One of those issues is infrastructure, the city's agenda.

I want to ask my colleague about some of the infrastructure issues in her riding. I know that here in Ottawa we have many issues that we are concerned about and for which we want to see better partnership with the federal government. However, I would like to hear from my colleague about some of the infrastructure needs and the need for immediate investment—not in 10 years from now, but immediate investment—in infrastructure in her riding and how that need affects her constituents.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his most brilliant question. Infrastructure needs in my riding are indeed desperate.

Municipal elections were held in Quebec recently, and I am in the process of doing another tour of the municipalities to meet with the newly elected officials and meet again with those who were re-elected. The mayors of all 25 municipalities in my riding are telling me about the desperate infrastructure needs.

I think that this speaks volumes and that the government should trust these people who are on the ground with citizens and in the communities before making budgets like this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly one of the major issues facing Canadian municipalities and others is the infrastructure deficit. We have seen the Conservatives come up with this idea, and it was clearly expressed by my previous colleague, about the Champlain Bridge and the need for the toll on the bridge. My colleague at that time had a valid argument about the nature of tolls and how they change people's habits.

Anybody who has had time to travel through Mexico by road and see the difference between the toll roads built by Mexicans in public-private partnerships and the free roads where all the traffic goes, while there is very little traffic on these magnificent toll roads, will understand that simply going through these processes is perhaps not going to determine a result that they would want.

Does my colleague believe that infrastructure really is a common need and a common expression of Canadian development, and that it should be covered by means that come out of our public system rather than by this jury-rigged toll system that is being proposed for the Champlain Bridge?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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

It is interesting because my colleague is talking about a certain kind of infrastructure democratization. The Champlain Bridge is not in my riding, but it will affect a lot of people who live there because it is quite nearby. A lot of people in Saint-Hyacinthe work in Montreal and use the Champlain Bridge every day.

We will end up with a toll bridge. Suppose it costs $2 to cross the bridge. If we add that up, that makes $4 a day, $20 a week and $100 a month. That will hit many people right in the wallet, and a lot of them will not be able to afford to use the bridge.

We will end up with some people who have the means to use the bridge and will be able to avoid the traffic, sort of like on the highway 25 bridge, and some people who will take the other bridges because they will not be able afford to use the new bridge. The problem here is that people who cannot afford to use toll roads are being excluded.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Our government has worked tirelessly to deliver effective change for Canadians and to put Canada back on the road to balanced budgets.

After consultations across the country, we have produced a plan that not only works for Canadians but that will also make sure that Canada is financially sustainable. Our hon. colleague, the former finance minister, tabled a budget just weeks ago. Since then, my office has seen an outpouring of support from constituents who value trade, security, and prudent economic management.

The world has been hit by repeated crises over the past few years. It is becoming harder for governments to maintain the trust of markets. We are no longer allowed to believe that we can escape the costs of financial recklessness and ineptitude. The budget implementation act before us holds many measures that will markedly improve the lives of Canadians.

Our government is working to ensure that Canadians can fill the skills gap to both provide vital services and ensure viable livelihoods. By increasing paid internships for young Canadians, the government will commit $55 million to help recent graduates find work in their fields. By getting graduates to work, Canada can make the most of its skilled labour force and provide opportunities for young Canadians to flourish.

At the same time, the government will ensure that older workers have opportunities to find new employment. As Canadians are living longer, we must face the unexpected challenges posed by longevity beyond one's financial plan. By investing $75 million in training for older workers, our government will make sure that all Canadians can find good, skilled jobs.

Help is not limited to the young and the old. Through the job-matching service, this Conservative government will grease the wheels of commerce and ensure that employers and employees can find their perfect matches.

With Canada's ever-increasing integration, not only into the world economy but between provinces, it is vital for the federal government to play a role in smoothing labour markets across the country. Never before have we seen the kind of mobility we see today, nor have we realized the promise that such mobility creates for families and communities. It is not enough to be looking for a job. We need to support those who are currently training for jobs that will fill much needed positions through the Canada job grant and the Canada apprentice loan. The federal government is investing in high-skill jobs that are currently going unfilled in many parts of the country. By ensuring that Canada has the skilled tradespeople it needs, our government is making sure that the economy can function smoothly. This budget is about embracing the future with skilled jobs, a thriving economy, and a balanced budget.

Through this budget, rural communities will stand to benefit from improved broadband access in rural and remote areas of the country. It is important that Canadians in rural areas, like parts of the British Columbia interior and northern B.C., have an acceptable degree of access to the Internet. Failing to update Canada's digital infrastructure could doom those outside of well-covered areas to technological backwardness and put them at a perpetual disadvantage.

Investments in science and technology, such as the government's $222 million grant to the TRIUMF physics laboratory at the University of British Columbia, promises to pay dividends not just in commercial terms but in academic, intellectual, and technological advances.

British Columbians and Canadians stand to profit immensely from the measures presented in this budget.

The budget implementation act goes further by continuing the good work of the red tape reduction action plan. This budget will make life easier for small and medium-sized business owners.

In too many areas of Canadian life and work, excessive red tape holds us back. The Conservatives have demonstrated a commitment to making Canada work in a way that benefits consumers, workers, and citizens by removing arbitrary and wasteful barriers to businesses.

There are also significant changes to the tax code. The tax code is not a subject that gets many people excited, but by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the Canada Revenue Agency every year, this government will be helping over 50,000 small businesses lower costs imposed by bureaucracy.

Our government is always concerned about the security of Canadians. For any number of reasons, the lives and well-being of Canadians can be in danger, and it is a key role of government to offer solutions. By investing a further $25 million, we are aiming to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls. This sector of our community is often the target of abuse above and beyond that faced by others,. They deserve a government that comes to their protection.

Our government will invest $11 million to upgrade the earthquake monitoring systems that protect the homes of my constituents in the Lower Mainland and in high-risk areas across the country.

Over one million net new jobs have been created since the recession ended in July 2009. During the crisis and afterward, our government has provided a steady hand at the tiller, ensuring that Canada's policies work toward stability, growth, and prosperity.

Our banking system has been ranked the most stable in the world for the sixth year running by the World Economic Forum. The numbers do not lie. The deficit will be a meagre $2.9 billion this year, with a $6.4 billion surplus coming next year. This is a momentous achievement. When the previous government balanced the books, it did so by raising taxes and slashing transfers to the provinces. Our government has none neither. In fact, we have done the compete opposite. Next year, our government will provide British Columbia with $4.17 billion through the Canada health transfer, an all-time high. Not only that, this is $1.3 billion more than under the previous Liberal government. That is a 49% increase.

As well, we have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings of nearly $3,400 for a typical family of four in 2014. Without raising taxes on Canadians or simply moving costs to other levels of government, the Conservatives have a credible plan for long-term fiscal success. The opposition has made it clear that it will raise taxes and then increase spending beyond even that. Therefore, I commend our Conservative government for such a thoughtful and solid document.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech.

The Conservatives often talk about how they created a million jobs and that they want to create more. However, in February's labour force survey, Statistics Canada said that 2014 employment growth has been weaker since the recession. As well, an additional 300,000 people have become unemployed since the current Prime Minister came to power. Young Canadians are facing an unemployment rate of 13.6%.

Does she have any suggestions about how to create jobs for youth?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is currently focused on what clearly matters to hard-working Canadians in their daily lives: helping create jobs, economic growth, and Canada's long-term prosperity.

With the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession, and of course, throughout the fragile recovery.

Here are some facts I would like to tell the hon. member.

Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the end of the recession in July 2009. That is the strongest job growth in the entire G7, by far. Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered business investment lost during the recession. Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investments in the G7. I would like to go on and on, but that is my answer to the member's question.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a couple of problems with her overview.

She talks about the investment by the government in infrastructure, et cetera. We see at a time when we need critical support for infrastructure that it is actually pulling back. The last time we saw significant spending was when we pushed the government, after the financial crisis, to invest, and of course, before that, in 2005, when our leader at the time, Mr. Layton, convinced the government to, instead of corporate taxes, put money into infrastructure and into cities and to help out with post-secondary education.

By the way, that money continued in the budgets of the Conservative government in 2006 and 2007. It is important to note that.

I want to ask her this. When we have a crisis in job training, why is it that the government cannot figure out how to deal with foreign trained workers and actually train Canadians and young Canadians to give them opportunities? All we have gotten from the government are ads.

Even in the budget bill they have put in front of us, it is going to be loans for people to train. We actually need to fast-track them and get Red Seal people into the job market now, not just give them more loans, which leads to more debt.

Clearly, I think the government has failed, and I would disagree with the ideas she has put forward, because Canadians deserve better.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has invested more money than any other government in infrastructure, with $1.4 billion invested in infrastructure in my riding alone. Just think about the millions of dollars invested all over Canada.

I am proud of our government's record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say I am pleased to rise today to speak to yet another omnibus budget bill, C-31.

This is yet another omnibus bill that contains numerous measures from other bills. However, given House procedure, we will not be able to study it adequately.

This is following up on the February 11, 2014 budget. We really need to get used to using the new term for it. It is the “annual thick brochure”. It does not actually contain a budget any more, and I think Canadians ought to know that.

It is labelled “the economic action plan 2014, No. 1”, which means that we can expect another budget omnibus bill. It does not deal with the fact that Canada's debt under this administration has increased by $123 billion. It does not deal with the fact that part of the reason that debt has increased and that cuts are being made to the services that we care about is that we now have the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, approximately half that of the United States.

I want to turn to a myth that is so often repeated in this place, that all of the other parties always did omnibus budget bills. That is not just a myth; it is not true. The previous all-time high omnibus budget bill was in 2005 under the administration of former Prime Minister Paul Martin. In 2005, it topped 120 pages.

The howls from the opposition, now in government, were so loud that that bill had sections stripped out, and another provision that was to amend the Environmental Protection Act to allow regulation of greenhouse gases was removed altogether. That was due to the protest about 120 pages being too much in an omnibus budget bill.

The current administration is the all-time record holder, and not just that, as the Bruce Cockburn song said, “...the trouble with normal is it always gets worse”.

Now we are supposed to expect that we are going to get two omnibus budget bills every year: the first one, 400 pages; the second one, 400 pages. So the cumulative total, the bulk of all the legislation that goes through this place, is in the form of omnibus budget bills, which are so anti-democratic and an abuse of parliamentary process that it must be raised at every turn.

This particular omnibus budget bill, at 362 pages, Bill C-31, has a lot of good things in it. There is no question that removing the GST from parking fees at hospitals and improving the tax treatment of adoptive families are good things. There are quite a few things in here that I would vote for, such as division 5, increasing the number of judges for Alberta and Quebec. These are all good things.

However, what of the things that deserve more study than they are going to get? That list is a very long one indeed. I turn our attention to 40 pages of this brick, pages 91 to 131, changes to the Hazardous Products Act and consequential amendments to other acts. These may all be, as described on the Health Canada website, good ideas, but they deserve study on their own. There are a lot of details we do not know.

This will bring into place the globally harmonized system to deal with workplace hazardous materials. It is very important that we study this properly. Certain sectors of our economy are currently exempt from the WHMIS provisions, including pesticides, consumer products, food, and drugs. A global system will bring these in, but we do not quite know how Canada will treat this and will not find out from the quick study we are allowed of an omnibus budget bill. There is 40 pages of this.

Another 30-plus pages is an entirely new act, the administrative tribunals support service of Canada act. It occurs in division 29 of Bill C-31, and it brings in a single administrator, appointed politically, to take control of a huge number of administrative tribunals: the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canada Industrial Relations Board, Competition Tribunal, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Social Security Tribunal, and Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. In the time I have, I cannot read out the names of all the tribunals that are suddenly whipped together under one act with one chief administrator. Far too few details are being provided about the purpose of this change. There is no purposes section under this new act; it is left to our imagination. I have to say, given the track record of this administration, given its attitude toward tribunals and officers of Parliament, the things that come to mind are not happy conclusions. This act's division 29 deserves separate treatment and adequate study.

On the changes to trademark, here we had an opportunity to do something to improve Canada's global competitive position by improving intellectual property rights to protect Canadian corporations abroad. The proposed changes to trademark are largely non-controversial, but why are they stuck in an omnibus budget bill? They have nothing to do with the budget.

Pages 207 to 259, over 50 pages of this monster bill, are all about trademark and coming into compliance with agreements from the Singapore and Madrid protocols. Why not have this as a proper study? Why not take the time to assess whether it is a good idea to reduce trademark protection from 15 years to 10 years?

I have been trying to reserve most of my time in this brief opportunity for the most egregious section of Bill C-31, which is forcing through, with a limitation on debate that applies to all of Bill C-31, some potentially devastating changes to Canadians' rights found under something called the FATCA. This Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is thrown into Bill C-31, and I want to refer to the opinions of legal experts.

Some time ago, concerned about the FATCA, I did an access to information request and turned up a letter to Finance Canada from Canada's leading constitutional law expert, Professor Peter Hogg. He wrote to Finance Canada when the department it was in the early stages of working on this, and said that treating Canadians who might have some connection to the United States—not just those who might be born there, such as me, but who is no longer a U.S. citizen, or people who had parents born in the U.S., or once worked or studied there—differently than Canadians with no connection to the U.S. violates section 3 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which we are entitled to equal treatment under the law as Canadian citizens.

However, it gets worse than that. Here I want to quote extensively from advice to Finance Canada from two very knowledgeable tax policy law experts: Professor Allison Christians, the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in the Law of Taxation at McGill University; and Professor Arthur Cockfield from Queens University.

Both professors conclude that right now it appears that the only reason the current Conservative administration feels it has accomplished anything with FATCA is that it has staved off punitive measures against our commercial banks by the United States. That is the Conservatives' sole rationale for a non-reciprocal agreement that will violate the privacy, and potentially the charter rights, of as many as one million Canadians. They have done it to avoid the U.S. bringing sanctions against them.

These knowledgeable experts say that this implementation act would unduly harm the privacy rights and interests of all Canadians, unduly raise compliance costs for all Canadian financial institutions and Canadian taxpayers, and unduly raise legal exposure for Canadian financial institutions due to the ongoing potential liability for mistakenly transferred personal financial information.

Bear in mind that this FATCA that we are being pressed to pass so quickly would require our banking institutions to decide for themselves whether someone appears to have some connection to the United States, and then they will turn over the personal banking information of that person without their knowledge to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. It would also provide potentially sensitive commercial information held by Canadian firms to the United States, which if improperly revealed could harm a firm's competitiveness. It would interfere with the cross-border mobility of Canadian workers to the United States. It would impede Canada's efforts to enforce its own tax laws. It would violate the spirit and potentially the letter of a number of Canadian laws.

The advice from these knowledgeable tax experts is clear and compelling. Since we have as a nation have now signed this IGA with the U.S., we have protected the commercial banking sector from these penalties, and so we have time to get it right. Here is their advice.

We recommend that the government explicitly address what gains have been achieved by Canada in accepting the IGA, if any exist other than the relief of economic sanctions. If relief of economic sanctions is the only impetus for Canada's acquiescence to U.S. demands, we recommend that the Canadian Government challenge the legality of such economic sanctions....

In other words, the U.S. has no right to impose sanctions on Canadian banks. It says it does. We should challenge it in international court. These experts say that we should stop the introduction of FATCA, ensure that it does not violate our charter rights, protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and not rush into this. I urge the House to pull FATCA out of Bill C-31.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, my notes say that this is an important piece because it updates the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes. Without an intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States, Canadian financial institutions and United States persons holding financial accounts in Canada would be required to comply with that, regardless, starting July 1, 2014, as per the FATCA legislation enacted by the U.S.A. unilaterally.

It is important for people to understand that this is important. It is an intergovernmental agreement. It is something that Canada has to support because of recent G8 and G20 commitments on the multilateral automatic exchange of information. The G20 leaders committed to this automatic exchange as a new global standard, and it was endorsed as the OECD proposal developing a global model.

It is important to understand that this is not just enhancing but also protecting Canadians, and it is important for us as we trade more and more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that we are actually having a conversation and talking about this issue. The reality of the FATCA that the current administration has accepted is that it does nothing for reciprocal exchange of tax information. It is non-reciprocal; it is asymmetrical. It is unprecedented in international law for one sovereign country to say, “Oh gosh”, and cry uncle, “They are going to get our information whether we like it or not and they are going to punish our banks”.

The best legal minds in our country are advising the administration not to cave in just because the United States says it has a right under its domestically passed legislation, but which has not been ratified as an international treaty by its senate. There are a number of legal issues here, for which I do not think we have shown sufficient backbone in response. We do not need to accept a law passed by the U.S. Congress. Would we accept a law passed by the People's Republic of China that requested information of Chinese citizens in Canada? Are we to accept that in response to laws passed in other countries with implications for Canadian citizens, the Government of Canada can do nothing but say, “Here's all the information we can provide you. It's private. We're not warning Canadians. We're giving it to you. Good luck”.

Everyone knows that Canada is not a tax haven. People who live here, Canadian citizens and residents, pay taxes. We pay more taxes than people do in other countries. We need to protect the privacy and charter rights of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservative member, the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, clearly proved that this portion of Bill C-31 should be studied separately.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands eloquently established and demonstrated that this part of the budget should be studied independently of Bill C-31. She also demonstrated that parliamentarians, regardless of party, are being denied an opportunity to study this part of the bill in detail, even though it will significantly affect Canadians, financial institutions and the Canada Revenue Agency. A Radio-Canada report stated that implementing this would cost CRA $100 million.

Who does my colleague think will have to foot this pricey bill?

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

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

I completely agree with the member. It is clear that FATCA is advantageous for the United States alone. There is nothing in it to help Canadians. As the lawyers and legal experts explained, the only reason why the Government of Canada accepted this agreement, which will violate the rights of Canadians, is that the U.S. government threatened to impose sanctions on our banks.

We need to take this very complex section out. As the legal experts have commented, there was a truncated period for public comment. Very little time was provided for the financial sector, and look at the costs and what it will mean to our banking institutions and credit unions to comb through all the material they have on every customer. It will raise the costs. The banking sector does very well, but this is going to raise consumer costs and it will violate charter rights.

Surely it should be removed from an omnibus budget bill for proper study. Additionally, we should go to international court to challenge the idea that the U.S., through a domestically passed law, has the right to punish commercial banks in Canada.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a shame that, once again, the Conservatives are pushing through yet another omnibus budget bill. Since 2011, the NDP in opposition has fought to break down government omnibus budgets brought to the House into manageable legislation so that members have the opportunity to consider and debate the new legislation that is being proposed and deliver better results for Canadians.

Omnibus bills have had a bad reputation on Parliament Hill for some time now. No one, other than the Conservatives, seems to really like them. I would like to share some strong words on omnibus bills from a member in the House of Commons from 1994. The member said:

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

Who said that? Let me tell members. This blast from the past is absolutely right, and I would introduce him to the Prime Minister if they were not already so close, as it was the Prime Minister himself who said this when he was the leader of the opposition.

Let us get back to the budget implementation bill that is before us. It is amazing that the budget implementation bill is over 350 pages long, has almost 500 clauses, would amend dozens of bills, and—this is the best part—includes a variety of measures that were never even mentioned in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. One would think that measures in the budget implementation bill would also have actually been in the budget, but not so much this time.

I should give credit where credit is due. There are some parts of the bill that the NDP supports. For example, the government is using the budget implementation bill as an opportunity to rectify its previous attempt to levy the GST and HST on hospital parking, a leftover from budget 2013. This, however, does not make up for other measures included in the budget implementation bill or for Conservative attempts to ram this bill through the House.

The truth is that the budget implementation bill includes a large variety of complex measures that deserve thorough consideration and scrutiny. The tabling of such a large and wide-ranging bill in such a short timeframe undermines Parliament, because it denies individual MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. This is one of the most important jobs of an MP. It is one of the reasons the people of Scarborough—Rouge River sent me here to Ottawa.

Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill fails to provide solutions for issues that matter to Canadians and to my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River, such as jobs and the economy, immigration and family reunification, safety, and retirement. I will talk about a few of those today.

Despite the cries from the Conservative benches that they are the best managers of the economy, the budget implementation bill would fail to help the leading drivers of our economy: the small and medium-sized businesses. We know that small and medium-sized businesses provide 70% of new jobs in the Canadian labour market. Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill would fail to renew the small business job creation tax credit first proposed by the NDP in 2011.

When 300,000 Canadians are struggling to find work, would we not want to make it easier for small businesses to hire more workers? Unfortunately, the budget implementation bill fails to do this and would fail to help these employers.

It would also fail the struggling Canadian worker. There is nothing in the budget or this bill to get the almost 300,000 unemployed back to work or to help replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that were lost under the Prime Minister's watch.

The cruel joke is that while 300,000 unemployed Canadians are looking for work, the Conservatives have failed to stop abusing the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives promised two years ago to create a blacklist of employers who had broken the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. Today, two years later, there are still no names. Let me repeat that. There are no names on the list, despite Alberta, one province, identifying over 100 cases in which employers broke the rules, and that is just one province. We have ten provinces and three territories.

Why should Canadians take the Conservatives' promise to address the abuse of the temporary foreign program seriously? Why should we trust them now?

The truth is that there is not a lot of trust between Canadians and the government. Many Canadians who may have cast their vote for the Conservatives found out the hard way how flimsy that trust is when the government announced changes to the GIS and old age security. Many of my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River are concerned about their livelihood and future with regard to these changes.

The budget implementation bill would stop payment of the guaranteed income supplement and the old age security survivor allowance to sponsored immigrants, even those who have lived in Canada for 10 years and even if they are still within the sponsorship period during which their families are financially responsible for them, which of course the Conservatives doubled from 10 years to 20 years just last year. This means that immigrants who arrived under the family reunification program may have to wait up to 20 years to be eligible for the guaranteed income supplement and survivor allowance. Does this seem fair to new Canadians? Let me repeat that so it is very clear. This bill would change the rules so that there would be no more guaranteed income supplement or old age security survivor allowance for sponsored immigrants during the entire sponsorship period, a waiting period of up to 20 years. That is unbelievable.

It is just as unbelievable as yesterday's announcement from the Transportation Safety Board that revealed that Canadian rail companies are not reporting all derailments. My constituents are very concerned about rail safety in our community. Scarborough—Rouge River is a densely populated community. Trains run through our community, and we have the large eastern Toronto rail yard right in the centre of our community. There is a great concern about our safety and our environment. These concerns have crossed the minds of many Canadians, not only my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River but any Canadians who live by the rails.

This is what makes the Conservatives' unwillingness to open the omnibus budget implementation bill to allow independent study of all of the important parts so dangerous. The budget implementation act would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without informing the public. Those include the standards for engineering, worker training, hours of work, maintenance, and performance. Cabinet decisions changing safety requirements for the transport of dangerous goods would also be a secret, including changes to the classification of dangerous goods, the training and qualifications of inspectors, and rules regarding importation and transportation of these goods.

These changes would prevent the public from knowing when Conservatives weaken safety measures and would prevent experts from advising the minister before the changes would come into effect. It would not be a change that would make our railways and communities safer. Why are the Conservatives regressing on railway safety and trying to move the results of government decisions on railway safety behind closed doors?

This raises another, larger, question: why are the Conservatives against opening the door to transparency? We see it time and again. The Conservatives want to keep the changes to railway safety regulations closed. The Conservatives do not want to open this omnibus bill because they do not want members to tell them what Canadians really think. They do not want the 308 of us to tell them what Canadians think is really going on in the country.

However, the omnibus budget does not need to be opened for me to share what the New Democrats would like to do. We must invest in economic development and high-quality middle-class jobs. That is a priority for the NDP. We can do this by working with the private sector to help Canadian businesses strengthen, grow, and create jobs. We should continue to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses to help the true drivers of our economy, the SMEs, to grow.

We need to make more jobs available to Canadians by stopping the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program. The Government of Canada should work with the provinces to improve monitoring. Employment and Skills Development Canada and Citizenship and Immigration must be able to deny employers' labour market opinions and withdraw work permits from employers who abuse the program. We should also set out a path for citizenship for temporary foreign workers to encourage skilled workers to stay in Canada and continue to contribute to the economy.

The government needs to fulfill its commitment to help Canadians save and invest for their retirement. The NDP will continue to fight for the immediate reversal of the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67.

I could continue, but I do not want to give it all away. I would rather share it with my colleagues across the floor after we open up the omnibus budget bill. However, I fear that the Conservatives will not budge.

The Conservative government will continue to cry out otherwise, but Canadians recognize that this is just another omnibus budget bill designed to ram through the House hundreds of changes with as little study and as little oversight as possible, and that is just not fair. Canadians deserve better, and that is why the NDP is here to be the real eyes and ears for Canadians and to hold the government to account.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items the member opposite touched on, but the thing that resonates the most with me is her lack of attention to focusing on jobs and job creation.

Economic action plan 2014 focuses substantially on job creation, whether it be the $55 million investment in internships for young Canadians or the new apprenticeship opportunity with the apprenticeship scholarships program that is being created by the Government of Canada to support those young Canadians who are most interested in entering into apprenticeships.

We know that substantive support is needed. We are addressing that concern. It is concerning to me that the member opposite does not focus on those opportunities for young Canadians. These are substantive initiatives that would create jobs and job opportunities and skills training for young Canadians. Why is she is not supporting the budget bill with those fabulous opportunities for young Canadians, many of whom live in her riding and in mine?

I am supporting the budget bill because of those initiatives. Why is she not supporting it? Maybe she could be accountable for that and comment on it here in the House.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour for the comments and questions she put forward. I wish she would open up the omnibus budget bill so that we could actually debate it, so that we could look at each individual part of it.

As I mentioned, there are some parts of the budget that the NDP supports. From day one, we have always been supportive of creating jobs and taking care of the high level of unemployment in this country and the extremely higher level of underemployment in this country.

A quarter of our university graduates with an undergraduate degree are severely unemployed or underemployed, and it was the Conservative government that was in charge of making that happen. The government has been sitting in the driver's seat while we saw a quarter of our university graduates being severely unemployment or underemployed.

Why do the minister and the government all of a sudden care about the youth in this country and say that they are doing something for the young people in this country? They sat there and watched as a quarter of our university graduates became unemployed or severely underemployed.

I talk to young people in my community every day, and they are hoping that they can have jobs in our community. The government sat there and watched as it sent jobs out of this country. The Conservatives are the ones who allowed the temporary foreign worker program to be abused and allowed jobs to be taken away from our young people and Canadians, and the minister now has the audacity to say that we are not fighting for Canadians and for our young people's jobs. Please, I do not need to repeat myself.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Certainly it segued nicely into what I want to talk about, which is, of course, young Canadians and students.

We have already heard about the crushing unemployment that youth are facing, and now we have the cancellation of the small business hiring tax credit. However, something else is also happening to young people, and it has not been discussed yet.

For some odd reason, the government decided to cancel the $5,000 vehicle exemption that students would get when they applied for student loans. This will make life much more difficult and education less affordable and accessible for rural and suburban students in particular.

Statistics show that if we live between 40 and 80 kilometres away from a post-secondary education institute, we are 31% less likely to attend. Now, with the cancellation of the vehicle exemption of $5,000 that students used to be able to put against their student loans, students will face larger costs in attending school. That applies in particular for a school like U of T Scarborough Campus, which is in my colleague's riding.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important question. I thank my colleague for this question and the statistics that he pointed out.

The government is making it harder for already underprivileged students who have to rely on the student loan program to get themselves through school, like I did. If I had not had access to the OSAP loans and the vehicle exemption tax credit, I would not have been able to afford to go to school. I would not have been able to afford to get a university degree. That is what the government is trying to do. It is trying to make it so that youth who grow up in families that are not privileged do not go to school. It is trying to make it more difficult for students who grow up in poverty or situations where education is the key for them to leave that cycle of poverty, that cycle of discrimination, whatever it might be.

The government is making it more difficult for people like me to get an education, to serve my community and country, and to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. That is not fair. We need to make sure that we are looking out for all students and young people in our country, not just the privileged. It does not make sense that the government would cancel the $5,000 vehicle exemption credit because rural and suburban communities need to ensure that their young people are getting educated as well.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to economic action plan 2014 as Minister of Labour and Minister for the Status of Women.

To begin with, I take issue with the last comment by the member. Whether it be the working income tax benefit or numerous other opportunities for Canadians, there are over a million low-income Canadians who are no longer on the tax rolls. Therefore, I encourage the member opposite to please look at the facts. The facts are that low-income Canadians are actually way better off under this government. The former minister of finance did an outstanding job of making sure that they were protected.

Canada has weathered the economic storm very well, especially compared to other countries. Since our government introduced economic action plan 2009 to respond to the global recession, Canada has not only recovered all of its output and all of the jobs lost during the recession, but it has exceeded pre-recession levels. Over the last four years, employment has increased by over one million and is now approximately 590,000 above its pre-recession peak, giving Canada the strongest job growth record among G7 countries over the recovery.

Our economic performance has not gone unrecognized. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the years to come. As well, for the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. Three major credit rating agencies have reaffirmed our top rating for Canada, and it is expected that Canada will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead.

Even before the global crisis, our government moved to lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote trade and innovation.

That said, there is still work to be done. That is why economic action plan 2014 continues our focus on the drivers of growth and job creation: innovation, investment, education, skills, and communities.

It marks the next chapter in our economic plan and leads us to a balanced budget by 2015.

Our plan also includes a number of initiatives to support Canadian individuals and families, Canadian students, and single parents.

We have introduced the new Canada loan program that provides apprentices and Red Seal trades with over $100 million in interest-free loans.

We are further supporting young Canadians entering the economy by investing $55 million to create paid internships for recent graduates in small and medium-sized businesses.

We are helping older workers get back to work by investing $75 million in a targeted initiative to support older workers who want to participate in the job market.

There are also a number of initiatives in economic action plan 2014 that pertain directly to my responsibilities as Minister of Status of Women, such as, increasing support to Status of Women Canada to increase a mentorship program for women entrepreneurs; proposing that over the next number of months, the Minister of Status of Women will consult on how to increase the number of women entering business, and succeeding and participating in business; and, providing an additional $40 million to the Canada's accelerator and incubator program to help entrepreneurs create new companies and realize the potential of their ideas, through intensive mentoring and other resources to make sure they are successful in creating jobs.

There are also a number of initiatives in the budget that will help address violence against women and girls, including indigenous women and girls, by promoting justice and the protection of the most vulnerable in our communities. These include the implementation of the Canadian victims bill of rights; $22 million, over two years, for the aboriginal justice strategy; $8.1 million, starting in 2016-17, with $1.3 million per year ongoing, to create a DNA-based missing persons index, something we have heard a significant amount about and I am delighted we are moving forward on; and, an additional $25 million to renew our efforts to directly address the issue of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

As hon. members will recall, the Helping Families in Need Act passed in this House last year, providing support for parents of critically ill children. It also supports parents of children who are missing or have been killed as a result of a crime, one of the most terrifying and difficult experiences that a parent may go through.

As the previous minister of finance stated in his February budget, we are now enhancing our support for families. We are making access to sickness benefits through the employment insurance program more flexible for those receiving parents of critically ill children or compassionate care benefits. This builds on the enhancements for those who are receiving parental benefits introduced in the Helping Families in Need Act. This legislation means that parents will benefit from temporary income support while caring for their critically ill child. For employers, it means retaining valuable employees who otherwise may give up their jobs to take care of their child.

As a practising physician, I can attest that one of the most important components of making sure that a child becomes well is making sure that his or her parent is with him or her. As a government, we need to do all we can to support these families in that absolutely critical time of crisis. This means that for a couple of those children who were diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, their parents will be eligible for the 35 weeks of critically ill benefits, and they are entitled to and may receive more weeks than they had before.

To ensure that leave provisions match the compassionate care leave and leave related to critical illnesses that are fully engaged in employment insurance provisions, the Canada Labour Code will also be amended.

The federal income support for the parents of murdered and missing children grant allows recipients to interrupt these payments to get access to employment insurance sickness benefits as well. Currently, the Canada Labour Code does not explicitly provide job protection to federally regulated employees under these circumstances. These amendments will ensure that the code is fully aligned with that grant, allowing Canadian parents to grieve, to search for their child, or to be with their child if he or she is critically ill.

Other consequential changes are also being put in place to be consistent with the application of the code. All these amendments will come into force on the same day as the related amendments to the employment insurance act.

The adjustments to the Helping Families in Need legislation are the latest in a number of initiatives taken by the government to help Canadian parents balance work life and family responsibilities, in this case, in one of the most important roles they have, that of caring for their child.

This government has earned a strong and well-deserved reputation for wise economic management. In the lead-up to the global recession, we paid down over $37 billion in debt. Unlike other countries, when hard times came, Canada had the leeway and flexibility to navigate through the economic and financial storms that arose outside of our borders.

Canada's deficit has been reduced by two-thirds since 2009. This puts us well on our way toward our goal of a budget surplus of over $6 billion in 2015, even after taking into account the $3-billion annual adjustment of risk.

Balancing the budget and reducing debt will provide a host of benefits that will go beyond the bottom line. It frees up tax dollars that might otherwise be spent on interest costs. These can be used to lower taxes or invest in other priorities for Canadians.

It will strengthen our country’s ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging, and unexpected global economic shocks.

It would strengthen our country's ability to respond to long-term challenges, such as an aging population and unexpected global shocks. It would help to ensure fairness and equity for generations to come, by avoiding future tax increases and a reduction in services.

Good economic management requires tough decisions, a focus on priorities, and sound judgment. This has been the approach of our government from day one, and it continues in economic action plan 2014.

I sincerely hope that all hon. members will join us in giving the budget their full support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women for her speech.

The picture she paints of the Conservative government's measures does not capture the reality in my riding. Many older women often live alone and have very little means. Pensions have been stagnating for years and incomes are quite low, while the cost of housing and devices such as hearing aids is going up.

Can the Minister of Status of Women tell us what measures the government is implementing for these older, retired women whose pension incomes have been stagnating for years because the government refuses to increase them?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what has happened in previous economic action plans, one item was the government's most substantive investment in 25 years, augmenting the GIS and the OAS, ensuring that low-income senior Canadians are provided with the opportunity to be better supported.

With respect to this budget in particular, economic action plan 2014, there are a number of items, particularly on the medical care side, that I think many of her constituents would have great benefit from.

One is the expanded tax relief under the medical expenses tax credit, ensuring that the costs associated with many of the items receive the tax credit—I know that in my capacity as a physician, many elderly individuals have diabetes, so those items—and also removing the GST/HST on many health products and care. These are issues that are top of mind for older Canadians. I recognize that the aging population has health care needs. These are two specific initiatives that would address those concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister relates to investments that our government is making in Canada's youth. Providing Canada's youth with opportunities, information, and education is vital to the success of our country. Economic action plan 2014 would make a number of key investments to ensure that today's youth have the skills they need to get the jobs of today and tomorrow. These are programs such as the Canada apprentice loan, the internship for young Canadians, simplifying the Canada student loan program, helping young entrepreneurs, promoting healthier lifestyles, and on and on. It is a terrific list of programs.

Would the minister explain to the House how these significant investments would create employment opportunities for young Canadians?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, similar to myself, the hon. member has a rural riding. I know in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, whether it be in Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, or Elmvale, the issue of ensuring that young apprentices are supported is top of mind. The dinner table conversation that took place about only going to university is changing to college because of those great opportunities when one graduates to have a well-paying job.

This government recognizes that. That is why we have created a new apprenticeship loan program, $100 million of interest-free money for young Canadians who want to educate themselves for the jobs available today. We know there are tens of thousands of jobs available, and we want to ensure they are prepared. In addition, there is $55 million for paid internships. It is ensuring that young Canadians have the skills they need and are provided with supports, so they can develop them and then expand those opportunities in businesses.

I have a wealth of small businesses across my riding. Whether they be in Alliston or in Creemore, they want to ensure they have young Canadians working for them so they can grow their firms. These internships for small and medium-sized businesses would provide exactly that opportunity.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. Yet again, it is another massive omnibus budget bill of over 350 pages and 500 separate clauses.

I will not be supporting this bill, because it fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class. Moreover, it does little to help Canadian youth find jobs at a time when there is persistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. Today, there are still 264,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the economic downturn.

The bill does little to help middle class parents and grandparents make ends meet and tackle record high levels of personal debt. Today, the average household owes a record $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income.

A few weeks ago, we had two weeks in our constituency offices, and 80% of my meetings were with people who are unemployed and looking for work. These were skilled people, engineers, lawyers, and Ph.D.s. There was one young man who had just graduated in nursing. Unfortunately, he could not afford the $500 for the exam. As a result, he could not work in the field for which he had studied so hard.

I cannot be clearer: people in my community have education, are skilled, and are desperate to work, but they cannot find jobs. Instead of the government putting new programs in place, support services are being cut in my Etobicoke North community. I have gone to the minister several times on this issue, for both settlement programs and job programs.

During those past two constituency weeks, we needed to get weekly food programs for five families. They did not ask for the help, but I realized the need when I reviewed their resumés and saw the last time they had worked and the number of family members they needed to feed.

Four individuals asked for counselling to deal with their depression as a result of not having a job, and one talked of suicide.

I will bring up one more case. A refugee woman, 18 weeks pregnant, bled through the night. She was afraid to go to the hospital because she could not afford the health care. Now she is afraid of getting an ultrasound because she cannot afford to pay for it.

The Conservatives' changes to Canadian society do not happen in a vacuum. They impact real Canadians who are hurting. The government needs to learn to see the hurt and to respond.

Our community is seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a uniform recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country. The reality is that there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

University graduates have come in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. Grandparents have come on behalf of their grandchildren—the first in the family to graduate from university and college—asking why they had fled their country of origin to come to Canada, the land of promise, so their children could have an education, but now that they have an education, they still do not have a job.

The people in my constituency need jobs. I have worked hard to get them jobs. In fact, I obtained funding for a completing the circle program, a $500,000 job program in our community. I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into jobs programs. We follow up with them to make sure their job searches are going in the right direction.

While they search, we help them with food, clothing, and whatever other supports they might need. We should all remember that we have seen a 31% increase in food bank usage since 2008.

At critical times, I have personally bought bedding, food, furniture, and medicine to help hurting Etobicoke North families. We had one lady come looking for help. She was in agony due to an ear infection that had raged for three weeks. She had pus and blood running down her face. The sad reality is that she could not afford antibiotics because she could not find a job.

I have MS patients who cannot take their drugs because they cannot work. How many more stories are there like theirs?

What I was looking for in the budget implementation bill, first and foremost, was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have over 350 pages with 500 separate clauses. Once again, my constituents are saddened by the fact that this is an omnibus bill with multiple sections that deserve full and proper hearings in committee and full parliamentary scrutiny.

Bill C-31 includes numerous measures that do not belong in a budget implementation bill; for example, rules about food safety, hazardous products, rail safety, and even the number of federal judges. The bill continues the Conservatives' battle against openness and transparency by weakening requirements to consult and inform Canadians about safety regulations and user fees. These changes have nothing to do with the implementation bill and are meant only to limit debate on important issues to Canadians. The Conservatives chose this anti-democratic route in order to adopt the bill's measures quickly and to avoid having them reviewed by Parliament.

The Conservatives have repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, a few years ago the government introduced an 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

More recently, the government introduced Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, to environmental protection, to immigration, to old age security. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that’s in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

The government's actions reek of hypocrisy. In the 1990s, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

One newspaper previously stated that omnibus bills are:

...political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.

In this omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, parliamentarians are being asked to consider measures including compassionate leave, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, medical expense tax credits, and sickness benefits. We would actually be supportive of these measures as individual measures, but unfortunately these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable, harmful, and regressive measures that we cannot support.

Like the omnibus bills before it, Bill C-31 includes corrections to mistakes in previous budget bills.

For the people of Etobicoke North and for young people across Canada, Bill C-31 offers very little. My constituents and Canadians need better and deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We have the chance to work together on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know how hard she works at studying her files and delving into the issues.

I would like to ask her what disastrous consequences these successive omnibus budgets have for the economic situation of women in Canada. Also, how did this situation deteriorate over the years, with the cuts to direct services for Canadians and the creation of low-paying unstable jobs that are often held by women?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is a pleasure to work with her on committee.

There have been tremendous cuts to women's groups, to Status of Women, a huge reduction in the service centres.

We could be tackling the major issues affecting women, like violence against women. We absolutely need a national action plan to end the violence. We need an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

We need to tackle pay equity. It is unconscionable that women in Canada earn 81 cents for every $1 a man earns. There was a 2005 study by the Royal Bank of Canada, saying we are losing $156 billion annually because of the pay equity gap.

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

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague elaborate on the disastrous long-term consequences of this omnibus budget implementation bill?

Over the years, how will this bill, and particularly the change having to do with FATCA, change the principles that are important to us?

What impact will this bill have on the laws that protect Canadians' privacy?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing trend in omnibus bills. We need to be able to undertake scrutiny, and we cannot.

One of the big changes is that the Canada I grew up in believed in a fair and just society, where everyone had an equal shot. If we worked hard, we had enough food on the table and a roof over our heads, we could send our children to college or university, and we could save for our retirement. Where is that Canada today?

The Canada I grew up in believed in feeding our neighbours' child when there was need, and believed that the government was there to look after our most vulnerable citizens. It is really shameful that the government has forgotten these core Canadian values.

We need to honour the promise. In 1989 and 1992, we promised to eliminate child poverty in Canada and to ensure safe, nutritious food for all. There are 169 other countries that feed their children every morning. In Toronto, 40% of elementary school students and 62% of secondary school students go to school hungry. Hungry children cannot learn. It is unconscionable.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride today to rise here in my place and lend my voice to support Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the federal budget that was brought down on February 11, 2014, here in this House.

I represent the great riding of York Centre. York Centre is a unique riding. We have 15 different ethnocultural groups that represent at least 5% of the population. People come from all over the world to the riding of York Centre, and they come for a variety of reasons. They are escaping persecution. They are escaping racism. Most importantly, they are coming to this great country of Canada to seek opportunity for themselves, but more importantly, for their children.

Recently I read about a poll taken around the world asking people where they would like to live. What was their number one country, given their choice? The number one answer given was “Canada”. We have read in the history books that 2,000 years ago, in the Roman Empire, the greatest thing one could say was “civis Romanus sum”, “I am a citizen of Rome”. Today, thanks to our Prime Minister and to the actions of our government, the proudest thing Canadians can say, no matter where they are, whether in Canada or around the world, is “I am a citizen of Canada”. That is why we have people wanting to come to Canada from every corner of the earth.

Let me just step back a bit. Canadians have no monopoly on brains and ingenuity and creativity. That exists around the world. This is, however, one of the very few countries around the world that offers opportunity, so people come here seeking that opportunity to get a better life for themselves and their children. That is what Canada is about. That is the most Canadian thing.

We are so fortunate under this government. We have had a plan since 2006, unlike the previous Liberal government, which for 13 years balanced the federal budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society: seniors and children. It was actually quite an outrage.

What we have done is increase transfer payments to the provinces. We increased the GIS, at a record level of 25%, just before the last election. We now have the best-performing economy of any G7 country. It is a jobs-driven economy. We have created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in July 2009. We are leading the G7.

In the month of January, we had a budgetary surplus of $2.9 billion and are on course to get a $6.5 billion budgetary surplus by the time our next budget comes down in 2015. We have done this by lowering taxes to record levels. We have lowered the corporate income tax to 15%, which has made Canada a huge investment opportunity and a destination for businesses to create jobs. We have negotiated nine free trade agreements, more than any Canadian government in history. We just closed negotiations on the Canada–Korea free trade agreement. Preceding that was the Canada–European Union free trade agreement. Trade means jobs, and this government knows that.

People in my riding tell me, when I go to door to door, which I do every weekend, that they have never had it better than under this government under the leadership of our current Prime Minister.

Our economy has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 economy, at 36%. The G7 average is 90%. Our second closest competitor is Germany, at just over 50%. We have the highest, strongest income growth of any G7 country, and we have recovered all of the business investment lost during the economic recession. The IMF, the OECD, and the World Economic Forum have said that Canada is the best place to do business. We have the strongest financial system in the world, exceeding Basel III.

We have the strongest fundamentals in place over the next 50 years to grow our economy substantially. That is what business looks for. We have frozen EI premiums. Businesses want stability to create jobs. They need to know that, and this government has done that.

All the credit rating agencies, from Standard & Poor's to Moody's, have reiterated our AAA credit rating. No other G7 country has benefited from such a credit rating as Canada has.

We have brought in a series of budgets since 2006 that are not Conservative budgets or ideologically driven budgets. These are Canadian budgets. These are budgets that are good for the people of Canada. We have job creation. We have an economy that will stimulate jobs and encourage investment, unlike the New Democrats, whose ideology gives them the answers before they even look at the evidence. That is why they do not bother to read bills that come before the House, because their ideology will give them the answer before they even need to read them.

We have lowered taxes on average Canadians. We have lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting a thousand extra dollars in the pockets of Canadians. We believe that Canadians know what to do with their money better than what governments can do with it. We have enhanced the working income tax benefit. Eight million Canadians have opened up tax-free savings accounts. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% and the general business tax from 21% to 15%, as I indicated earlier. We are increasing the age credit and the pension income credit. We have taken more than one million Canadians off the tax rolls. No other government in Canadian history has ever been able to achieve that.

Our current unemployment rate, with a record number of people who want jobs in Canada because our economy is doing so well, is below 7%. In the heyday of the Liberals, in the mid 1990s, in an economy that was doing extremely well around the world, the unemployment rate never fell below 7%. We, in a fragile economy, must be doing something right, and it is not me who is saying that. It is all the economic institutions around the world who are saying that Canada is the model of economic performance.

When I was in business before I got into politics, I did a lot of travelling. People would come up to me when I would travel. They were very curious about Canada's success story and why it was doing so well relative to all other economies around the world. Now that I have been in government, I can see why. We are the only party that consults. We have had a plan since 2006 based on consultations with the Canadian people. The people told us that their priorities were jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and that has been our focus since 2006.

The only part of government spending we have reduced is spending on the operations of government. We have not reduced transfer payments to either people or governments. We have reduced spending on government operations, and that is saving the taxpayers of Canada money.

The first thing we did when we got into government in 2006, which put us in a good position to weather the economic storm that was coming, was begin to pay down the national debt by $37 billion. That gave us the latitude in later years, when the economic recession hit, to have the manoeuvrability to run a short-term deficit. Because of our government's policies on job creation and lower taxes, we are now going to have a $6.5 billion budgetary surplus, the only G7 country to have a surplus, in 2015.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague, who has a cheerleading approach to the budget, to reflect a little on the lack of any effort the government is making in the budget to deal with the promises it made in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an agreement the Conservatives made with the world. It is an agreement that may have some impact on the Canadian economy, but it could possibly have some very positive impacts on the development of green technology. With efforts we could make to live up to our international obligations, we could create an industry Canadians could feel proud of.

Right now, the budget offers up probably $800 per Canadian in subsidies to the oil industry, not to the kind of effort we need in this country to move ourselves in a positive direction in this world.

How can we hold our heads up in the international context when we simply do not live up to our international obligations?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the benefit of being in the NDP is that one can enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

Our government has done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than any other government in Canadian history. The way we have gone about doing that is not with a trade-off. It is not either/or. We can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change on the one hand but create jobs, growth, and economic prosperity on the other hand. That is exactly what we are doing, not just in this budget but with every piece of legislation we pass. Our focus is on what matters most to Canadians, and that is jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech, which I felt was one of the better speeches given in this House on this budget. It is a remarkable speech. I thank the member for his passion for our country and for recognizing this opportunity. I also want to thank him for his work on the finance committee.

The member talked about consultations as we went into the budget. Yes, I had the pleasure of seeing many members of Parliament holding these pre-budget consultations across the country, so I want to thank the member for that.

In his speech, the member talked a little about keeping taxes low, coming to a balanced budget in 2015, and not diminishing transfers of any type to our provinces or territories. He also mention EI premiums. Again, the opposition was pushing for increased taxes. The opposition has never seen a tax it would like to cut. Certainly, we froze the EI premiums.

I wonder if the member would speak a little more about the importance his constituents place on a balanced budget, on keeping other payroll taxes low, such as the Canadian pension plan, and on the good measures we have brought forward for helping seniors and for helping young people prepare for retirement.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the excellent Minister of State (Finance) that we are so lucky to have in our government. He is doing wonderful work on our behalf and on behalf of all Canadians.

The minister spoke about taxes. It is clear that our government is on record as leading a job recovery, an economic recovery, based on lower taxes. We have seen what the NDP can do to an economy if it has its way. I refer all hon. members back to Ontario, when Bob Rae, before he became a Liberal, was premier of Ontario. We saw record levels of debt. We saw record levels of increased taxation. We saw record levels of unemployment, in fact the highest levels of unemployment of any jurisdiction in North America. Now the NDP would have us bring what they did in Ontario to Canada. I say no.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand and speak to yet another 360-plus page omnibus budget bill. Yet again, as has been the case with the Conservative government, this bill is replete with law and policy reforms unrelated to or only minimally related to finance. This bill is more notable for what it excludes than what it offers to Canadians, but I will speak about that a little bit later.

Once again, it incorporates a myriad of legislative reforms belonging more appropriately, in a true, open, transparent, and democratic system, under separate stand-alone bills for policy initiatives with adequate opportunity for scrutiny and debate, not just by duly elected members of Parliament but also by Canadians who might be impacted these measures, and with referral to the appropriate committee for study.

It is regrettable that the Conservative government continues to table the type of budget implementation bills it does. There are some supportable measures in this bill, but the government just cannot resist putting in poison pills that my constituents absolutely cannot support.

However, I would credit the proposed action on a number of matters, which many have called for. One includes extending to 10 years the carry-forward period for specified donations of ecologically sensitive lands. That is a commendable measure.

Expanding the category of persons who may claim medical expenses to those suffering severely from diabetes is very important. In particular, our aboriginal communities are suffering immeasurably from this disease. It would be nice if the government also put in place measures so that they could afford healthy foods and that would help to address the symptoms and cause of diabetes.

Finally, the government is responding to a call by the Alberta attorney general and me to increase the number of appointments to the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. I am delighted that it has finally responded to that request, which has been outstanding for many years.

I am pleased that the Conservatives would extend at least a modicum or limited category of veterans' benefits, although they are still begrudging veterans the benefits they deserve from the period of 2006-13. It would have been nice if the government had moved forward and stopped the clawback and instead reimbursed and rewarded our veterans for the time served.

In addition, interest-free loans for apprenticeship training are most likely welcomed. Regrettably, absolutely nothing in this budget would trigger action by employers to offer more apprenticeships. It is nice that there would be money to borrow to participate in an apprenticeship, but we still have this longstanding failure by the corporations in this country, especially the major corporations, to make apprenticeships available.

Sadly, again, while the government persists in providing some measures that we have either long called for or would be happy to support on behalf of our constituents, there are many more matters of legislative concern in this bill.

For example, let us look at FATCA. This implements the Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. Grave concerns have been expressed by many of my constituents about these measures. This is a bill that absolutely should have come independently to this place for open debate and to allow citizens with dual Canadian and U.S. citizenship to come forward and testify to the issues, and for legal experts to testify to the matter and provide advice and counsel to the government on how it might be implemented in a fairer and more advantageous way for Canadian citizens.

Regrettably, the government has thrown it in the middle of a budget bill and there will not be that opportunity.

Secondly, let us look at administrative tribunals. We know that the government has serious problems with parliamentary officers, whom it is trying to stifle. This measure is also of grave concern. Instead of providing administrative services to the many federal tribunals, the government is proposing to consolidate them all in one office. The senior administrator would be appointed by the government.

This raises serious concerns, because these are quasi-judicial bodies that are supposed to be completely independent of government. One merely needs to consider the actions taken by the government against our quasi-judicial tribunals.

Time after time, the government has refused to reveal information to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This raises the question: is this some kind of mechanism whereby the Conservatives will be able to control and try to constrain the wide array of quasi-judicial tribunals in this country? It is obviously a matter that legal experts would like to come in to discuss separately, but that is not going to happen because it is contained within a budget bill.

Third is railway safety. This one is absolutely stunning. Day after day, issues are raised in this place about the abject failure of the government to adequately govern railway safety. This is a serious issue for my constituency. We have rail tanker cars coming into the very busiest part of my riding. In fact, they are going to continue to come through, literally feet from condominiums.

What is the government doing? It just defies reason. It is passing, in a budget bill, a measure that is going to rescind a mandatory duty to notify the public of measures on rail safety, and it is rescinding the opportunity for the public to comment on rail safety measures. It defies logic.

In the case where these measures are actually environmentally related, where the measures might be put in place to protect the environment, by rescinding this, the government is actually violating the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation. In signing onto that agreement, Canada had undertaken to provide advance notice and opportunity to comment on any proposed law by government that might impact the environment.

No such notice was given of this law change coming forward. It is removing the opportunity for Canadian communities to have a say in rail safety. It defies logic that this would be in a budget bill.

Fourth is temporary foreign workers. The government is lauding the fact it is going to implement monetary penalties by regulation, where there is no opportunity for discussion. This is the government that, until it was pressured, did not even inform Canadians of corporations that are breaking the law on bringing in temporary foreign workers. Only because of pressure did it finally, this weekend, post some of those names. We are talking about major corporations that may be breaking the law regulating temporary foreign workers, and the government is going to issue a monetary penalty. It is not even asserting the powers it has right now, including the power to yank the permits for bringing in temporary foreign workers.

We look forward to the explanation by the government of why this would be in a budget bill. Obviously monetary penalities might be arguable. Normally these are brought forward in an amendment to the relevant statute.

Finally, I would like to speak to what is not in Bill C-31. There are no measures to support the renewal of the small business job creation tax credit, which would definitely help small startups offering energy efficient retrofits, or clean energy firms. There were a number of such entities, all excited to get going in my city and my riding. Youth were interested in going around and meeting seniors in their homes, giving them an affordable audit and then referring them to people who could energy retrofit their homes.

It is not there. The government is not interested in helping people reduce their energy use and save money.

There is absolutely no renewal of the ecoENERGY home retrofit program, which was one of the all-time popular programs, over-subscribed because it was so popular. The government decided to get rid of it.

There is a total absence of any measures, fiscal or other, to address Canada's growing greenhouse gas emissions, despite the fact that 81% of Canadians believe there is solid evidence of climate change and 84% want Canada to show leadership. Of course, I guess the problem is that the government is supported by the 30% who do not believe in climate change.

I look forward, in response to questions, to sharing more information, including the fact there are zero measures to get major corporations to invest money in alternative energy in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona for her speech. She gave us a very eloquent overview of the situation.

She also mentioned that this omnibus budget bill will likely have unintended consequences given how problematic it is.

I know that she is very knowledgeable in such matters. Therefore, I would like her to talk about the impact of the absence of environmental measures in this budget, as she mentioned at the end of her speech.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and her contribution to her constituency. She is a dedicated, hard worker.

Clearly, there is a major missing piece in the budget, just as there has been in all of the budgets the government has brought forward. The government espouses responsible resource development. It espouses support of the principle of sustainable development. Yet it has paid zero attention to that in any budget bill in this place.

Why is that important? Although my colleague says it is an issue of concern for the environment, it is actually a serious economic issue going into the future. While the rest of the world is shifting their investments to renewable power and energy efficiency because, frankly, in some jurisdictions like Iceland, and even in China, if they invest in energy efficiency in their own jurisdiction, they are then free to export and get the export value of those products.

That is not the case in this country, where we are simply not seeing any measures come forward whatsoever to either reduce the power bills of Canadians, nor for us to invest in the jobs of the future for young Canadians in their communities.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, TransCanada Pipeline Limited's 4,500 kilometre energy east pipeline project would carry 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in eastern Canada. According to TransCanada Pipeline Limited, the project is expected to add $35 billion to Canada's gross domestic product over 40 years and would create 10,000 jobs.

Would the member agree that it is important for us to have the laws we are putting in place for responsible development of our resources so that we can indeed have an economy and protect the environment, which is why we do have the regulations in the bill she denies are there?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am left speechless because I do not see those provisions. In previous budget bills, yes, the Conservatives have downgraded the National Energy Board process, so that in fact we do not have the processes or mechanisms to have full-fledged reviews. It is regrettable that because of the downgrading of that process, they have probably severely prejudiced a lot of pipeline projects, particularly the gateway project.

No, indeed, I do not see the measures in there to ensure protection of the environment. In fact, I need to remind the minister that it is raw bitumen that is being sent in all directions out of Alberta, not crude oil, and that it would be nice to see the measures that are going into upgrading and refining within western Canada in the rest of Canada as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things”.

So said Adam Smith, the Scottish economist. To put it in a way that many Canadians who know their history would understand, it is about peace, order, and good government. That is the basis of what we do in this place. That is what we seek to do with all legislation. That is the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament.

Listening to the debate going on today, talking about the budget implementation act, the economic action plan of the Government of Canada, I heard some hon. members talk about not quite recognizing the Canada in which they grew up in this budget, the government's economic action plan. Therefore, I thought perhaps a little bit of context might be useful for understanding where Canada has come from in our economic past: what is Canada's historic approach to dealing with economic issues, and what in the past has impacted us that affects us in this economic legislation?

I will deal with a few of the myths and also bring forward some of the economic data, not only from Canada but from around the world, to explain why the government has it right, why the government has done what it has done, and why concentrating on what I spoke of earlier—low taxes, peace, order, and good government—is what works best for Canada.

What many Canadians often do not understand, or do not necessarily remember, is that one of Canada's primary, original economic strategies was low taxes. I know that may be difficult for some members of the opposition to understand, growing up thinking the Trudeau era was the norm for Canadian economic policy. However, in the early part of Canada's history, one of the absolutely basic strategies for attracting immigrants, investment, et cetera, to Canada was not having income tax. We know that Prime Minister Borden introduced income tax during the First World War to pay for the expense of the war. However, what is often forgotten is that the Conservatives in that era—and for that matter the Liberals until the era of Laurier, when they began to think about it—were opposed to income tax. One of the reasons they opposed it was that they knew low taxes would attract talent to Canada. Immigration from Great Britain and the United States, specifically, is what they were looking for. Of course, keeping taxes lower than the United States was important to this strategy because, with the opportunities in the United States, immigrants had a choice between the two countries.

Canada was built very much on this concept of low tax, a solid currency, low administration, and a low regulatory approach to governance. This is something that is often forgotten in debates nowadays, when we start to think and reference back to the mid-1970s as the basis for beginning our economic history of Canada.

We see these historic principles that worked so well in the founding of our nation being carried forward in our government's fiscal and budgetary policy. Let us look at a few of these things, historically, that the government has done. We know of course about the 2% cut to the GST, going from 7% to 6% to 5%. It was a measure that helped all Canadians, low income, high income, working Canadians, and Canadians who are on fixed incomes, across the board. Of course we remember the pension splitting that the government brought in to provide income tax fairness to seniors.

If I may digress here for a moment, there has been some debate in the public about one of the upcoming provisions for one of the next budgets. That is the expanding of income splitting to families, particularly families with children under the age of 18. One of the criticisms of the government wanting to bring this policy forward is that it would give tax cuts to people who make a fair bit of money. That is, it would give tax cuts to people who pay taxes. I have news. Unless one pays taxes, one cannot have one's taxes cut. We want Canadians to pay taxes, because that is how we provide for our services in our country. Therefore, it is very good to have taxes cut.

Those who are most discriminated against under the current tax system will receive the most benefit under this tax provision, just as people who had pensions were the ones most likely to benefit from the change in the pension splitting provisions. Therefore, it should be remembered that this income splitting is not only good economic policy, but it is good social policy because it enhances the fairness of the tax system.

One of the most important things this government has done in these last few years is try to bring down and control the debt, the deficit in particular. Canadians may not remember this, but prior to 1975, Canadian debt tended to grow by 5% to 10% a year. Only in 1975 did our debt really begin to accelerate to 20% per year for slightly over a decade. It took many years after the follies of the Pierre Trudeau administration for us to begin to get a grip on our financial house here in Canada. That is one reason why I approve of the government's specific strategy of trying to get the deficit down to zero so that we can then begin to repay the debt we have built up.

All government spending is taxes. However, the question is this. Is it present taxes or future taxes with interest tacked on? That is why I feel it is important for all present Parliaments to do what they can to try to keep Canada's debt load low and eliminate the deficit now. In eras like World War I and World War II, there were situations where it was understandable to run a deficit. That is one of the most important things to note.

We have looked at the government's success in cutting taxes. Opposition critics are often fond of criticizing the cuts to corporate taxes. What they sometimes fail to note is that the share of corporate taxes presently tends to be almost identical, as a share of the GDP, to what it was when we had higher corporate taxes. For people who do not understand economics, that may seem a bit strange, but we need to understand that corporate taxes are merely one stage of the tax process. The profit of the corporation will eventually be taxed again at other levels later on. What corporations do when they see tax rates go up is reallocate capital, look for better places to invest, and cut back in other areas.

I was reading an interesting article that analyzed the effect of corporate taxes in the United States. It said that one of the biggest impacts of raising corporate taxes was wage pressure on workers. The lowering of corporate taxes has not hurt government finances and helps to put positive pressure on the salaries of workers.

There are a couple of other things for which I want to congratulate the government. While reading notes in preparation for this debate, I found this interesting. Departmental spending has gone down in three straight years. I offer my congratulations to the President of the Treasury Board and all the ministers who worked on that. That is incredibly difficult to do. With growth in population, inflationary pressures, et cetera, to keep departmental spending down in three straight years is a spectacular achievement, because all government spending is taxation, as I said earlier. The question is whether it is present taxation or future taxation. Keeping government spending down is one of the most important things here.

As I have approximately one minute left, let me list a few of the positive things our government has done. One in particular that we should continue to push for and emphasize is our trade agreements—one of the absolute best things we have done in this Parliament—with the European Union, with many countries in Latin America, and increasingly by reaching out to Asia.

Everything I have talked to comes back to those basic points, which are peace, order, and good government. If we keep taxes low, keep the money sound, and keep the administration of government light, in the end we will have a prosperous country, a good economy, and happy citizens throughout our country.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's overview. He has some posits on Canadian history, which I found interesting. I am not sure where he was going with it, though. I assume the next step he would say is that he would abide by Borden's rhetoric that there would be temporary income taxes. Maybe we have a new policy announcement from the Conservative Party that they are going to get rid of income tax.

Of course, that replaced the national policy, which was also hard on the western provinces of the day.

It was not always the shiny, happy kind of picture he is painting, but we can debate history and economics later, and I would love to do that any time.

On this particular bill we have in front of us, would the member not agree that the current government has continued this path of putting together budget bills that actually have very little to do with budgets? Would he not agree, as he used to when he was in opposition, that budget bills should be separated out, that we clearly need to be focused on the budget, separate from all these other initiatives, so we can actually have transparency, debate, and parliamentary oversight?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, in reference to my colleague's remarks about economic history, I agree with the Laurier Liberals on free trade, and I agree with the Borden Conservatives on income tax. I am very open to ideas, as long as they are good ideas, from wherever they come.

With respect to the hon. member's remarks about omnibus legislation, I think sometimes it needs to be understood, when it comes to dealing with regulatory issues, that they have a profound effect on the economy.

Regulation that is set up to provide for health and safety is one thing, but sometimes regulation is put in there for economic steering and economic—let us say it—manipulation. Those things and those regulatory changes, I think, can be tied very closely and very tightly to budgets and economic action plans.

Would I like to have the hon. member on the record as opposing more elements of the federal government's budget, in specific? Yes, I would. It would make it much more direct and much easier for me to campaign against the NDP in my constituency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I found his historical references quite interesting, as well.

One of the things about the parties opposite, the centre-left party and the left party, is that their economic policies are, by and large, to spend, spend, spend.

What I find amazing is that they never talk about the need to create wealth. They simply do not understand that one of the government's major roles is to set up a climate for investment and wealth creation.

I would like to ask my colleague and friend why it is that the two parties on the opposite side, the centre-left and the left-wing parties, simply do not understand the need to create wealth before we can spend it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say, in reference to my hon. colleague's remarks that, when left-wing parties do get into government a for long enough time, eventually reality does bite them. We saw this in France, where President Hollande tried to raise the income taxes up to 75%. That began to cause fiscal issues. The economic problems began to grow; so now, the socialist government in France is beginning to retrench and pull away, because it has seen what every other country in history has seen: high taxes do not provide for a prosperous society; low taxes are one of the fundamental economic freedoms—not the only one—that help provide for prosperity for all citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have here another season, another Conservative budget, another mammoth bill, another omnibus bill, another undemocratic bill, another Trojan horse bill. It is another season in Parliament where the Conservatives have introduced another brick of a bill.

Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a prosperous economy? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for an economy of solidarity? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a democratic economy? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a green economy and strengthen environmental protections? No. Will this brick of a bill build an economy of innovation and creativity? No.

The content of Bill C-31 undermines all that Canadians are and all that they can accomplish. This budget undermines everything Canadians are striving for, namely, a fairer, greener and more prosperous society where no one is left behind.

When I meet people from my riding of LaSalle—Émard, I am meeting people who work hard. I travel with them on the bus and on the metro. They often have unstable jobs and are struggling to make ends meet. They pay all sorts of fees, and this government's planned tax cuts are irrelevant to them because everything else costs more.

When I am in my riding, I meet with seniors. They are also concerned because their rent is going up while their pension stays the same because of this government's blind stubbornness. Seniors are concerned because they too are having trouble making ends meet. I meet families who are working extremely hard to make sure that their children have a bright future but who are struggling with debt and instability. They are concerned because they too are struggling to make ends meet.

Canadians are bearing the burden of the Conservatives' successive irresponsible budget measures, and Bill C-31 will only add to that burden. I would like to quote an article from The Economist, which reads:

...Canada’s finance minister...has repeatedly warned of the threat household debt poses to the economy.

Yet [the previous] budget 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 budget 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.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its Alternative Federal Budget 2014: Striking a Better Balance, warns:

...the growth that households contributed to the Canadian economy in the past year was entirely financed through household debt. Clearly this situation is not sustainable....

The real concern for Canada lies ahead, when mortgage rates do inevitably increase from their present historic lows. At that time, highly leveraged households, along with their consequent support for economy growth, will be seriously constrained.

In my riding, I see businesses closing and good jobs being lost. I see SMEs having difficulty covering their operating expenses or investing in growth and job creation. I see small businesses closing or struggling to survive.

Since the Conservatives came to power, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown faster than in other OECD countries.

We are also seeing the gap between large and small businesses growing. The Conservatives' policies for creating stable, well-paying jobs for all Canadians have quite simply failed.

In its Alternative Federal Budget 2014, the authors state:

The current federal government’s policy of spending public revenues on corporate tax breaks, intended to stimulate re-investment in the Canadian economy, has failed. Rather than creating jobs and spending money on Canadian-made infrastructure, corporations have hoarded their government-subsidized profits to the tune of $572 billion, raised top CEO wages to 171 times that of the average Canadian worker, and shifted their workforce into increasingly precarious jobs.

That is what comes of irresponsible austerity budgets and policies, these bricks that do nothing to build the foundation of a strong, solid, and prosperous Canadian economy.

I would also like to talk about a rather worrisome measure in the budget whose ramifications could have harmful consequences for Canadians. I am talking about the accord on the infamous Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, better known as FATCA, the American tax law on foreign accounts. A number of people have said that this accord might be inconsistent with Canadian privacy laws and that enforcing this law could be costly. Those costs would be borne by the financial institutions and by the Canada Revenue Agency. We can expect those costs to be passed on to consumers and taxpayers.

Our country needs leadership and a clear vision. The NDP has a number of proposals to build a lasting, supportive, prosperous economy for the future.

The NDP is proposing that the government make strategic investments in the Canadian economy, in innovative and productive industries, sectors where Canada has already proven itself. I want to speak specifically about sectors like the aerospace industry, a sector that is ignored in this budget but that is creating well-paying jobs in a value-added export industry.

If the government was willing to do so, it could also invest in the green technology industry, another sector that this government has ignored and neglected. Need I remind the House that protecting the environment is not inconsistent with responsible economic development? An NDP government would make strategic investments in the co-operative sector for a sustainable, democratic and 100% Canadian economy.

What I would like to see in this bill is a new partnership with the provinces and cities, instead of this government's paternalistic and controlling vision, especially when it comes to infrastructure. As a result, we would have vibrant cities and communities that would have the means to build safe and healthy places to live. We would have an environmental policy that would make Canada a leader in green technologies, energy conservation, electrification of transportation and waste reclamation. We would have a digital strategy in which revenue from spectrum auctions would be invested in infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet in all regions of Canada.

What I would like to see in this budget is a government that provides services that Canadians can count on.

These are proposals that would build the foundation of a solid economic structure, a sustainable, mutually supportive and prosperous economy focused on the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech. Obviously she has many ideas different from what is discussed in the BIA, and I suppose that is why we have a democracy that allows people to get a chance to speak to the values they would like to see in these kinds of budget documents.

A substantial section of her speech talked about corporate tax and the rate the member would prefer to see it at. I would ask the member if she is familiar with Stephen Gordon's Worthwhile Canadian Initiative. He is a Canadian economist who has done substantial research in the area of corporate tax rates. He has said that the study and research that he has seen show that by lowering corporate taxes, we not only see gains in productivity because manufacturers can put new technology to work but we also see an increase in labour prices. We would actually see people making more money.

Does the member agree that further enhancements to productivity and increased wages would be good things for this country?

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

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

I mentioned in my speech that companies had not reinvested $567 billion, even though they had received tax breaks. Those corporate tax breaks are not being reinvested in Canada to create jobs. That was my point.

I must admit that I would have liked to have much more time to talk about this subject. I am sure all the other members in the House would agree, but unfortunately the government chose to impose time allocation. We will not have time to debate this bill—and, most importantly, to study it carefully in committee to improve it—even though this bill will have some very serious consequences for Canadians.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. We need to remember that the government imposed a gag order on this bill after only 25 minutes of debate. It introduced yet another massive budget bill and has thrown all kinds of things into it. It contains poison pills, which means that there are things we agree with and things we do not agree with.

I really appreciate the direction my colleague took in her speech when she made some worthwhile suggestions. She spoke about the co-operative movement and about technology. I would like to know what she thinks about the shortcomings in this budget with respect to technology. Perhaps she could tell us whether she agrees with me that there are shortcomings.

Technology is not just about innovation. It also includes basic research. There is a university in my riding, and I am told that cuts are being made to basic research and the focus will be strictly on innovation. We are breaking the innovation chain. Are we not setting ourselves up for challenges in the future by not investing in research?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very insightful question. This is something we looked into together at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where he had the opportunity to serve a few times. He also looked into this when he was the science and technology critic.

My colleague is absolutely right. There has to be a chain. You have to go from the top down. Applied research is downstream, but there needs to be a well, a reserve. This well is drying up because the current government has no interest in science and is not particularly interested in basing its policies on science or solid evidence. We all know about the cuts at Statistics Canada. This data is key to ensuring we have an economic portrait of Canada for our discussions on the economy and the budget. This information is missing and data collection has stopped since the famous long-form census was cancelled. That worries me, and it should worry my Conservative colleagues because not having this economic portrait is very harmful to Canada's economic future.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31, the budget implementation act.

This bill will enact various measures that were outlined in the budget that was presented to the House last month. I am very happy that the government is moving forward expeditiously to put these measures in place to benefit all Canadians.

Today I will outline why I feel as though this bill will benefit residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and indeed Canadians from coast to coast.

Before I begin, I want to take some time to congratulate the former minister of finance, a good friend of mine, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, on a job very well done. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 2006, after spending several years with the Ontario provincial government.

He has tirelessly represented the people of Whitby—Oshawa in his work here in Ottawa. The accolades that he has received internationally, and his recognition as the greatest finance minister in the world, truly demonstrate that he was certainly one of the greatest finance ministers that our country has ever had.

I wish him all the best in his retirement, and, again, commend him on a job well done.

Further to this, I would congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on his recent appointment as Minister of Finance and wish him all the best as he carries out his duties in this position. I am certain that he will carry out sound economic policies for Canadians in the years to come.

Before getting into the specific measures contained within Bill C-31, I would like to respond to some of the opposition criticism that the bill has received. Bill C-31 has been widely criticized by some of my colleagues across the way as being an omnibus bill. It is often presented that the bill has a wide range of initiatives and will implement new measures in many different areas and many different sectors.

What I think is being misunderstood here is that the problems that are facing our economy are not simple and contained to a specific sector or field. There are a wide range of issues that we are presented with, and we therefore need a comprehensive plan to tackle these issues. That is why Bill C-31 will implement a wide sweeping plan that will ensure increased growth and continue our leading economic prosperity from the recession.

One of these measures that I am very pleased to see implemented is the new building Canada plan. I was pleased to see that recently the government announced that this fund was open for business and municipalities could begin their applications to secure funds for the upcoming construction season. A $53-billion plan for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure will provide stable funding for a 10-year period, the longest in Canadian history.

I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, have spent some time in municipal politics, and I believe we all understand the importance of stable infrastructure funding. This will ensure that municipalities have the funding they need to carry out projects that will help them to better provide important services to Canadians.

In my riding, the new building Canada plan has received substantial interest. Many municipalities are looking forward to taking advantage of this record level of funding for local projects.

In discussing the upcoming construction season, I think it is important to discuss the importance of government funding in relation to creating summer employment. I am sure that when communities are able to secure funding through the new building Canada plan, many jobs will be created in many different fields.

Our government has always supported job creation and training. This budget continues this record.

Through the Canada job grant, Canadians will get the skills they need to get in-demand jobs. An investment of $40 million, for up to 3,000 internships in high-demand fields, and $15 million, for up to 1,000 internships in small and medium sized businesses, will support further job creation.

Furthermore, pilot projects to expand the use of innovative approaches to training apprentices and the creation of the Canada apprenticeship loan will support training and employment through apprenticeships. The Canada apprenticeship loan will help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades to complete their training by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year.

Therefore, I think it is very safe to say that this budget supports job creation and training and implements measures to address skills shortages and unemployment.

Continuing on with our commitment to improving Canadian infrastructure, this budget contains measures that would specifically address the needs of rural areas. I was very pleased to see that $305 million would be invested to extend and enhance broadband service for up to an additional 280,000 Canadians. In today's high-tech world, with reliance on services provided through the Internet, broadband service is very much needed in rural areas.

This is certainly a welcome announcement in my riding. On a personal basis, the area where I live is one without high speed Internet because of the topography. Hopefully, this initiative would allow companies to address spots like this and others, not just in my riding but across the country.

This budget would also support a strong and stable health care system. This year is significant in that the health accord would shift to the Canada health transfer, which would increase funding from $30.3 billion to $40 billion over the next 10 years.

Further to this, the budget would expand health-related tax relief by removing the GST and HST on more health care products and services to better reflect the health care needs of Canadians. Canadians are proud of their health care system, and this budget would continue to improve this already proven successful system.

My riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is surrounded by the Great Lakes on three sides. The recreational fishing industry is a vital source of economic activity and tourism for several communities. This budget would make a significant amount of funding available that would support growth in these communities through the recreational fishing industry.

It should be noted that the recreational fishing industry provides about $8 billion in economic activity in this country and has become extremely important to many people in my riding.

The first way in which this budget would improve the recreational fishing industry is through support for small craft harbours. The budget would invest an additional $40 million to ensure that harbour facilities meet the needs of local fishermen.

Furthermore, I was very pleased to see that the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program was extended, through a $15-million investment. That program was originally put in place about a year ago. There was a lot of effort from a number of MPs from this side of the House. In particular, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, in Manitoba, put a lot of work into that. It is something that is very important to his riding, my riding, and many other ridings in the country.

Several groups in my riding have already received funding through this program, and the projects they intend to carry out will go a long way in establishing a secure recreational fishery. I am looking forward to seeing other sportsmen's associations and groups receiving funding through this program to support local fisheries. These people are true stewards of the environment, and they are committed to a healthy ecosystem. This funding would go a long way to creating a healthy environment and a strong recreational fishery.

In relation to getting out and enjoying nature, I was also very pleased to see that a $10-million investment would be made to improve and expand snowmobile and recreational trails. These trail systems provide a great deal of economic activity and are a great way for Canadians to see the countryside. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the National Trails Coalition, and other groups do a tremendous amount of work to maintain a very successful recreational trail system in Canada.

I can tell the House that with this program and the winter and we have had this year, we saw snowmobilers in my area coming in, renting motel rooms, and buying gas and meals. The tourism effect was great, and it went right into April this year.

With that, I am going to leave it, and I look forward to any questions.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are, as the member mentioned, some disagreements on some of the changes. There is the new health transfer, which was put in place without any negotiation with the provinces.

However, I want to raise an issue that rural and suburban students are facing. I would like to ask the member what he would say to the students in his riding about this. Why did the government eliminate the $5,000 vehicle exemption credit for students who are seeking student assistance, which is actually going to make life more difficult and make education less affordable for students in riding like his?

I just want to pass along a statistic. Students who live 40 kilometres to 80 kilometres from a post-secondary institution are 31% less likely to attend an institution. For students in ridings like his, with rural and suburban areas, what would the member say to them about that cut?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his questions and for pointing out the amount of dollars committed to health care in the term of this government, and the future commitment to make sure that is there.

With regard to the lack of dollars spent on health care in this country, some might argue that it is never enough. However, the commitment to keeping it, increasing it by $10 billion over the next 10 years in the increase alone, is something we have to keep doing. There are always better ways of doing things, and we should always be open to that.

I come from an area where a lot of the young people go away to university. I know that with some of the programs and supports that government has given them, they are very appreciative, and we will keep doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, apropos of the environmental theme of my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound's speech, I want to thank him again for his private member's bill that banned bulk water exports, one of the best pieces of legislation since I have been elected. However, I have to disagree with him about Bill C-31.

This omnibus budget bill is not just large and complex because the economic problems are complex, as he suggests, but actually because it has become all too common. I think it is an affront to Parliament and an affront to democracy.

This administration has chosen to throw in things that have nothing to do with the budget, things such as adding additional judges to Alberta and Quebec. That is something I support, but it does not belong in a budget bill. There are changes to trademark law; changes to the Hazardous Products Act and to the workplace hazardous chemicals regime; and substantial and devastating and anti-constitutional provisions under the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA.

I would ask him if he would not be willing, within his own caucus on that side, to argue against the use of such monster bills in the future?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for her question, for her kind comments on my private member's bill that went through the House unanimously, and for her support on that.

We ran on a commitment to do a lot of things. If she were fair and would express honestly, she would agree with my next comment. At the end of the day, it would not matter what we had in our budget, the folks across the way would be more than likely to vote against it. That is what opposition does, which is unfortunate in this place, but it is the way it is.

The things we have in the bill are very important to Canadians and our economy, and I fully support them.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this afternoon to speak in support of our government's economic action plan 2014.

I am very pleased that our government is on track to a balanced budget in 2015, as we committed to in 2011. We are doing so responsibly, unlike the previous Liberal government, which balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces and hard-working Canadians. Our government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, will balance the budget while continuing to grow provincial transfers to record levels. For my province of Manitoba, federal transfers will total almost $3.4 billion in 2014-15. That is an increase of 24% from what it was under the previous Liberal government.

Under this government, we have cut taxes nearly 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. That will save the average Canadian family nearly $3,400 on its tax bill this year. We have also invested in job creation and training, business, innovation, and trade and have provided support for families and communities from coast to coast to coast. This government is dedicated to jobs and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

I would like to highlight how economic action plan 2014 will continue with our government's strong performance in job creation. As we all know, Canada has led the G7 in job growth, with over one million net new jobs since the economic recession in 2007, with over 85% of those jobs being full time. Simply put, Canada has outperformed every other G7 country and has experienced the strongest real per capita growth in the G7. This is because our government is serious about creating jobs and long-term prosperity for Canadians. This is why economic action plan 2014 focuses on initiatives to support job creation, investments in innovation and trade, and support for families and communities.

I am pleased to highlight the creation of the Canada apprentice loan through the expansion of the Canada student loan program. Costs associated with completing an apprenticeship can be significant, from tools to educational fees to living expenses. The financial strain on Canadians in apprenticeship programs, especially those with young families, can be challenging. This program would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year. Our government is making it easier for Canadians to acquire the skills and abilities needed for a career in high-skill and in-demand jobs.

Through economic action plan 2014, this government also proposes to renew the targeted initiative for older workers program, investing $75 million over three years to assist older workers in vulnerable communities who have been affected by significant downsizing, closures, or high unemployment to reintegrate into the workforce. This would provide employers with experienced and talented staff, would benefit the economy, and would provide support and security for older Canadians who have experienced job loss.

Not only has our government invested in connecting older workers with jobs but we are also enhancing the job matching service and are modernizing the national job bank. Our government is committed to helping unemployed Canadians get back to work, giving them the first chance at available jobs. That is why the enhanced job matching service would provide modern and reliable tools for job seekers that would match their skill sets to available jobs. It would provide employers with the tools needed to look for qualified Canadian workers through timely access to job postings and consolidated labour market information.

Additionally, these initiatives would provide information to inform young people about fields of study that are relevant to the existing and forecasted demand for labour in particular occupations. This would help students make better choices about their education. Ensuring that students have the tools needed to better plan their routes to future employment is critical for a strong Canada.

A disability does not mean an inability. Unfortunately, Canadians with disabilities are too often under-represented in the workforce. Our government recognizes that employers accommodating persons with disabilities in the workplace is good for business and empowering to individuals, and it stimulates the economy. However, education and training are often required to overcome barriers, dispel stigmas and/or myths, and put action to words.

I would like to specifically highlight our government's $15 million contribution over three years to the ready, willing and able initiative of the Canadian Association for Community Living. Persons with intellectual disabilities and those with autism spectrum disorder face added and unique barriers to employment, yet we know that these individuals are not only eager to participate in the workforce but are capable of participation. This contribution to the Canadian Association for Community Living would expand existing activities to 20 community-based locations across Canada, which would support new jobs for Canadians with developmental disabilities.

In addition to connecting Canadians with jobs and training, our government has once again proven that support for business, innovation, and trade are top priorities. Canada has become an increasingly attractive place to invest and to grow a business. Recently, Canada moved to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive countries for business investment. This is as a direct result of our government's sound economic policies under our Prime Minister.

In economic action plan 2014, we continue to strengthen the Canadian economy by cutting red tape for small and medium-sized businesses. This will save valuable time and money. For example, we have eliminated the requirement for 800,000 payroll remittances to CRA every year for 50,000 small and medium-sized businesses. These eliminations would help business expand and thrive.

In addition to cutting the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized businesses, we have made landmark investments in research and innovation by investing $1.5 billion in post-secondary research through the Canada first research excellence fund and by investing $46 million in new funding for the granting councils to support research and scientific advances in Canada.

Strong families and communities are the foundation of a prosperous and safe country. Our government recognizes this and in economic action plan 2014 continues our strong record of strengthening families and communities.

Families incur unique costs when they adopt a child, such as adoption agency fees and other legal costs. Our government recognizes these challenges. Therefore, we have enhanced tax relief by increasing the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000.

We are standing up for the victims of crime by giving victims a voice. We are giving hope by implementing the victims bill of rights and providing funding for a DNA-based missing persons data index. We have also renewed $25 million over five years to continue efforts to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls.

Seniors do and will continue to have a very important role in communities across Canada. Through the enhancements to the new horizons for seniors program, the government will provide an additional $5 million in annual funding to organizations that raise awareness of elder abuse and that provide means for seniors to benefit from and contribute to the quality of life in their communities through social activities and active living.

Our government has also recognized that many Canadians make sacrifices to care for their family members. Therefore, we have launched the Canadian employers for caregivers action plan to engage with employers on cost-effective workplace solutions to help maximize caregivers' labour market participation.

Although Canada has experienced the highest economic growth in the G7 since the economic recession in 2007, the government recognizes that low-income families face constraints or have distinct housing needs that impede their participation in the housing market. Our government is committed to working with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and other stakeholders at the community level to ensure that low-income families and vulnerable Canadians have access to quality, affordable housing.

Additionally, this government has committed to ensuring that vulnerable Canadians who experience extended or repeated periods of homelessness have access to quality housing. Therefore, we have renewed the homelessness partnering strategy, as announced in last year's budget. We will continue to work with communities, provinces, territories, and the private and not-for-profit sectors to implement the housing first approach to homelessness.

I want to highlight how the budget and our government honours and respects the sacrifices made by veterans and their families. This budget introduces new measures to the existing measures in previous budgets to support the men and women who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have expanded the funeral and burial program by providing over $800 million over three years to ensure that a veteran of modest means can have a dignified funeral and burial.

Finding meaningful work after leaving the Canadian Forces is a key factor in the successful transition back to civilian life. That is why this budget will make changes to the Public Service Employment Act and regulations to prioritize the hiring of veterans for federal public service employment opportunities.

To conclude, on this side of the House, our government is for all Canadians. From our youth to the elderly, business owners to apprentices, and young families to veterans, this government has invested in the prosperity, safety, and growth of all Canadians and their families. Through economic action plan 2014, we will continue to do so. I can only hope that the NDP and the Liberals will finally recognize this and support this budget.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

The NDP and I would like to know one thing. Bill C-31 does not renew the job creation tax credit for small business. The credit no longer exists. What answers does my colleague have for owners of small businesses in his riding or in his colleagues' ridings?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a former small-business owner myself, I am actually very pleased with all the work this government has done to support small businesses and to bring forward legislation that allows employers to not have to deal with so much red tape, especially our small and medium-sized enterprises. They have limited capacity at the management level to deal with some of these things, and there is an overabundance of burden placed on them by a lot of documents they have to bring forward.

As I mentioned in my speech, there are 800,000 pieces of documentation required by 50,000 small businesses across this country that need to be brought forward to CRA. We have eliminated that. We are taking a lot of the burden away from small and medium enterprises, allowing these entrepreneurs to focus on business development and job creation rather than on a mountain of paperwork.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly respond to the comments on the infamous red tape. We cannot say often enough that the only thing on the table is “plus one minus one equals zero”. That is the only concrete initiative from the government and it has been talking about this for years. If we add one paper, we take away another: plus one minus one equals zero. There is no reduction in red tape. I will repeat that every time if need be. The people across the way need to understand that.

Another aspect of this budget was rather shocking. We have been saying for months that the transaction fees that credit card companies charge merchants are excessive. Finally, three small paragraphs in the budget acknowledge that this is a serious problem. However, absolutely no tangible solution was provided, something that was not well received by major merchant groups.

Can my colleague tell us whether his government will not be content just to realize that there is a problem, but in fact do what it takes and impose a regulatory framework to stop this abuse?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we have worked very closely with business and have done a lot to support businesses so that they have been able to grow. We have seen, over the last number of years, as we have come out of this recession, that businesses have had the ability to grow and to progress. We have worked closely with them. We have done many things to support them. Again, as I say, I am a businessman myself. I have seen so many of the great programs we have brought forward supporting businesses and supporting their growth.

We will continue to work with businesses and with financial institutions to find solutions to problems and challenges. We will continue to always face challenges as a government and as an economy. We will continue to work through that process with our partners in a way that is conducive to job growth and to the growth of our economy.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by dealing with the budget implementation bill under three specific headings: general; what would happen to British Columbia, which is where I come from; and what it would do or not do for health.

The first thing I want to talk about is the budget in general.

I think this is the eighth budget tabled by a government that inherited a strong surplus of $15 billion. When it came into office in 2006, it inherited the 10 balanced budgets posted by the Liberal governments before it. However, we are now seeing the current Conservative government posting its seventh deficit budget. I want to show where we came from and where we are today to defuse the talk about how wonderful things are.

How wonderful things are is based on not going down in the 2008 global recession because we had some very strong economic pillars that had been left behind by the previous Liberal government. It was also because the strong regulatory measures that had been put on banks protected us from going the way of the international community. I might add that the Conservatives opposed these measures when they were put in place under the Liberal government, but they are now taking enormous credit for them.

We should be doing much better than we are now. We should not be talking about deficits or about how all of the strong indicators and the strong system that was left behind were frittered away by the current government with very poor fiscal management measures.

I remember when the Minister of Finance tabled the budget bill. Everyone said that it was such a boring budget, and he said that was a compliment. One might say that the budget's flaw was not that it was uninteresting but that it was unclear, uncaring, and unhelpful.

There were a lot of vague promises in the budget. There were a lot of self-congratulatory parts in which the Conservatives talked about how well they had done. As I said, they cannot really take credit for any of that.

There are some things I want to talk about specifically with reference to my province of British Columbia.

I suppose we must all feel very relieved that the government plans to fix the Trans-Canada Highway running through Glacier National Park. However, it is a small consolation for those who care about British Columbia's natural landscape, since the Conservatives are also responsible for cutting regulations that once guarded 30,000 lakes and rivers and for reducing the number of protected waterways nationwide to fewer than 200. So much for building a piece of the Trans-Canada Highway, when there has been an absolute reduction of all of the measures to protect the wonderful ecosystem in British Columbia.

On the Conservative government's idea of conservation, let us look at fisheries, which are a big deal for my province. The government plans to protect recreational fishing, which is a good thing, because about 80% of our commercial fishing is recreational in B.C. However, there is little in the way of safeguarding our province's ecosystems as a whole or putting in place measures that came through the Cohen commission to protect the B.C. salmon population. When people say we are having massive salmon runs in B.C. this year, it means that they do not understand this is something that happens occasionally. The overall protection of B.C. salmon is still a big question. I wonder why the government did not use this budget and the budget implementation bill to put in place some of the Cohen commission's recommendations.

We can talk about ensuring public safety, which is something the Conservative government loves to talk about.

We are thankful for all of the volunteers who have contributed to the safety and security of the people in this country and who help the vulnerable. In fact, people who offer a minimum of 200 hours of volunteer service for search and rescue will get a nice little tax credit, but the fact is that a lot of people who volunteer are semi-retired or not working full time, and that tax credit would do little to help them unless it is a refundable tax credit.

To continue on public safety, it is interesting that while we are thankful for the volunteers, there is a lack of concrete action to increase the number of Canadian Coast Guard professionals and improve safety measures for both workers and ordinary Canadian citizens following last year's abrupt closure of the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

The federal government is continuing its policy of soundly ignoring the professionals who work in maritime safety as well as the wishes of the Province of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver. It is also ignoring the petitions that I have tabled here almost every week from British Columbians who are asking for this search and rescue station in Kitsilano to be reopened at a cost of $70,000 a year. We are not talking about a lot of money here.

Those are the generic things I wanted to talk about.

I also want to talk about the fact that very little has been done in the budget to address the real challenges facing middle-class Canadians. It does not do very much to help Canadian youth find jobs at a time of consistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. Today there are still 264,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the downturn.

I want to go back in time to 1993. When the Liberal government came in, there was 24% youth unemployment. In three years, the Liberal government took steps to improve that and to give young people a chance at their first job. None of this has been happening.

There is very little to help middle-class parents and grandparents make ends meet and to tackle Canadians' record high levels of personal debt, which is now at $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income.

The new Minister of Finance had an opportunity in the bill to chart a new democratic path that addressed some of these issues. Instead, what we see is another mammoth omnibus bill with everything but the kitchen sink in it, doing very little to deal with some of the issues we are talking about.

I want to congratulate the government on a couple of things it did do right in health care. It proposes to increase the support for service dogs to assist individuals with severe diabetes. That is very good. Also, there is the design of eligible individualized therapy plans. All of that is good.

However, what about post-traumatic stress disorder? Evidence now shows that persons with post-traumatic stress disorder benefit from having pets such as dogs. That has not been included. It was not included under veterans affairs, it was not included under defence, and it certainly was not included here among people who require dogs to help them work with their disabilities, mental or otherwise. I just wanted to point out some of the things the government had an opportunity to do and did not.

Also in relation to health, acupuncture and naturopathy would be exempt from GST-HST when practised by a qualified professional. That is very nice. There is the design of training plans for individuals with a disorder or disability. Some of these things are good, but they make one wonder about why there was this cherry-picking. Why is the government doing some things for some groups and not for others? We could look at issues like adding the GST-HST to parking that is provided by charities. I wonder why that happened? That was such a punitive little thing to do. It was not going to give the government a lot of money, but it did discriminate against the non-profit sector.

It is a puzzling budget, to say the least. The budget implementation bill does not deal with a lot of things that we think should have been there.

I also want to talk about something some of my constituents are complaining about a great deal, something that we very much oppose.

It is a fact that the government signed an agreement with the United States that will require U.S. citizens living in Canada to regularly file U.S. tax returns and report their property and income to the IRS. Also, Canadian banks must report to the IRS on accounts held by clients with U.S. citizenship. We are creating a problem here. As we heard from other people, this measure brings up concerns about privacy and sovereignty. Constitutional law experts have been saying that this agreement violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet no one was consulted.

It is interesting that the government goes ahead patting itself on the back but not having discussed it with anyone who should know and therefore making mistakes. I would be generous and kind and say it is with unintended consequences, although I wonder if the government even understands consequences.

There is a very important piece I want to wind up with. That is the transfer of payments. Transfer payments have now been changed on a unilateral formula that would impose a per capita payment on provinces. We need demographic data if we are going to look at helping provinces. Now we have provinces with higher levels of seniors than anywhere else getting less money under the new formula than they ever had. This is going to create a huge problem in the future for these provinces, and they are beginning to complain about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very passionate on the issue of health care. This year, we are experiencing a government that has demonstrated no interest in a national health care program and did not renew the health care accord.

I know the member is very opinionated on the importance of the health care accord. I wonder if she would provide the House with some thoughts on why the government should have renewed a health care accord that was originally signed under former prime minister Paul Martin back in 2004 and that expired just a couple of weeks ago.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says I am opinionated. I think that might be a compliment, because I like to think I base my opinions on evidence. It is not an ideological thing I do here.

The question the hon. member asked is an important one. It is not whether or not we renew the health accord in the manner in which it was written in 2004 that is important, but the idea that the current federal government, which is the glue that holds this country together, has abandoned its leadership role in health care and refuses to co-operate and collaborate on health care changes that must be made in the system in order to ensure that medicare is sustainable.

The premiers have been begging for a meeting with the Prime Minister on health, and the Prime Minister is refusing. For eight years the Prime Minister has not met with the premiers on issues of health care and in fact has been imposing new formulas for health transfers that will make it more difficult for provinces to provide health care, especially health care for seniors.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her eloquent remarks.

I want to address the issue of search and rescue. There is a non-refundable search and rescue tax credit, which implies some commitment to this very important initiative on the part of the government, yet at the same time it has been acknowledged that almost $50 million has been wasted by a set of false alarms that have wasted search and rescue's time and efforts over the last number of years. That situation, which has not been corrected by the government, could pay for the Kitsilano Coast Guard search and rescue base for years.

I would like the member's comments on whether the budget appropriately addresses a search and rescue base for her community of Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is fully aware of this issue because she is on the same coast as I am and she is getting the same complaints from Vancouverites about search and rescue.

I think it is good that the government has acknowledged the role of volunteers in search and rescue, but volunteers do not take the place of a professional search and rescue team headed by search and rescue people in the Coast Guard and with a facility there to deal with the problems.

Many volunteers work part time, as I said in my speech, so they need a refundable tax credit if the credit is to actually go toward helping them.

As the member pointed out so well, the ability to deal with search and rescue in an appropriate manner, with professionals and with an appropriate search and rescue facility in the most important and dangerous waters along the coast of British Columbia, is something that defies imagination. I can only put it down to stubbornness and ideology.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-31.

In my previous remarks on the federal budget, I focused on the $117 million that was allocated to AECL to maintain operations at its Chalk River laboratories and prepare for the transition to a government-owned contractor-operated governance model.

Today, I intend to focus on the many other benefits of economic action plan 2014, as well as contrasting the difference between sound, Conservative, economic policy and the rash, disastrous policies being proposed by the opposition parties and their friends in the left-wing media.

The purpose of this legislation is to implement provisions of the federal budget of February 11, 2014, which in addition to the measures announced in our federal budget, amends existing legislation in order to carry out our road to balance, creating jobs and opportunities in Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the member for Whitby—Oshawa for his many years of service to Canadians as the federal minister of finance. Canada is recognized globally for our sound fiscal management. All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude for his fine work.

At the same time, I congratulate our new Minister of Finance, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Having worked with our finance minister in his previous role as minister of natural resources, I know Canadians can continue to have confidence in the sound economic policies of our Conservative government.

It is important for Canadians to take note of who is providing economic leadership in Canada. Only a Conservative government, led by our current Prime Minister can be trusted with our nation's finances.

The wacky ideas of the loony left would quickly bankrupt our nation. Look how quickly the Liberal Party of Ontario turned the province that used to be the economic engine of Canada into a have-not province, reduced to begging Ottawa to pay for its bad decisions, like ORNGE, eHealth, and the billion-dollar gas plant scandal. By its own admission, it will be the year 2035 before there might be any improvements if things do not change in Toronto, like a change in leadership.

Yes, it does matter who is in control of the nation's finances. This act proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014, which commits to a return to balanced budgets in 2015.

Let me remind the House that we are balancing the budget without raising taxes. Raising taxes is what is demanded by the Liberals and the NDP. Their so-called pollution tax is just another name for a carbon tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. A tax is just a way for socialists to spend our money in a way we would never do voluntarily.

We have moved to a position where the federal budget will be balanced by reducing spending, which is what Canadians have told us needs to be done. Only a socialist thinks taxpayers should pay more. The average Canadian family pays $3,400 less in taxes, thanks to this Conservative government.

The key elements in economic action plan 2014 include measures to help connect Canadians with available jobs and foster job creation, support families and communities, and invest in infrastructure, trade, and responsible resource development.

Let me be clear. Our economic action plan that was presented to Canadians on February 11 contains the provisions in this legislation that we have before us.

Budgets in modern, industrialized western nations are complicated documents. That the other parties do not understand the complexities of a modern economy only demonstrates that they are unfit to govern.

Canadians expect more than opposition for the sake of opposition. Unlike the opposition in Ottawa that opposes just to oppose before they even read the legislation, I encourage all Canadians to read what we have proposed. I am confident Canadians will understand and like what they see.

Canadians understand what it means to have a steady hand on the tiller of the ship of state. It means having a job and being able to afford to buy the products from the countries we sell to. That is called trade, and it is something our Prime Minister takes very seriously, because we know trade brings prosperity.

Highlights of the economic action plan act no. 1 include connecting Canadians with available jobs and fostering job creation by investing $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs, providing $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system to support Canada's labour market needs, and providing apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

We would cut red tape for more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

Canadians recognize that people, not bureaucracy, create employment. When it comes to financing a G7 economy, it is not a matter of budgets balancing themselves, which is what Canadians hear from the trust fund child who relies on his name and not his ability to pursue power for the sake of power. His reliance on the former advisers of the disgraced Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, is dangerous to the financial health of all Canadians. Their policy of forcing communities to accept industrial wind turbines that enrich the pockets of wealthy Liberal Party insiders like Mike Crawley has created a new term in Ontario: energy poverty.

Mr. Crawley went from being the president of the Ontario Liberal Party to being the president of the federal Liberal Party. He now sits, along with Gerald Butts, who co-authored the so-called Green Energy Act of Ontario that is causing electricity prices to skyrocket, as one of the Liberal Party's most senior advisers.

Mr. Butts is another example of replacing economic common sense with some wacky left-wing ideology. He was the principal adviser to the provincial leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario in Toronto. These Liberals use Hollywood accounting. Ontario electricity consumers paid over $1 billion to American border states last year for them to take unusable electricity from industrial wind turbines. The money to pay for that foolishness is taken out of the pockets of seniors and others on fixed incomes, who are now faced with monthly electricity bills that are greater than their incomes.

Worst of all, Mr. Crawley received a $475 million 20-year contract from the Liberal Party of Ontario, paid with taxpayer dollars, to build those wind turbines. They are wind turbines that nobody wants and that generate power we cannot even use the majority of the time because of when the wind blows.

That is Liberal economic policy.

We can be thankful there is a Conservative government in Ottawa and a firm, responsible hand on the finances of Canada. We use common sense in supporting families and communities by encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market through capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates, thus preventing wireless providers from charging other companies who may be their competitors more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data, and text services; introducing a search and rescue volunteers tax credit for search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service per year; increasing the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families; exempting acupuncturists' and naturopathic doctors' professional services from the goods and services or harmonized sales tax; expanding the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit to include costs associated with service animals that are specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, such as diabetes alert dogs, as well as amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan; and enhancing access to employment insurance sickness benefits for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children compassionate care benefits.

We are investing in infrastructure, trade, and responsible resource development by reducing barriers to the international and domestic flow of goods and services.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is actually out of time.

We will move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her simplistic and cut and dried speech that reminded me of a garish cartoon.

She praised the former minister of finance, whom she described as the best minister of finance in the known and unknown world. However, the gentleman who is now simply an MP expressed serious doubts about income splitting for couples because of his serious concern about the regressive nature of this measure.

Would the member like to comment on the position of the former minister of finance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on about the many accomplishments of our former finance minister, such as this budget. He is supporting mineral exploration by junior companies through extending the 15% mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors for an additional year, eliminating tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration and development, and doubling to 10 years, for income tax purposes, the carry-forward period for donations of ecologically sensitive land to conservation charities.

I recently had an apprentice welder come into my constituency. In his case, the high electricity rate in the policy of the Liberal Party of Toronto that caused the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector in Ontario had led him to seek employment in a different province. While he was certainly appreciative of the efforts of our government to assist him in his education, in his experience it was the artificial barriers between provinces—in his case, getting a different province to recognize his credentials—that represented the greatest challenge.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure exactly where the member gets her notes. I suspect it might be in part from the Prime Minister's Office, but there is no doubt she is definitely a cheerleader for the former minister of finance. This is the same minister of finance who took a Liberal multi-billion-dollar surplus and turned it into a deficit even before the recession came into being, the same minister of finance who took a healthy trade surplus and turned it into a trade deficit that cost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario.

My question for the member is this: why does she not recognize that the Conservative government, because of its policy of standing back and not doing anything to support our manufacturing industry, has played more of a negative role in the performance of Ontario than any other federal government in the last 50 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is recognized as being among the top economies in the world because it recognizes the importance of trade. Just as our government has signed more international trade deals than any other government, it is also time for the provinces to start removing barriers so that they can bring greater prosperity to Canadians.

Since our government first introduced the economic action plan to respond to global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all the jobs lost during the recession. Since July 2009, employment has increased by over one million, is more than 600,000 above the pre-recession peak, and has the strongest job growth among the Group of Seven countries over the recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was very pleased to note in her speech that the budget is providing money again to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. One would have thought that when this administration sold, at a bargain basement price, a crown corporation into which Canadians had sunk and lost tens of billions of dollars, that would have been the end of the sucking sound of money going down the drain to AECL. However, we see that over the next two years, $117 million more would go to AECL.

I am wondering if she could tell us how that is of any benefit to the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, because AECL has diversified and the commercial end is under the command of a company that has penetration in more countries throughout the world, the local Chalk River laboratory is better positioned to continue to provide jobs and to continue with innovation and the commercialization of that innovation.

Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 are full-time positions. Close to 85% are in the private sector and over two-thirds are in high-wage industries, such as those jobs at Chalk River Laboratories.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak today regarding budget 2015 and this new budget implementation bill because I think their significance is so easily understated.

In this budget, our former finance minister and our current Minister of Finance, with the support of a highly principled Prime Minister, a dedicated caucus, and a hard-working civil service, have brought Canada within a hair's breath of a very significant goal. That goal, a balanced budget, will be achieved next year.

This has been accomplished with many tough decisions by our government, such as saying no to many requests for funding and ending programs that were not necessary. It includes a three-year wage freeze for members of Parliament, a change that will demand that civil servants pay half the cost of their own pension plan, and a demand that MPs, who serve an average of less than six years, also pay half their own pension plan moving forward in 2015. That means an additional $1,733 will be taken off the paycheque of each MP every month at that time, so we cut our own benefits too.

My point is that balancing a budget requires sacrifice and principled leadership. It is very difficult to do. It is no fun. That is why most countries in southern Europe could not do it year after year for decades until their debts overwhelmed them. Every member of this House knows what happened there.

Economists who have never been in government say that balanced budgets are not that important. They themselves are a very well-paid group who can afford more taxes, but what about ordinary Canadians? What about the people who spend most or all of what they earn on daily life, because life is just expensive? They are trying to pay a mortgage or save for a house or a family vacation or save for post-secondary education for their children. What about them?

I do not think most economists, who work for banks that earn tens of millions of dollars on interest from loans to governments or for universities or corporations where they have generous pension plans, feel it so profoundly if their taxes go up year after year. It will not affect their lifestyle very much. For everyone else who is taxed out, three or four levels of government are taking too much, and no one believes most governments spend all that money wisely.

Balancing a budget means that the government is spending the same as it takes in. It is not creating more and more debt that working people will pay their entire lives, plus interest. Balancing the budget also means that the federal government can start paying back the $619 billion it has borrowed in the taxpayer's name.

Bill C-31 is the track to this reality. It means that families can truly plan their own future with less fear that some future government will get its hands on more of their paycheque, before they even get it, for something that no one really needs.

Balanced budgets mean we are not mortgaging our children's future or saddling them with debt that they will pay for over their entire lives. Balanced budgets mean we pay our own way.

Balanced budgets mean investors worldwide want to invest in infrastructure in Canada because they know that they will get their money back with a return.

In February the Liberal leader, who has no economic policy to speak of, implied on a party convention video that the Government of Canada does not have enough debt and should take on more. That should get the attention of every Canadian, especially our young people, who will pay back any new debts created by a Liberal government, if elected, for the rest of their lives, and who will have a diminished quality of life because their paycheques are smaller because of high taxes.

The Liberal leader, who, as everyone knows, has always had the benefit of an inherited trust fund, is trying to convince the middle class that he is their new best friend. All he talks about these days is the middle class. It is as though he is trying to join it. He wants to help us. All of a sudden, ordinary working people are his priority.

On the other hand, we have a track record. Our government helped ordinary middle-class people and low-income people by reducing the GST by 2%, by enhancing the working tax credit, and by providing the universal child care benefit of $1,200 a year for each child under six years of age.

We have also taken one million low-income people off the federal tax rolls and provided a whole raft of tax credits to help low-income people who work to keep more of their own money. Conservatives care about low-income people and the middle class and are acting to make their lives easier. Most Conservatives are in fact low-income and middle-class people.

In a video prepared for the Liberal convention, the Liberal leader said, “while the middle class is tapped out, the federal government has room to invest”. He also said that the government of Canada needs to step up. He supported a party resolution at the Liberal Convention that the Liberals should spend 1% of GDP a year, which would be $18 billion that must be borrowed on infrastructure. Therefore, in four years, that would be $72 billion plus interest that our children and grandchildren would have to pay back, for their entire lives.

The Liberal leader is preparing to convince Canadians, as his father did, a former prime minister, that debts do not matter. Someone else will pay, not them. We have lived through this before, in the 1970s, under that former prime minister. Since Pierre Trudeau resigned, subsequent governments have achieved operational surpluses of $634 billion. Yet, during that time, Canadians have paid over $1 trillion in interest, all due to the debt that Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals left us with.

I have a rhetorical question. Who said this:

We were caught in a trap of our own making – a vicious circle in which our chronic deficits contributed to economic lethargy, which in turn contributed to even higher deficits, and then to greater malaise.

That was the former Liberal finance minister and prime minister, Paul Martin, the last Liberal finance minister to balance Canada's federal budget, years ago. He was right, and the Liberal leader today wants to do it all over again: promote the illusion that borrowed money does not have to be paid back, at least not by them.

In 2015, we will begin paying down debt again. We will reduce the interest we pay out and get more for our money. Canada will increasingly decide its own fate and never be beholding to banks and foreign leaders to direct our nation. We will never be ordered to cut back pensions, health care, or education funding by banks because we are near bankruptcy, like most of southern Europe has been. This is our solemn commitment to the people of Canada.

This budget is the step just before the top, the last step. We will get out of the borrowing paradigm. We will not turn around and head back down. Canada will control its own destiny, and this bill would take us one step closer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oakville for his speech. As they say, any pretext will do if you want to attack someone.

My colleague is giving random reasons for his clearly dogmatic position and criticizing economists, who are the ones who can explain what is happening with our economy and why.

Earlier, I asked my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke a question about income splitting. Unfortunately, she was clearly concentrating too hard on her notes and did not answer. Therefore, I will ask my colleague from Oakville the question.

The former minister of finance, who was supposedly so extraordinary, expressed serious concerns about the regressive nature of income splitting between spouses, which is a very expensive measure. What does my colleague think of the position of the member for Whitby—Oshawa?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not the former finance minister or the current finance minister, but I knocked on doors in my riding of Oakville and promised income splitting for families with children under 18. I believe that is what my government is going to do. I would like to say why I support it. It is because of what I said earlier in my speech. It is extremely expensive to live, especially for people with children.

It is the greatest honour in the world to have children; I do not mean to complain. I am saying how costly it can be when children start the activities they do after school. For example, in Oakville there are 12,000 children and coaches in soccer. Soccer is not that expensive of a sport; it is a fraction of the cost of hockey. When children get into extracurricular activities, choirs, soccer, or hockey, it starts to bear on the finances of families. It is extremely expensive. Income splitting would give those families relief to give their children the opportunities that they so deserve.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in what I just heard from the member for Oakville. I know him to be a reasonable person, but I am shocked at the extent to which he followed up hard on the heels of the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke with personal vitriol. I am shocked at the extent to which he is focusing on the leader of this party instead of focusing on the so-called benefits of his own budget. I am very disappointed in his conduct and his words.

I would like to ask the member two specific questions.

He calls himself a man of fiscal probity, of responsibility. Perhaps he could explain to Canadians why his government spent $550 million on legal fees, and over $600 million on advertising, $42 million this year alone on economic action plan advertising. How does he justify that?

The Minister of Finance wrote to all the members of this House and asked for low or no-cost solutions. I wrote to him and said to eliminate this despicable and unjustifiable advertising. What does the member have to say about that?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we do in this House, and what we as members of Parliament do all day and when we go back to our ridings, is to try to communicate with people. It is two-way, and we do our best to listen. In my office, we get 1,000 emails, phone calls, visits, and letters a week, and we try to deal with that. We try to get messages back out, and it is a blur for people. It is extremely difficult to get messages to people.

Having a background in marketing, I can tell the member that people get home at the end of the day and they will have taken in a number of messages, from billboards, from things they have read on the GO train or the streetcar or whatever, and things they have heard on the radio. That is the way people get information. A lot of people do not sit down and go through all the letters they might have had from their member of Parliament. They do not read all the papers, and they do not watch all the news programs. Sometimes it is the only way to get important messages to people about our economy.

Arguably, the most important thing the government does is to advertise on television and tell them what the government is doing. If people do not know what the government is doing, how can they possibly vote as an informed voter?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to Bill C-31, the budget implementation act. My opposition comes on two fronts, content and process. The budget bill is not just about the budget; if it were, how simple and straightforward our opposition would be.

The bill is what is known as an omnibus bill. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. It is massive. It is more than 350 pages. It contains almost 500 clauses. It amends dozens of bills and includes a slew of measures that were not even mentioned in the former finance minister's budget speech. The bill touches on tax measures, veterans, railway safety, hazardous materials, temporary foreign workers, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, a new bridge for the St. Lawrence, new Canadians, and access to old age security and guaranteed income supplement. It goes on and on.

Oh yes, it also mentions the budget. The bill is all over the map. It is a monster bill that undermines Parliament because it denies members of Parliament like me with the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. That is because it is so big, so far reaching and all-encompassing.

I cannot shake the feeling of déjà vu, as if I have stood in this very place before and made the very same point. That is because I have. I stood in this place in early December and called out the government for introducing an omnibus bill, the fourth omnibus budget implementation bill. That omnibus bill, back in December, amended 70 laws or regulations in a single bill. Ramming that much legislation into one bill is an easy way to get one past the electorate. It is also an easy way to make a mistake. It is irresponsible. It is bad governance. It is poor management. It is a slap in the face to democracy. We debate legislation in this chamber for a reason. It is to make legislation the best that it can be. We cannot do that with an omnibus bill. We cannot do that with the Conservative government.

Another point is that one day soon in the House, a Conservative member of Parliament will take to his or her feet and criticize Her Majesty's loyal opposition for voting against a particular piece of legislation. However, there is a good chance that legislation was rammed into an omnibus bill, which undoubtedly has some positives guaranteed.

For example, there is a measure within this bill that reverses the Conservative government's previous attempt to tax hospital parking, to tax the poor. That is gone. That is undeniably a good thing. However, the bill also includes horrible legislation that rips into the very fabric of Canada, and we will vote against it. Therefore, when a Conservative MP or minister accuses us of voting against a particular measure in a piece of legislation, there is a good chance that it was in an omnibus bill. There is no way that we can vote for those because they are horrible.

Let me quote columnist Andrew Coyne from the National Post. He had this to say, in 2012, about omnibus legislation, about transparency and accountability. The quote from two years ago is just as relevant today. He said:

Not only does this bill make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill.... 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.

Yes, it is quite alarming, but it is also old hat for the Conservative government. It is its go-to trick, its old reliable.

I will tackle some of the meat of this budget implementation act.

First, in terms of the economy, this is a do-nothing budget. It basically bides time until 2015, an election year, when the government purse will reopen and the Conservatives will attempt to buy the electorate with their own money. They will try to swing the election in their favour with the changes in the unfair election act and then use taxpayers' own money to sweeten the deal.

I am the official critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has been a very busy file, with more Conservative patronage than we can shake a stick at.

Where can one start to simplify the issues about patronage?

To simplify and to borrow a description from The Guardian about a story in the Halifax Chronicle Herald: “...hiring rules at ACOA have been twisted into pretzels to accommodate Conservative Party loyalists”.

Awful-tasting pretzels. Patronage at ACOA. And it has been blatant and it has been steady. Patronage at ACOA walks like a duck. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It even tastes like a duck. But the Conservatives, who use science more as a political art that science, say that the duck that has been feeding out of the Conservatives' hand right in front of us is a figment of our imagination. Maybe the duck is invisible to Conservatives, the same way that climate change is invisible to Conservatives, or the unemployed, or veterans.

While patronage has run rampant at ACOA, what would the budget implementation act do about it?

Let us see. Instead of increasing accountability and addressing patronage, the Conservatives are gutting it. The act would eliminate the need for the president of ACOA to table a report to Parliament every five years showing the impact of the agency's work on regional disparities. In other words, there will be no more report card. ACOA's board of directors would also be out the door. In theory, the board of directors could have blocked ACOA patronage. Only it did not do that.

I asked the federal Auditor General last year to investigate the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, a branch of ACOA, after it gave a $4.8-million grant to build a controversial marina. The Auditor General agreed to investigate.

What did the Conservatives do in advance of that report from the Auditor General? They folded the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA. How convenient.

So, to tackle the blatant, out-of-control patronage, the current government actually gives more power to itself.

The budget should have been about making life more affordable and reducing household debt. The budget should have been about making credit rates reasonable. It should have been about capping ATM fees, cracking down on abusive practices of payday lenders, and providing services that Canadians rely upon.

Instead, the budget is about sidestepping democracy with yet another omnibus bill, the Conservatives' fifth attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny.

I will end with a series of two questions posed by the current Prime Minister in 1995 when the Liberals pushed through an omnibus bill:

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

That is a good question.

So what is the answer?

The answer is that we cannot represent our constituents in dealing with such massive omnibus legislation.

What is the solution?

The solution is to show this arrogant, entitled, out-of-touch Conservative government, a government that has forgotten right from wrong, a government that is trying desperately to cling to power by changing the rules in its favour, the door.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments made by my colleague, and certainly his reflection on the approach the government is taking with the omnibus bill. Successive budget implementation bills have become worse and worse. They are like the Police Academy movies. The sequels are worse than the previous ones.

The member did reference ECBC and ACOA. The minister, when he arrived in Cape Breton to disband the office of ECBC, said it would enhance that community's ability to deliver programs. I am concerned about the lack of flexibility. I am concerned with the fact that the ECBC programs are considerably different from the ACOA programs. I am concerned that the money will lapse and am quite certain that it will be sent back and that programs will not be supported.

Is there anything my colleague sees in what the government has undertaken here that is going to enhance the economic development opportunities for the people in Cape Breton who have just seen their crown corporation closed?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. I do not see any way that rolling the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA will actually enhance the services for Cape Breton. I do not see that.

The Conservatives can spin it any way they want, but this is not a good thing.

Another point that I made in my speech is the fact that the Conservatives are taking the ECBC and rolling it into ACOA in advance of a report by the federal Auditor General of Canada on a controversial grant by the ECBC for a marina development. The fact that the Conservatives are getting rid of the ECBC in advance of this report is highly suspicious. I suspect that the AG will find the Conservatives guilty of even more patronage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl for his speech. He was right to criticize this omnibus bill. It covers all sorts of things that we will unfortunately not have time to study in depth.

As I said last week, in Beauport—Limoilou, a group of parents whose children attend an elementary school near a railway has decided to take matters into their own hands because of the government's inaction. The Conservative government is busy adding secrecy to cabinet decisions on the rail transportation of dangerous goods, among other things.

Can my colleague comment on the government's very clear desire to operate behind closed doors and do everything to eliminate parliamentary oversight?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I see this fifth piece omnibus legislation for a budget implementation bill as an affront to democracy.

The hon. member mentions the railway. Indeed, beside the parts of the bill that have to do with budgetary matters, the bill also has to do with the railway, hazardous materials, temporary foreign workers, ACOA, as I have already outlined, and a bridge for the St. Lawrence, and on and on it goes.

We are talking about a single bill that is 350 pages long, with almost 500 clauses, and amends dozens of other bills and has a slew of measures not even mentioned in the budget speech.

There is no way possible for us to do what we are tasked to do by our constituents, which is to keep an eye on these bills and an eye on the government. It is too big. It is too massive.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on economic action plan 2014. This budget will bring enormous benefits to my riding of Prince George—Peace River and to all of Canada.

Natural resource development is critical to the economic prosperity of British Columbia, and a great deal of that is in my riding. We have an abundant amount of natural gas in the Peace River region and northern Rockies, coal deposits further south, and lumber operations spanning northeastern B.C. I am encouraged by our government's commitment to supporting responsible resource development, which will continue economic growth in northeastern B.C. and create jobs across British Columbia.

Our government is also working hard to encourage investment in other areas of natural resource development as well. There are vast coal and mineral deposits in northern B.C. and in the territories, and these projects need proper investment and a system that will ensure that those resources are extracted responsibly.

I am encouraged by our government's plan to extend the 15% mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors. This will further bolster investment in mining operations in the north.

The district of Tumbler Ridge has seen the benefits of proper investment incentives in the mining sector. In 2000, there were fears that the town would turn into a ghost town after the Quintette Mine closed. I had worked on the original site with my father and it would have been a shame to see Tumbler Ridge go, but it is still here.

For years, Tumbler Ridge has struggled with low coal prices, and low demand attracted little investment. That began to turn around in 2011 as market demand grew for the high quality metallurgical coal present in the southeast. Now Tumbler Ridge is once again a vibrant and prosperous community.

Mining companies in the area provide crucial financial support for mining activity, which has yielded significant archeological discoveries and ongoing research material on dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in the southeast. The revival of the economy of Tumbler Ridge would not be possible without incentives to invest and the ability for mining companies to seize market opportunities. The motto for Tumble Ridge is the Latin for “invitation to prosperity”. That is a motto that we as Canadians need to encourage.

Through our government's investments in our budget, we are inviting continued prosperity for my riding and the rest of Canada. This budget invites prosperity by extending that 15% mineral exploration tax credit. This budget invites prosperity through $40 million in strategic investments in northern economic development. This budget invites prosperity through investing $90 million in the forest industry transformation program. This investment will advance cutting-edge technologies to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's wood products in the pulp and paper sectors.

In the B.C. interior, I believe we all appreciate how much the mountain pine beetle has hurt the forestry sector. New technologies will develop new uses for the wood and open new markets for Canadian wood products. This kind of investment is vital, as saw mills in the B.C. interior are being consolidated due to the spread of the pine beetle throughout the province.

This budget also invites prosperity by ensuring timely reviews for pipelines. Canada's natural resource sector supports 1.8 million jobs across the country, which is a massive number. It is a vital sector for our economic development and our position as an energy superpower. As the sector grows, it will create thousands of skilled and well-paying jobs.

However, in the oil and gas sector it is not a matter of if one builds it, they will come. Our resources need to be able to get out to port and form markets to meet demand. In emerging markets like Asia, we are not the only player in the natural gas game.

Lengthy delays and protracted environmental reviews can cost us valuable market share and hurt our reputation as a reliable supplier of energy. This is why our government's $28 million investment in the National Energy Board is so crucial. I think everyone understands the importance of the environmental review process and how important it is to keep that independent. However, that process needs to be both timely and fair. I believe that these additional funds for the National Energy Board will do just that.

In order to invite prosperity, we as a nation must to be prepared to supply the needs that prosperity brings. That is why our government has worked to invest in skills and trades training and is continuing on that path of developing the skills and jobs for the future.

Since 2006, our government's top priority has been job creation and economic growth. Canada has the best job growth record in the G7, but we must maintain that resolve in order to continually invite prosperity.

Our Conservative government's budget would create a new apprenticeship loan for Canadians working toward certification in 50 trades, including my own, which is carpentry. These trades range from carpenter to pipefitter, from electrician to millwright. Our government is making over $100 million available for interest-free loans for Red Seal apprentices across Canada.

These trades are currently in high demand in my riding. Businesses in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson, and Prince George are in constant need of these skilled tradespeople.

It could take weeks for a homeowner in northeastern B.C. to find a plumber or a roofer. The oil and gas industries are constantly hiring, as there is a constant shortage of people with the applicable skills.

There are many jobs in businesses looking for people who fit very particular skill sets. New graduates, on the other hand, are finding that the job market is more competitive than they expected. That is why our government is championing the new Canada job grant, which would create a new class of students who will graduate with skills tailor-made for waiting jobs. The employers would have recruits with the skills they need, and the students would be working toward secure employment.

While finding a job is important, finding the right job is equally important. Employees working in their fields have a better sense of job satisfaction and are more productive in the workplace. That is why we would launch an enhanced job matching service. This would allow qualified Canadians to find the jobs that suit their skills and experience and would allow employers to identify candidates who meet their needs. We would invite prosperity by facilitating an employment landscape that would make the most of a worker's ability and that would encourage students to train for jobs that will be in demand.

Another way to invite prosperity is to give credit where credit is due. Our government introduced a $450 tax credit for volunteer firefighters, and in this budget, we would extend that credit to search and rescue volunteers. Search and rescue volunteers provide an essential service in rural areas across Canada. These services require expensive equipment and require volunteers to go into dangerous or remote areas to save lives and keep people safe.

I was proud to recommend this initiative to the Minister of Finance on behalf of my constituents and all search and rescue volunteers across Canada.

The reason we, as a government, work so hard to invite prosperity is to maintain our way of life in a financially responsible manner. We have fulfilled our promise to continually increase health care funding across the country. Despite what the opposition says, we have maintained that increase at 6% nationally and continue to work with the provinces in ensuring that health care dollars are spent wisely.

We have delivered on our promise to veterans as well. Our government has increased funding to nearly $4.7 billion to enhance benefits, programs, and services for veterans and their families. We have expanded Veterans Affairs services to more than 600 Service Canada locations across the country so that rural veterans will no longer have to travel long hours to receive the service they deserve. In my hometown of Fort St. John, veterans can find a place to receive service, where they could not before.

We have invested heavily in rehabilitation for injured veterans and in transition programs for soldiers preparing for a return to civilian life. Unlike the opposition, we believe that our veterans remain skilled and capable people, even after a serious injury. That is why our government has committed more than $3 billion per year in direct support for veterans, with a focus on physical and psychological rehabilitation and vocational training.

We continue to support our aging veterans and to help them remain independent and lead full and active lives.

Even as the number of veterans in Canada has decreased, financial support for veterans services has increased by $1.9 billion since our government took power in 2006. We are working across all sectors to create new opportunities in Canada and to offer support for those who are willing to make the effort in order to succeed.

That is how economic action plan 2014 invites prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple living in a rural border town has to go for an emergency birth. They go to the nearest hospital, which happens to be in Vermont. The baby is delivered okay. Fifty years later, that baby, who is now a grown adult, finds out that she is considered an American citizen and that everything she has done in Canada is open to investigation by the IRS.

The protection of the rights of our citizens is a fundamental role of Parliament, yet the government has not talked to the families who are being affected by FATCA. In fact, it has pushed it into page 99 of this bill to slip it through the House of Commons without any proper consultation with the Canadian people.

I have been sitting here listening to my hon. colleague, with all of his spin notes that have come down from the PMO. I would like to ask him why it is that in a supposed budget implementation act, the government has used omnibus legislation and the shutting down of debate in the House to force through an act that is going to compromise the rights of Canadian citizens.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only part that is really relevant in that member's statement is in relation to health care. However, I will say that this speech was written by me. I am not sure where he gets the PMO notes and where his comments are from. That is the way the member across the way is, and that is just the way he is going to continue to be.

I would like to continue to speak about the increase of 6% per year in health care dollars we are spending. Often the opposition members say that there is a decrease in health care spending across Canada, and I tell my constituents that what they are saying is simply not true. There has been a 6% increase, and there will be increases well into the future. The fact of the matter is that we support health care, and we will continue to do so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amazing when Conservatives stand up and talk about supporting health care, when in fact, we have had record highs in health care expenditures going to our provinces because of an agreement signed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin. It was a 10-year health care accord. That health care accord expired just a couple of weeks ago.

This is a very important issue for Canadians. They want the national government to have that sense of commitment. The current Prime Minister has never had a first ministerial conference to talk about issues that are important to Canadians, such as health care and the importance of the health care accord.

Why does the member believe that his government has not taken the time or demonstrated the leadership to renegotiate a health care accord that would take us through the next 10 years or so?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, an old saying is “the proof is in the pudding”. We believe in health care for all Canadians. We are continuing to fund it and have extended health care spending well into the future at 6%, and then beyond that, based on GDP. The fact of the matter is that we continue to fund health care. Despite what the opposition members say, the simple facts are that we believe in health and we will continue to support it well into the future.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate today, and it is amazing that somebody could be here for so many hours in this place and not know exactly what he or she is talking about. It is unbelievable, but it does work.

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

Right on.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking later and will be happy to answer his questions.

My question for my colleague is this. He talked about improvements through tax credits for mining and forestry, about supporting apprentices and training, and about matching people with skills sets to jobs. It is all about prosperity. Why is it important for the government to take action and not just talk about it?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes back to a simple principle. We see the opposition members making statements like “budgets will balance themselves”. The fact is that to have a prosperous economy, we need to be very deliberate in what we do, and that involves skills training. It involves tax incentives for corporations. It makes for a positive economic environment in Canada. It is a very deliberate act. Acts we have done and our budgets have all been very deliberate. They are far from accidents, as the opposition members would think they are.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-31, a budget implementation act. As always seems to be the case, the government, using its majority for purposes that are less than democratic, has limited debate on this bill. For the fifth time, the Conservative government has done its best to evade parliamentary scrutiny of what it puts forward as an economic agenda through time allocation.

I am lucky enough to get my thoughts on the floor today just before debate closes. My thoughts on this bill are not kind ones, and of course, the conduct of the government and its approach to the business of the House does not incline any of us to be particularly charitable. Some have described the budget and Bill C-31 as substantially irrelevant documents. That is not so. Parts therein are quite stunning. I am not sure whether they are stunning in their audacity or stunning in their timidity, but they are stunning nevertheless.

What Canadian could have imagined the surrender of sovereignty and betrayal of citizenship that is bound up in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FATCA, as it is known, buried deep among 500 clauses in over 350 pages? As I just found out from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, it is on page 99 of a 350-page document.

What characterizes this bill as a whole is incoherence. One might argue that it is the nature of omnibus bills. They are certainly fundamentally undemocratic beasts, but I think there is something else going on in addition.

This bill betrays a government bereft of any understanding of this country in its complicated entirety in this century, much less in this year, 2014. It is eight years into power, and the government still does not see the urban fact of this country, the fact that over 80% of Canadians live in urban communities, from downtowns to suburbs and the places in between. It still governs like this is not true of Canada.

It does not understand the relationship of Canada's cities to the rural and resource economies that surround them and the opportunities that flow from that relationship. It still governs as if these are separate and unrelated economies, separate and unrelated environments, separate and unrelated societies. It still governs, in fact, as though urban economies, environments, and communities do not exist, much less have their own peculiarities and needs and present their own great opportunities for this country.

It has not grasped the relationship between our cities and the rest of the world to the global economy. It still governs as though the federal government is our only interface between Canada and the global economy, failing to grasp that what defines the global economy is a network of urban economies, a network into which our cities from coast to coast to coast are connected, and increasingly so.

This is a budget and a budget implementation act that contains no plan for Canada, through its cities, to succeed in a global economy.

Let me talk about what my city of Toronto needs to succeed, at a minimum. Toronto grows by 100,000 people every year. We add to the population of that city—and by “city”, I am speaking about the city region, not the municipality per se—a city the size of Calgary or Ottawa every decade. According to the Conference Board of Canada, an economic growth rate of 2.5% annually is required just to keep up with that pace of population growth, and that growth rate must also be distributed evenly, but it is not. Says the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

The 21st century city-region economy is creating a new kind of urban social structure. It consists on one side of well paid highly qualified professional and technical workers, and on the other, an increasingly precarious and growing proportion of low-wage service-oriented workers.

Recent studies by the United Way and McMaster University, the Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity, the Martin Prosperity Institute, and the Metcalf Foundation, all of which I have referenced in the House before, point to the growth of precarious employment in Toronto's labour market and confirm the emergence of this polarized labour market and consequent social structure in Toronto.

Even closer to my home and to my riding of Beaches—East York, a recent study entitled “Shadow Economies: Economic Survival Strategies of Immigrant Communities in Toronto” captured the extent of the shadow economy. Half of the respondents in that survey reported getting paid less than minimum wage. Over one-third of respondents did not get vacation pay, statutory holiday pay, or paid holidays of any kind.

We are witnessing a city once admired for its mixed-income neighbourhoods dividing into a city of low-income neighbourhoods and high-income neighbourhoods. In 1970, two-thirds of Toronto's cities were middle-income neighbourhoods. As of 2005, 29% were middle income. Extrapolating that trend out to 2025, it is the story of a sharply polarizing city where less than 10% of Toronto's neighbourhoods will be middle income just over a decade from now.

Long before we get there—in fact, now—we now have a critical housing challenge that needs to be addressed. In those low-income neighbourhoods where the shadow economies thrive, such as some in my riding:

Inadequate housing and the risk of homelessness are almost universal among families with children living in high-rise rental apartments....

says a March 2014 study by Paradis, Wilson, and Logan for the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto.

Almost 90 percent face major housing problems that may place them at risk of homelessness. ... One family in three is facing severe or critical risk of homelessness.

says the study.

According to the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

The state of good repair bill for the city's housing units is $750 million and growing by $100 million a year. Meanwhile, the city's accumulated state of good repair backlog in 2012 was $1.7 billion.

There is an enormous challenge here that the government is shrinking from, or is blind to, as it continues down the path of extricating the federal government from affordable housing in this country.

The same holds true of public transit. I asked the minister of infrastructure just yesterday why the government is refusing to invest in public transit. The answer, and I quote from Hansard, was that “our government respects the jurisdiction of provinces, and transit is under provincial jurisdiction”. That is the response of the government to the key economic challenge of Canada's global cities: it is not our responsibility.

Study after study points to the economic costs of underinvestment in transit in Toronto and the consequent stifling gridlock. The Toronto Region Board of Trade says:

...overstretched transportation networks are the most serious barrier to economic growth in the Toronto region, costing our regional economy $6 billion per year.

The C.D. Howe Institute pegs the current economic costs at closer to $11 billion.

Either way, the economic costs of underinvestment in transit are enormous. They compromise the competitive position of Toronto, and they are expected to go up. They are a stinging indictment of the government's blindness to the needs of cities and to the opportunity to grow our urban economies, an opportunity waiting there for a government alive to the urban fact of this country and the reality of a global and increasingly globalizing economy.

It is very simple: the success of our cities is vital to our national interest. Canada needs a national agenda that is alive to our urban reality, to how cities work, to their needs, their vulnerabilities, and their potential. Getting our cities right opens up the possibility that what we hope for—for ourselves, for our families, and for Canada—can be made real.

The only thing that is clear about Bill C-31 is that the government does not get that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did a good job in summarizing some of the issues related to the city of Toronto.

Many of those same principles in terms of need are there throughout Canada. I was reflecting, as he was talking about Toronto, on some of the needs of my home city of Winnipeg. There is a huge demand for infrastructure and infrastructure renewal as we try to move more to rapid transit.

We have been fortunate in the sense that our city has been growing. We hope to be able to sustain that growth and help facilitate it. In order to prosper, quite often our cities need to be able to look to Ottawa to assist with infrastructure dollars. Quite frankly, we have billions of dollars of infrastructure debt across Canada. It is into the billions of dollars. City coffers do not have the resources to be able to meet that need, so they are dependent on infrastructure dollars.

I wonder if the member might want to comment with respect to the fact that this year's budgeted line of infrastructure dollars has decreased by 87% from last year's. That will have a significant impact on all of our cities, including his city of Toronto and my beloved city of Winnipeg.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I focused on the city of Toronto as my case in point. It is where I am from, it is where my riding is, and it is what I know best.

However, much of what I spoke about with respect to the city of Toronto is true of cities across this country. In fact, the folks at what used to be called the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto who did the study mapping out income polarization spatially across the city of Toronto have done similar studies in other cities across the country.

What they are finding is that universally the predominant social fact that characterizes global and globalizing cities in Canada and around the world is this issue of income polarization. What it is doing is leaving in large communities in neighbourhoods with infrastructure deficits. Those include transit deficits, housing deficits, and food deserts. That is true.

What we find too is that the response of the government to that trend in our cities was to extract $5.8 billion out of the infrastructure fund for cities across this country in this budget.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, Bill C-31 is yet another omnibus bill. It is 350 pages long and promotes a culture of secrecy and lack of transparency. My colleague also mentioned that there was no new funding for any sector really.

There is no job creation for young people, no investment in agencies that work with young people, such as cadets, which provide many social and engaging activities.

For example, Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps 2425, Air Cadet League of Canada 729 Squadron, Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 329 and Cadet Corps 2698 Sieur de Beaujeu are not getting more funding. What is more, the Little League Canadian Championships being held in my riding this summer did not receive any funding from the federal government, even though these activities provide young people with an opportunity to get some exercise and to develop their potential in a number of aspects in their lives. The federal government is doing absolutely nothing to help them.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond first to the issue of the omnibus bill.

It is the fifth time the Conservatives have tried to evade scrutiny of their so-called economic agenda, which I think betrays a fundamentally anti-democratic, authoritarian streak in the government. In fact, I think it betrays cowardice by placing something as profoundly important to Canadians as FATCA on page 99 of a 350-page bill, rather than having that debate out in the open in this House for all Canadians to hear and for us to participate in.

With respect to youth, let me take it back to Toronto, where we have an extraordinarily high 18% youth unemployment rate in Toronto. That is profoundly troubling. This is a government bill that offers no hope for youth in Toronto or across the country. The cancellation of the hiring credit for small business in this bill is a betrayal of youth in this country, and it is only going to make it increasingly difficult for them to find work and hope in today's economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montcalm, Status of Women; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Aboriginal Affairs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to questions.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from B.C. for his well-presented speech.

I have a question for my colleague across the way. We keep hearing about what the NDP voted against. The government presents the opposition with a budget bill that is thicker than a phone book for many municipalities and it buries in that phone book many bills that have nothing to do with the budget, but need to be debated on their own, and then on top of that, let us get to this bill, where close to 400 pages impacting hundreds of statutes are tabled, and even before the first speaker gets up to make a speech, a member on the government side stands up to say they will be giving notice of motion for time-limited debate.

How can I, as a parliamentarian, vote on a bill—or a telephone book of a bill—when I have not had the opportunity to debate it? Could the hon. member vote for something he has not had the opportunity to debate or listen to open debate on?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague who is also from British Columbia. We are very proud of our province, and I know she speaks from that perspective.

Getting to the point, we all in this place will get an opportunity to express our democratic values in votes. Every member has the ability, either through the committee process or through amendments at report stage, to put forward amendments they feel are important and then to stand in their spot and say what side of the coin they stand on.

I have heard many criticisms about omnibus legislation. I will just point out that any time we seek to amend more than two pieces of legislation, that automatically creates an omnibus situation.

I have heard people ask what the Hazardous Products Act has to do with it. Well, part 6, division 3, amends the Hazardous Products Act to better regulate the sale and importation of hazardous products intended for use, handling, or storage in a workplace in Canada in accordance with the Regulatory Cooperation Council joint action plan initiative for workplace chemicals.

We are part of a global chain. We need to see action on these things, so in North America we can have a better regulatory position where trade can flow, but also we can have better harmonization of standards, so that Canadians and Americans are safer.

I appreciate the sentiment, and I look forward to the next question.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the member in his answer a minute ago. It is not true that every member of Parliament has access to this massive bill in every committee where members sit.

Furthermore, last year in committee of the whole, when the then minister of finance appeared here to defend his past omnibus bill budget, he could not answer two-thirds of the questions himself. He did not know the details, he was not briefed, and he did not have officials with him from his own finance department.

It is unfortunate for the minister to speak this way, but I have a question for him on infrastructure and B.C. Instead of playing a shell game and trying to perform a card trick with Canadians, can he tell us what share of the $210 million is available for B.C. on April 1? We confirmed today with letters from the Nova Scotia government that all that is available is $210 million for the whole country. What share does the member expect British Columbia to avail itself of, when it is such a minuscule amount of money?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we will just have to disagree on some things.

The prior Liberal government had 13 long years to speak up and stand up for municipal infrastructure, and British Columbia received $1.5 billion. In the seven years that this government has been in office, British Columbia has received $4.5 billion.

The member voted against making the gas tax statutory so it no longer had to be voted in every year. We doubled the gas tax and indexed it to inflation. I find it incredibly interesting that the member would try to stand up for British Columbia after continuing to vote against important infrastructure, time and time again. However, I welcome the debate and I welcome further questions from the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, I have always begun by saying what an honour it is to rise in this institution, and I am very honoured to represent the people of Timmins—James Bay.

However, I am not very proud of what I see in this Parliament, and I am not proud to see that the role of the Parliament of Canada is continually turned into an exercise in which we are the marionettes of some kind of dumbed-down political show. We see the use of time allocation again and again to limit debate, and we see the monkey-wrenching of committees, where reports are written by the government and basically brought forward, ignoring all manner of amendments. Traditionally, and when I was elected, the committees tended to work together as a general rule.

I see the relentless attack on the independent bodies whose job it is to give us the information we need, whether it is Statistics Canada or researchers. I see the vicious attack by the leaders in the Conservative government against the officers of Parliament whose job it is to maintain the integrity of the electoral system of Canada, and the absolutely shameful attack on Mr. Mayrand by the so-called minister for democratic deform.

The election fraud that is being perpetrated in the House with this act and the complete ignoring of every single expert makes everything that is happening in Parliament in 2014 a very unfunny joke. When the Prime Minister can stand up and not be able to name a single credible witness, yet he and his gang personally attack the witnesses who represent democratic integrity in this country, it is a shameful situation.

We have a piece of omnibus legislation that is being pushed through in this Potemkin Parliament. We will all stand up at the end of the day, and the Conservatives will say that democracy was heard.

However, what is not being heard is the analysis we need on the temporary foreign worker program, on hazardous materials, on railway safety, on the fact that people are going to have to pay at the Champlain Bridge in Montreal to go to work, and the fact that on page 99 of this bill, we learn that the government has signed a secret deal with the United States to share the personal data of tens of thousands of Canadians.

Canadians should look to Parliament to say that citizenship is something that is sacred, to say that the role of Parliamentarians is to stand up and defend the citizenship of Canadians. However, in this omnibus legislation that is being pushed through and this attempt to shut down debate, the Conservatives have decided to slip in the bill that will now make it possible and legal for the United States government to demand the personal financial information of Canadians who have lived their lives in this country, paid taxes in this country, and been excellent citizens in this country, all because they happen to have been born in the United States.

Is this the case for people who just came here a few years ago, moved here because they do not want to pay taxes? No, I will give a few examples.

In 1958, a family had to go to the hospital and their child was born in a hospital on the U.S. side of the border. Now, this person, in his or her 50s, finds that personal financial information is subject to whatever the United States government wants to do with it.

We see the case of a young woman who went to university in the United States almost half a century ago and had a baby. A year later, she returned to Canada and the baby grew up as a Canadian citizen. The baby paid taxes and is a proud Canadian citizen. She looks to the government and finds that it does not consider her to be a Canadian citizen. If the Americans want her personal and private information, they will get it.

An 80-year-old woman called me. She spent the last half a century raising her children in Canada. She is now being told that her life insurance, which she saved up and which is meant to be for her children, can be handed over.

What protection did the government bring forward when it negotiated the IGA, the intergovernmental agreement that allows this FATCA, or Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act? We do not know what it agreed to, because it is pushing it through. It is pushing it through without the scrutiny that belongs in Parliament.

What we are seeing is that the government is saying it will be compliant under the Privacy Act, but we see major problems with this. The United States government does not see itself as having any of the same commitments that the Privacy Act and PIPEDA are supposed to have to protect the personal information of Canadian citizens.

For example, under the Canadian Privacy Act, financial institutions that collect personal information must only collect it for the purposes it was collected. The United States has not made any of those commitments.

Under the Privacy Act, we have businesses that develop systems, including technology systems and protocols, including the use of encryption. They have to use it to protect the data against outside scrutiny. We have no idea how this data would be used when it is handed over to the United States.

Principle 1 of schedule 1 of PIPEDA encourages accountability by mandating data collection responsibility for the personal information of a data subject, and the person has to be responsible.

There are no such provisions, that we know of, that were negotiated when the United States decided that it would come knocking on this compliant little government here to say, “We want to be able to gather information on any Canadian we want and you're going to give it to us”, and the current government said, ”Okay. We will. We'll just run it through omnibus legislation”.

Finally, principle 10 of schedule 1 of PIPEDA declares that an individual may bring a challenge to the organization that has his or her financial information if it is being misused.

However, none of those provisions exist, as far as we know, under the agreement that was signed. The reason we do not know is that we are not allowed, as parliamentarians, to debate it, because the government is going to push it through.

I asked my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, earlier on, about this. She said we were making things up.

It is obvious that the Conservatives have not even read their omnibus legislation because they are happy to play the role of the marionette. They are happy to stand to read the dumbed-down talking points.

It is a disgrace what is happening in the Parliament of this country. In this Potemkin parliament, we still have features of parliamentary tradition. For example, it is perfectly okay for the government to come in and misrepresent, to be mendacious, to be malevolent with the facts. It is just unparliamentary to say it is doing do.

So, we are engaged in this little facade that we are all the honourable gentlemen and gentlewomen carrying on the business of this country, when time and again legislation is being forced through without scrutiny.

So, for the Canadian citizens who served this country, who raised their children, and who paid their taxes, they can look to the current government and ask, “Where were you to protect the basic notion of citizenship, to ensure that basic rules were in place?”

We do not know if there are any rules in place because these will not be debated in Parliament.

I think it is a very shameful day for our so-called democratic system that we have allowed Parliament to be so incredibly debased. However, we see that time and again in the way that time allocation is being used with omnibus legislation that has nothing to do with budget implementation.

We do remember, and Canadians remember, that it was omnibus legislation that stripped water and lake protection from 99.9% of the waters in this country, to help expedite pipeline expansion, without any overview of the potential impacts on the various lakes and river systems in this country.

The Conservatives just threw it out, just like they threw out the researchers and the scientists who stood in their way, and just like they attacked the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's role in this House of Commons was to provide parliamentarians with credible knowledge. I am embarrassed to tell the Canadian people how few facts parliamentarians are given about the implementation of budgets. These are pushed through.

Go to committee and ask a minister come to committee to talk about the budget and how it would affect his department. It is not going to happen, because the government is protecting the frontbench marionettes, and they do their job

However, the role of Parliament is to ensure that basic issues, like the spending of taxpayer money, are given proper scrutiny, that international agreements that would affect the rights of Canadian citizens are debated in the House, and that we ensure that our Canadian citizens are given the rule of law.

Yet that is not happening here. What we are going to see for the rest of the day are the pompom acts and cheery faces of the Conservatives reading their dumbed-down notes while avoiding every key aspect of legislative change that would happen with this massive omnibus bill, just like the previous omnibus bill, just like with the omnibus bill before that, and we are supposed to stand here and pretend that this falsehood is somehow a real parliamentary process.

It is a Potemkin parliament. I think Canadian citizens need to know that the government is using the legislative process to ram through changes that would fundamentally affect their rights.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member was talking about regarding the magnitude of the budget bill itself. It is important that we recognize, and that we remind people, that since we have had the current majority government, there has been a change in attitude so that when a budget implementation bill is brought in, the Conservatives include changes to various other pieces of legislation. They use the budget bill to pass numerous changes to law here in Canada, many of which should have been stand-alone bills that would have, in essence, gone through the system of first reading, second reading, committees, and so forth.

What makes the matter even worse is that the Conservatives continue to use time allocation as the process. All of this takes away the rights of all members of Parliament to truly be able to stand in their place and provide the due diligence necessary for holding government accountable. The members of the current government have made a backward step in democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. He spent many years in the provincial legislature and is seeing what is happening in this federal legislature. The fundamental attack here is the attempt to treat Canadians as though they are stupid and deny them basic information.

The role of Parliament is to debate this so that the people back home can hear the facts and can see what is happening in committee. However, they cannot see what is happening in committee when committees are in camera, when everything is done in advance, and when there is a charade of talking points without actual debate on the issues of massive legislative changes affecting their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing us back to the egregious loss of democracy in this place. I said earlier today, speaking to Bill C-31, that it is like Bruce Cockburn's song, where he says, “But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse”. Every year, we seem to accept less and less democracy.

Back in 2009 when my last book came out, the late journalist Jim Travers was commenting on my book release on CBC. In answer to Michael Enright, who asked if there really were a crisis in Canadian democracy, Travers answered that it was worse than that, that you could visit Ottawa but what you would see was a democracy theme park. All the building were there, but Parliament was no longer respected.

Does my hon. colleague not feel that we need to reverse these trends before we really lose democracy altogether?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will respond with the lyrics of Bruce Cockburn. He said:

See they paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy....

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech.

I asked two members of the governing party the same question about income splitting. The hon. member for Oakville practically suggested that this measure is used to subsidize the rich, more or less, while the highly esteemed former minister of finance, the best in the known and unknown world, expressed serious doubts about it before becoming just the member for Whitby—Oshawa.

What does my colleague think of the canned answers on income splitting that were provided by the PMO's puppets?

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

Mr. Speaker, the real concern here is that we are not really debating the budget. What we end up having to do is to deal with bill that concerns itself with all manner of things other than the budget. The scrutiny required to ensure that we have accountability in this place has gone out the way, because these changes are being forced through a budget implementation bill with time allocation, and with things not being addressed at committee,

We count on our officers of Parliament to ensure accountability and we see the vicious and personal attacks against them. These are attacks on the institution of Parliament itself, because when Parliament stands in the way of this gang it will be attacked.

Canadians need to step back and say they expect more. Canadians need to say they expect a level of dignity in the House, that they expect all parliamentarians regardless of their party to stand in the House and participate, and to be able to participate in the review of legislation to ensure that it is of benefit to all Canadians.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today to talk about the budget implementation bill and a little about the process for budget 2014.

It seems that the opposition members have talked a lot about process in regard to this bill. They have talked about the number of hours being allocated to it, the size of the bill, and so on. I think it is important for the public, if anyone happens to be watching, to understand what is actually happening.

As we have for the whole eight years I have been here—and I do not know if it was any different before I arrived—the budget is presented, but it is not actually a bill because the budget has to be implemented. We have two implementation periods, one in the spring and one in the fall.

We try to get as much of the budget implemented in the first budget implementation bill, because it takes a while to get the bill through the system and for whatever changes that will be happening to be implemented. It is important that we do as much as possible in the first implementation bill.

I am fortunate to be speaking to this. It will go to a vote. I think the last speaker will be at about 5:05 p.m. I am the 69th speaker on this item. There have been five days of debate.

Members can talk to their constituents and say that the implementation bill is at second reading, that it has not gone to committee yet, and that there were 70 speakers addressing it, with opportunities for the different parties to have their turn. The bigger parties, like the government, obviously have more turns to speak. Then the official opposition and then the third party get a shot, and it is all based on numbers.

There have been 70 speakers. Then, after it is voted on, assuming it passes, which I believe it will, the bill will go to committee. I am not going to say what will happen there, because I do not actually know. However, a number of past implementation bills were broken up and sent to different committees. Different sections would go to different committees.

When I was on the finance committee, the whole bill came to the committee. We have changed that process a bit over the last number of times, and let other committees do a review.

There is an opportunity for any member of Parliament to go to committee to discuss the bill and to hear witnesses. That will take a number of weeks.

Then the bill comes back to the House, back to this fine place and its elected members. It will likely have approximately five days of debate. There could be another 70 speakers on this bill. In fact, if I do the math correctly, almost half the people in here will have an opportunity to speak to this particular bill. Not only will they speak to the bill, but members can also go to committee and talk to specific items that happen to be in this piece of legislation.

When members talk about time allocation and so on, that does not mean we are ending the debate. I have had to explain this to people in my riding. Time allocation happens because the House leaders of all the parties could not come together in agreement on how many speakers will be put forward.

My understanding is that is because there are parties in the House that believe that every single member should say the same thing over and over again. If members have listened to the Debate, as I have in the House and to the television in my office, the same things are being repeated over and over again. They are important items.

I am not belittling the points that people on both sides of the House are making. However, the same things are being said over and over again. The time allocation motion allocates a certain length of time; it does not end debate.

In this case, our House leader allocated five days to speak to this bill, which allows 70 members to speak to this one bill at second reading. Then we go to committee. If I am interested in a certain section, such as that dealing with tax credits for people with diabetes, I know that I can go to committee.

I have diabetes. I am fortunate that I am able to control my diabetes through diet and exercise, but there are many people I know who are severely affected by diabetes. In fact, there is a tax credit in this bill that would help with the cost of services that go with severe issues due to diabetes. People would be able to use those tax credits to help pay their medical costs because the tax credit for medical costs has been enhanced in this implementation bill. As was mentioned and discussed in the budget, it is actually implemented through this bill. If the bill is sent to the finance committee and I am available, I may go to the committee to talk about that section and find out what people are saying about it. There will be witnesses available at the committee to talk about the different sections.

This bill is thick. Members in the House say that this is an omnibus bill. I looked it up, and it is about 486 pages. Let us round up, for arguments sake, because there are appendices and so on; let us say it is a 500-page bill. People have to understand that it is 500 pages in English and in French. It is actually 250 pages of English, and it may be a bit longer in French because the language has more words in it. In length, it may be a little longer in French than it is in English. That is not always the case, but I believe that is the case here. Therefore, it entails the reading of 250 pages. I know that Canadians have confidence in the members of Parliament they have elected to read 250 pages.

Let us be frank: we have a lot to do as members of Parliament. There is a lot of reading and information. At the front of every single bill, there is a summary. The summary itemizes different parts of the bill and then summarizes, in point form, what the different items are. I am not a lawyer, and some of this is legalese, but after eight years, I am getting used to the reading and understanding of it. Granted, at first, for people who are not used to it, it is a bit of reading. However, the summary in this 486-page bill is five pages long. That is in French and English. One side is French and one side is English, and we can read it.

There are some tax measures in here, like the mining tax credit that my colleague mentioned earlier, the flow-through tax credit. It is interesting to me. I happened to know about it from my previous days on the finance committee. I read in the budget that we were renewing that tax credit. I do not need to go to page 265 to see exactly what we are doing because the summary tells me. I understand what we are doing. I read it in the summary. We are implementing it. I do not need any more than that.

There are certain sections that I am not as familiar with, so I looked in the summary, found out which pages they are on, and read them. If I do not understand them, guess what else happens? On our side of the House, the minister holds an information session that is open to all members of Parliament and their staff to ask questions about specific sections. The minister goes clause by clause, not with political people there, but staff from Finance and the different departments, to explain the changes and why they are being implemented. The bureaucratic staff, who do an excellent job for this country, are not there to say whether they agree or disagree. They are there to explain what is being implemented in the budget implementation bill.

There are plenty of opportunities to discuss the issues and get information. What we need to do as a country to continue moving forward is to keep implementing change and the things we would like to do to see this country move forward from an economic perspective.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way seems to be saying that time allocation is normal in the House and that it happens simply because the parties cannot reach an agreement.

That being said, when I read a budget like this one, I think of my constituents, who are worried about the changes being made to the transportation of dangerous goods, the fact that the bill does nothing for the environment, the fact that more and more businesses in my riding are closing and the fact that people are having difficulty creating high-quality jobs.

I would like to be able to talk about this, because it is my duty as an MP to represent them in this House and ask the government questions. I think it is only natural that if I feel like talking about my region in the House and my colleagues also want to talk about their respective regions, we should be able to do so. When time allocation motions are imposed on us, we are denied the right to speak.

I understand that the member finds this normal. How nice for him; he had the opportunity to speak. On our side, unfortunately, not everyone will have time to do so. There are 308 members in this House.

This seems to be how the government likes to pass bills and advance its own agenda faster, without taking the realities of all the regions into account. I find that unfortunate, and I would like to hear the member's thoughts on that.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this. It is exactly to the point.

I challenge my colleague from the other side to go door to door in her riding and say that we are allocating 140 or maybe 150 people to speak to this item. In addition, we are going to go to committee to talk about it. We are going to get it through the House. When it is all done, in about a month, I bet the general public in Canada will say, “What the heck takes you guys so long to get anything done in there?”

Could members imagine if we allowed all 308 members a speaking turn on every single item? Does the member know how many bills we would pass in this place? We would maybe get three or four bills maximum passed through the House of Commons to move the agenda forward, whether that is on economics, the justice system, or the social system. It would bring us to a grinding halt, and that is what the NDP want us to do.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from Burlington. When we knock on doors in my riding of Ottawa South, it is what we do here.

Is there anything in the budget with respect to housing? Is there any support for our seniors who are having a hard time deciding between bus passes and medication this month? Is there anything here for infrastructure? Are we seeing investments of a kind that we need for the next generation? Is there an innovation strategy for the country? The answer to all those things is, no, there is not.

I am not sure who the member for Burlington is speaking to in his riding, but the working people in my riding, the middle-class citizens, are looking, but they cannot find their priorities reflected in the budget.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa South, the hotbed of the middle class in Canada, I guess.

It is very interesting that he talked about the digital strategy in his question. Could members imagine the fuss? The minister introduced the digital strategy a few weeks ago, or maybe it was last week, and maybe we will not include that in our budget implementation bill. It is unbelievable. The fact is that not everything is in it.

The member is actually making our point. Not everything is in this bill or the budget. There is other legislation. That is why we have to use time allocation to get other legislation through. The fact of the matter is that the opposition is not supporting it.

We can go on with a list as long as this room on things that are not in the budget because we do not agree with them. We are not doing them. There are Liberal ideas that will never work.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I would say that it falls in line with my constituency.

I am an old carpenter. I was a registered carpenter back in the day and built a lot of houses. I can assure the members across the way that what would not be discussed at Tim Hortons would be to give the guys more time to discuss something.

I would like to ask the member if he thinks enough time has been allocated to discuss our economic action plan 2014.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He made an excellent speech earlier this evening.

I actually think five days is enough. When I tell people that we spent five days on the second reading before it went to committee, they believe that is plenty of time to discuss the issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Ottawa South, I will let the hon. member know that we only have about seven minutes remaining in the time allocated for the debate this afternoon. I will allow him to at least get started and give him the usual signal before we are out of time.

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, seven minutes is an appropriate amount of time. I am reminded of my contracts professor at law school who once said that it is very important to remember, unlike my colleagues on the Conservative side, that verbosity is no substitute for content.

I am going to focus on two themes today, which I think are important for citizens right across the country. The first one is infrastructure. We know that we have to invest in the next generation of infrastructure, that we are standing on the shoulders of previous generations who invested heavily in our water and waste water systems, our road systems, and our bridges. We know we are going to be dealing with even more challenges on the infrastructure front because of the realities of adapting to climate change. That is something that the government still refuses to address.

On the infrastructure side, we know that the minister regularly talks about large sums of money being available. However, here are the facts. As of April 1, there is an 87% decrease between last year and this year in terms of the build Canada fund and the amount of money available for the entire country. The government is not denying that. It is exactly $210 million for the entire country this fiscal year. We are not talking about gas tax. We are not talking about HST rebates. We are talking about the build Canada fund. For example, when it comes to my hometown, the City of Ottawa would hope to receive $65 million from the Government of Canada to help improve our water and waste water systems, so we can protect our incredible Ottawa River, the source of our surface drinking water. It would like to be able to invest in the system before the 2017 anniversary of the country, to be able to actually strengthen that infrastructure.

We know that by not investing in that infrastructure now we are compromising jobs. We are compromising giving rise to new technologies and processes for the global market that we ought to be able to do very well in. At the same time, by not investing in infrastructure, we are compromising the support for our middle-class families, who would benefit not only from the infrastructure investments, but the economic spinoffs that follow.

When the government says otherwise, we are hard pressed to believe it. Here is a letter dated yesterday, on Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Secretariat letterhead. Let me quote from it. These are the opening two paragraphs. It says:

You are no doubt aware that the federal government announced on March 28, 2014 that the New Building Canada Fund...is “open for business”. Nova Scotia, like all other Provinces and Territories, was surprised by this announcement.

It goes on to say:

The Province has not signed an Agreement with the federal government for the NBCF and no details have been released to us on the application process.

It lends credence to the notion that it is a shell game; it is a card trick on the infrastructure side.

We know in the last instance of the infrastructure investments made by the government that it forced every municipality in the country to put up a total of 9,000 vanity billboards. Canadians recognize them because it infuriates them. Then it stuck the bill to the municipalities where the billboards were actually mounted. In the case of my home city of Ottawa, former mayor Larry O'Brien confirmed, in writing, that $50,000 was spent by the City of Ottawa in putting up the vanity billboards for the government in different infrastructure settings across the region.

The second issue I want to raise is the transportation safety issue. We have seen in the budget a cut to road safety investments, marine safety investments, airline safety investments, and a marginal increase in rail safety of about a million dollars. This is a very important issue for Canadians in the wake of Lac-Mégantic. If we look at the real numbers on rail safety, we know that the government is spending more money on economic action plan advertising, $42 million this year alone, than it is spending on rail safety in the entire country.

This is at a time when the Auditor General has told us that only 26% of the planned audits for rail safety were performed; that Via Rail has not been audited in three years, when it is carrying four million passengers a year; and that only nine inspectors are in place, when we need 20.

We are seeing massive increases in diluted bitumen being transported by rail. We are going to have one million barrels of excess oil that cannot go in pipelines in the next decade, but the government finds the money for the vanity advertising and the “24 Seven” show, which is a joke. It is a show of the Prime Minister at work, paid for with taxpayer dollars.

I look forward to coming back to these themes and others when my time comes for my next speaking opportunity, but I did want to get these two issues, infrastructure and transportation safety, on the record and juxtapose both against some of the foolish spending by the Conservative government.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill.

Earlier, my colleague across the way said that 5 days was plenty of time to read 350 pages. I think he is overestimating his abilities, because 350 pages of technical details adds up to something extremely complex. This is not something we can take lightly. If we focused on just a few pages or a single section, we would not be fulfilling our responsibilities.

Right now, we are being silenced. Because of this government, democracy is not working well.

Once again, looking at one issue in particular, rail safety, we can see that decisions will be made behind closed doors. Instead of giving additional information to municipalities that request it, such as Huntingdon, Valleyfield, Godmanchester, Dundee and Saint-Jacques-le-Mineur, all of which are in my riding, the Conservatives will reduce transparency.

I do not know what my colleague thinks of that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the jig is up. Canadians know what is going on. They are really not stupid. They follow this. They are aware of the kinds of tactics being used by the Prime Minister and his front bench.

They know that things are being pounded together. They know that they are being jammed through the House. They know that we are not being given ample and reasonable opportunity to debate parts of the bill that ought to be seen in different committees. They know that parliamentarians, as a result, are not able to do the job they were sent here to do, which is to try to improve things for Canadians and improve the country.

These are the kinds of tactics that were developed in Ontario in a previous regime. They are unfortunate.

The Canadian people are catching on quickly, and I think they are going to speak loudly in 2015.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, April 3, 2014, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.