Bill C-4 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexes the new limit to inflation;
(b) streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund a contribution made to a Registered Pension Plan as a result of a reasonable error;
(c) extends the reassessment period for reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters when information returns are not filed properly and on time;
(d) phases out the federal Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations tax credit;
(e) ensures that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate;
(f) ensures that the tax consequences of disposing of a property cannot be avoided by entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of the property;
(g) ensures that the tax attributes of trusts cannot be inappropriately transferred among arm’s length persons;
(h) responds to the Sommerer decision to restore the intended tax treatment with respect to non-resident trusts;
(i) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste;
(j) imposes a penalty in instances where information on tax preparers and billing arrangements is missing, incomplete or inaccurate on Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program claim forms;
(k) phases out the accelerated capital cost allowance for capital assets used in new mines and certain mine expansions, and reduces the deduction rate for pre-production mine development expenses;
(l) adjusts the five-year phase-out of the additional deduction for credit unions;
(m) eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect of two types of leveraged life insurance arrangements;
(n) clarifies the restricted farm loss rules and increases the restricted farm loss deduction limit;
(o) enhances corporate anti-loss trading rules to address planning that avoids those rules;
(p) extends, in certain circumstances, the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return;
(q) extends the application of Canada’s thin capitalization rules to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities; and
(r) introduces new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) implements measures announced on July 25, 2012, including measures that
(i) relate to the taxation of specified investment flow-through entities, real estate investment trusts and publicly-traded corporations, and
(ii) respond to the Lewin decision;
(b) implements measures announced on December 21, 2012, including measures that relate to
(i) the computation of adjusted taxable income for the purposes of the alternative minimum tax,
(ii) the prohibited investment and advantage rules for registered plans, and
(iii) the corporate reorganization rules; and
(c) clarifies that information may be provided to the Department of Employment and Social Development for a program for temporary foreign workers.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; and
(b) clarifying that the GST/HST provision, exempting supplies by a public sector body (PSB) of a property or a service if all or substantially all of the supplies of the property or service by the PSB are made for free, does not apply to supplies of paid parking.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend and expand a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including setting the 2015 and 2016 rates and requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission beginning with the 2017 rate. The Division repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and related provisions of other Acts. Lastly, it makes technical amendments to the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to remove the prohibition against federal and provincial Crown agents and federal and provincial government employees being directors of a federally regulated financial institution. It also amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to remove the obligation of certain persons to give the Minister of Finance notice of their intent to borrow money from a federally regulated financial institution or from a corporation that has deposit insurance under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to clarify the rules for certain indirect acquisitions of foreign financial institutions.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to update the definition “passport” in subsection 57(5) and also amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to update the reference to the Minister in paragraph 11(1)(a).
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to amend the definition of “danger” in subsection 122(1), to modify the refusal to work process, to remove all references to health and safety officers and to confer on the Minister of Labour their powers, duties and functions. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the name of the Department to the Department of Employment and Social Development and to reflect that name change in the title of that Act and of its responsible Minister. In addition, the Division amends Part 6 of that Act to extend that Minister’s powers with respect to certain Acts, programs and activities and to allow the Minister of Labour to administer or enforce electronically the Canada Labour Code. The Division also adds the title of a Minister to the Salaries Act. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to several other Acts to reflect the name change.
Division 7 of Part 3 authorizes Her Majesty in right of Canada to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks in any manner.
Division 8 of Part 3 authorizes the amalgamation of four Crown corporations that own or operate international bridges and gives the resulting amalgamated corporation certain powers. It also makes consequential amendments and repeals certain Acts.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that agent corporations designated by the Minister of Finance may, subject to any terms and conditions of the designation, pledge any securities or cash that they hold, or give deposits, as security for the payment or performance of obligations arising out of derivatives that they enter into or guarantee for the management of financial risks.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the National Research Council Act to reduce the number of members of the National Research Council of Canada and to create the position of Chairperson of the Council.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act to reduce the permanent number of members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to allow for the appointment of up to three directors who are not residents of Canada.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to extend to the whole Act the protection for communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and to provide that information disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under subsection 65(1) of that Act may be used by a law enforcement agency referred to in that subsection only as evidence of a contravention of Part 1 of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 3 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, which establishes the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund. The Division also repeals the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow the Governor in Council to designate a person or class of persons as public office holders and to designate a person who is a public office holder or a class of persons who are public office holders as reporting public office holders, for the purposes of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to establish a new regime that provides that a foreign national who wishes to apply for permanent residence as a member of a certain economic class may do so only if they have submitted an expression of interest to the Minister and have subsequently been issued an invitation to apply.
Division 17 of Part 3 modernizes the collective bargaining and recourse systems provided by the Public Service Labour Relations Act regime. It amends the dispute resolution process for collective bargaining by removing the choice of dispute resolution method and substituting conciliation, which involves the possibility of the use of a strike as the method by which the parties may resolve impasses. In those cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are considered necessary for providing an essential service, the dispute resolution mechanism is to be arbitration. The collective bargaining process is further streamlined through amendments to the provision dealing with essential services. The employer has the exclusive right to determine that a service is essential and the numbers of positions that will be required to provide that service. Bargaining agents are to be consulted as part of the essential services process. The collective bargaining process is also amended by extending the timeframe within which a notice to bargain collectively may be given before the expiry of a collective agreement or arbitral award.
In addition, the Division amends the factors that arbitration boards and public interest commissions must take into account when making awards or reports, respectively. It also amends the processes for the making of those awards and reports and removes the compensation analysis and research function from the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The Division streamlines the recourse process set out for grievances and complaints in Part 2 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act.
The Division also establishes a single forum for employees to challenge decisions relating to discrimination in the public service. Grievances and complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Labour Relations Board under the grievance process set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The process for the review of those grievances or complaints is to be the same as the one that currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, grievances and complaints related specifically to staffing complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. Grievances relating to discrimination are required to be submitted within one year or any longer period that the Public Service Labour Relations Board considers appropriate, to reflect what currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Furthermore, the Division amends the grievance recourse process in several ways. With the sole exception of grievances relating to issues of discrimination, employees included in a bargaining unit may only present or refer an individual grievance to adjudication if they have the approval of and are represented by their bargaining agent. Also, the process as it relates to policy grievances is streamlined, including by defining more clearly an adjudicator’s remedial power when dealing with a policy grievance.
In addition, the Division provides for a clearer apportionment of the expenses of adjudication relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement. They are to be borne in equal parts by the employer and the bargaining agent. If a grievance relates to a deputy head’s direct authority, such as with respect to discipline, termination of employment or demotion, the expenses are to be borne in equal parts by the deputy head and the bargaining agent. The expenses of adjudication for employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent are to be borne by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
Finally, the Division amends the recourse process for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act by ensuring that the right to complain is triggered only in situations when more than one employee participates in an exercise to select employees that are to be laid off. And, candidates who are found not to meet the qualifications set by a deputy head may only complain with respect to their own assessment.
Division 18 of Part 3 establishes the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to replace the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The new Board will deal with matters that were previously dealt with by those former Boards under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, respectively, which will permit proceedings under those Acts to be consolidated.
Division 19 of Part 3 adds declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act, respecting the criteria for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

moved that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity today to highlight some of the key initiatives in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

I would like to begin by saying that our government is very proud of the steps we are taking to support the economy through today's legislation. As always, we want an open, public, and timely debate on these measures; we also look forward to a detailed committee study in the House and in the Senate.

In keeping with previous budget legislation under our government, in addition to having the bill studied by the finance committee, we will recommend even further study to the provisions in today's legislation. It is for that reason that we will be asking the following committees to look at certain portions of the bill: citizenship and immigration; human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities; and justice and human rights. Indeed, I will move a motion at the finance committee to this effect once second reading is completed by the House.

I hope opposition members will give their support at second reading as an indication that they genuinely want these committees to study the legislation instead of just playing political games.

On that note, let me outline why the opposition should support this legislation.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year. In addition to the portfolio of initiatives we have introduced since 2006 with affordable measures to create jobs, promote growth, and generate long-term prosperity, it will help to further unleash potential for Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy.

Let us revisit the facts.

Today Canada has the strongest job growth among G7 countries since the recession. Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years. It is significantly lower than that of the U.S., which is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. Meanwhile, we have created over one million net new jobs, nearly 80% of which are in the private sector, and our government continues to make new opportunities for Canadians to find employment. Today's legislation does little to detract from this goal.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, are projecting that Canada's growth will be among the strongest performances in the G7 in the years ahead. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels and is the best performance in the G7.

While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. Canada still remains on track to return to balanced budgets n 2015.

However, our government has been very clear that we will not raise taxes on Canadians to balance the budget. Unlike the NDP, which continues to push high-tax schemes, our government believes that keeping taxes low means more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, and that in turn helps keep our economy strong.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax cost, which includes corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and wage-based taxes is more than 40% lower than it is in the United States. In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth, and job creation, and one that ensures Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Having the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7 translates into Canada having a competitive business tax system, one that plays a key role in supporting businesses in all sectors of the Canadian economy to invest, grow, and thrive.

Let me share some highlights of our tax relief initiatives.

Our government has implemented broad-based tax reductions that support investment and growth and is delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job-creating businesses over 2008-09 and the following five fiscal years.

For example, in order to boost investments and productivity, we reduced the federal corporate income tax to 15% from its 2007 rate of 21%.

In addition, the federal capital tax was eliminated in 2006, and the only corporate tax was eliminated for all businesses in 2008.

Furthermore, we reduced the small business tax rate to 11% in 2008 from 12% in 2007, and subsequently the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000 in 2009.

Canada's system of international taxation was strengthened in order to better support cross-border trade and investment and to improve fairness.

These measures are part of a policy framework designed to increase our economy's production capacity and improve Canadians' quality of life.

Cutting federal corporate income tax and making other tax adjustments boost the assumed rate of return on investment and reduce capital costs. These measures encourage businesses to invest in Canada and hire Canadians.

That approach increases Canada's production capacity and improves Canadians' quality of life.

Economic action plan 2013 focused on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the future.

However, the job does not end there. Bill C-4 would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013 as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Our government's low-tax plan is helping to guide the Canadian economy along the path of sustainable economic growth. Bill C-4 builds on our successes and maintains our government's focus on the economy.

I would like to discuss three key aspects of the bill today: a continued focus on job creation and support for job creators, a firm response to tax loopholes and tax evasion, and an overall respect for taxpayers' dollars.

While we believe in the benefits of lower taxes, our government fully understands that sustaining an effective tax system also rests on the foundation of tax fairness. That is why economic action plan 2013 is committed to closing tax loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share. Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's effort to return to balanced budgets, responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared tax bases, and helps give Canadians confidence that the tax system is indeed fair.

The efforts made to ensure that everyone pays their fair share also help keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses. In so doing, there is more motivation to work, save and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. Today's legislation takes additional steps in support of this objective.

Two examples include further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules—which limit the amount of Canadian profits that can be distributed to certain non-resident shareholders as deductible interest payments—to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities, and introducing stiff administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale, and development of electronic suppression-of-sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

We are also providing the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, with new tools to enforce the tax rules to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, all while we are taking immediate action to improve the integrity and neutrality of the tax system. Specifically, economic action plan 2013 does this by streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks; requiring certain financial intermediaries, including banks, to report to the CRA clients' international electronic fund transfers of $10,000 or more; and introducing a new program to stop international tax evasion that would pay rewards to individuals who report major international tax non-compliance.

As the opposition can see, tax fairness is a basic principle that our government is committed to upholding. We make no apologies for doing so. In fact, we are proud of our record and we are building on it.

A level playing field is what Canadian businesses deserve and require, and we are delivering. For example, the Income Tax Act contains a number of provisions intended to constrain the trading of corporate tax attributes among arm's-length persons. Unfortunately, despite the various provisions intended to curtail the inappropriate trading of loss pools, transactions to circumvent these provisions continue to be undertaken.

Our government understands the need to introduce practical legislative measures to ensure that there are appropriate tax implications attached to these transactions. This bill does just that. It introduces an anti-avoidance rule to support the existing loss restriction rules that apply on the acquisition of control of a corporation.

As everyone can see clearly, our government is committed to putting in place the right framework to ensure tax compliance. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants had this to say about economic action plan 2013:

The budget looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

The statement continued with a strong backing of our initiatives and stated:

We support efforts to maintain the integrity of the tax base....

The bottom line is this: our government is committed to fighting tax evasion and giving Canadians a tax system they can have confidence in. There are those who would rather take advantage of the system to skip their fair contribution; Bill C-4 introduces strong new measures to combat this and would ensure that any previously mentioned measures from economic action plan 2013 come to fruition.

Lowering taxes is not the only way our government is furthering taxpayers' dollars. Canadians deserve streamlined services and efficient programs.

Today's legislation contains several measures fully in line with our government's respect for taxpayers' dollars. A few examples include modernizing the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery, improving the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery, phasing out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit, and modernizing service delivery for Canadians by accelerating the move from paper-based to automated passport application e-services.

These are all changes that I am extremely proud to speak to. It is measures like these that demonstrate our government's commitment to making it easier for Canadians to access services that are cost-effective and efficient. While many of the changes in Bill C-4 are technical in nature, many provide clear benefits for Canadians.

I know that my constituents back home expect a fiscally responsible government. Let us take the modernization of the Canada student loans program as an example. Students in my riding of North Vancouver rely on this important program to help achieve their goals and make their educational aspirations a reality. This change in Bill C-4 would not only eliminate a cumbersome and often long process of paper agreements and identification but would also provide the government with approximately $10 million in cost savings per year. It is just common sense to provide a better service to Canadians and while saving taxpayers' dollars at the same time. It is initiatives like this that make bills like today's all the more important to pass.

I have talked about how we are working hard to make our tax system fair and how we are doing everything possible to maximize taxpayer money, but I have not forgotten about an area that Canadians have on their minds: jobs.

Quite simply, our government values job creators and we have been working hard with them in recent years to ensure that they are in the best position possible to provide jobs for Canadians.

The legislation I have the privilege of speaking about today introduces some new ways our government can support job creation in this country. Examples include extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers; increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding; expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Let me elaborate on one of these measures that I think will have a big impact for small businesses.

Among the many ways that Canada's income tax system supports small business owners, farmers and fishermen is the lifetime capital gains tax exemption, the LCGE. In order to increase the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing, economic action plan 2013 proposes to increase the LCGE from $750,000 to $800,000 in 2014. The exemption helps these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement and facilitates the intergenerational transfer of their businesses. In 2007 our government increased the LCGE to $750,000 from $500,000, the first increase in the exemption since 1988.

In addition, to ensure the real value of the LCGE is not eroded over time, economic action plan 2013 proposes to index the $800,000 LCGE limit to inflation for the first time ever. The first indexation adjustment will occur for the 2015 taxation year. This is added security for the small business owner and provides financial freedom to create new jobs.

The initiatives set out in economic action plan 2013 are based on domestic government measures to improve the overall strength of Canada's tax system and to once again demonstrate our government's commitment to using taxpayers' money responsibly.

With a comprehensive and forward-looking agenda, these initiatives will deliver high quality jobs, economic growth and sound public finances.

Economic action plan 2013 would allow Canada to meet these challenges and emerge from them stronger than ever today and in the future.

While the opposition continues to focus on issues that do not matter to Canadians, our government remains focused on the task at hand. Economic growth did not stop at the last budget or the last budget implementation act for that matter. We continue to look for ways to maximize taxpayer dollars, increase the efficiency of the inner workings of government and make certain that job creation and economic prosperity are at the forefront of any new legislation. In this respect, the bill would make significant improvements that would benefit Canadians. I urge members of the House to pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the government has not learned from the past. Here we have the fourth omnibus budget implementation act in two years. We have yet another bill that is crammed with changes to 70 laws. It is over 300 pages long. It is a grab bag of the wants and desires of the Conservative caucus. It contains things that should not be in a budget bill, such as Supreme Court nominations, changes to health and safety legislation for workers and changes to the National Research Council.

If my colleague and his caucus colleagues are so convinced that their government is on the right track, why are they hiding all of these changes in an omnibus budget bill rather than presenting them as individual bills? Why are they using the spin that they are doing such a great job on the economy when almost 300,000 more people are unemployed now than before the recession, growth is slowing and many of our trading partners are outdoing Canada? Our current account deficit is growing and the Conservatives are not dealing with it. Could the member answer that?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was more than one question. That was really a grab bag of a whole bunch of questions.

[An hon. member]

It is like an omnibus question.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That was an omnibus question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to try to address as many of those questions as I can possibly remember.

First, the length of this bill is really quite similar to the last four acts that have been introduced over the last number of years, so it is very similar in length.

Second, the vast majority of the items in the bill refer to technical items that were already presented in economic action plan 2013 by the Minister of Finance back in March of this year.

It is a lengthy bill because we have a lot of work to do in Canada. We have been extremely fortunate to have weathered the economic storm so well. However, we still are not immune to pressures from outside the country and therefore we have to take measures in order to protect our economy.

To give the House an idea of some of those measures, economic action plan 2013 focuses squarely on the creation of jobs, economic growth and the long-term prosperity of Canadians. It is doing this by connecting Canadians with available jobs, a new long-term $70 billion infrastructure plan over 10 years, which is an precedented amount, investing in world-class research and innovation and much more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, every time I hear one of the Conservatives stand and use the phrase “economic action plan”, I have this vision of someone sitting inside the PMO putting a little gold star beside that name.

It is almost like it is mandatory, “You will stand up. You will say economic action plan”. Every time the members say it, they get a gold star. I am sure there is someone in the Prime Minister's Office making note of every time one of the members talks about it.

For most Canadians, we see it as a great deal of waste in terms of the promotion of that slogan, the millions of dollars that have been spent on it.

My question is related to the balanced budget legislation about which the government is talking. We all know the government inherited a huge surplus, turned it into a deficit and now it says it will get out of a deficit into a balanced position in 2015-16. At the end of the day, we will not find out if that is true or false until after the next federal election.

On the balanced budget legislation, is there a consequence to the government if it is does not meet that balanced budget requirement, whatever it might be?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the balanced budget, before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down over $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years.

It is because we paid down the debt that we were in a position to help the economy when it needed it most. Our fiscal responsibility and aggressive debt reduction placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global economic storm.

When the global economic recession hit, we were able to respond quickly and effectively with Canada's economic action plan. Here are some examples of how well we are doing. Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012. That is the lowest level among G7 countries. Germany, by contrast, is the second lowest at 57.2%. The G7 average is 90.4%.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know if the member would like to tell the member for Winnipeg North just how the budget had been balanced by the Liberals, which he was applauding.

How did that really occur? If I remember correctly, the Liberals balanced the budget on the backs of Canadians. Maybe the member would like to tell the story.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague asked me that very important question.

Unlike the previous Liberal government that balanced the budget on the backs of hard-working Canadians and on the backs of the provinces by cutting health and education transfers, which caused significant shortages in our health care system and our education system, we are not doing that.

When the member opposite mentions that we inherited a surplus, I can tell members where that surplus went. It went back into the pockets of ordinary hard-working Canadians, because that is where that money should be, not in government coffers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my first comment is for my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Although this administration has reduced corporate taxes dramatically, economists such as Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, found that corporations were not using it to create jobs. In fact he called it “dead money”.

An RBC economist has pegged that amount at over $600 billion, money that corporations are saving, not spending. They are not spending it on jobs. They are not spending it on growth. It is in fact dead money and we need to adjust the corporate tax rate to the benefit of Canadians.

I have a lot of questions. I attended the briefing last night, and I think the hon. member did the right thing postponing until tonight, but it means I have a lot of specific questions. I do not know what this has to do with budget 2012. I never saw in budget 2012 that the intention of the budget was to change the Canada labour code so workers covered by it would be less protected against dangerous assignments.

The revision in clause 176, found by coincidence at page 176 of Bill C-4, changes the definition of “danger” and removes, as a reason a worker can refuse to participate in that work, injury or illness that could result in chronic illness, removes the words “injury or illness” and insists that to be dangerous it has to be an “imminent or serious threat to the life or health” and removes what is in the current definition of damage to the reproductive system.

In other words, it is a systematic attack on the rights of a worker to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. That was never cited in budget 2012. I would like to know if the hon. member could explain it to us.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question regarded lowering taxes for businesses. We are proud that our government has lowered taxes to record lows. It is at 15% now in Canada.

Let me give an example of a result of that. Tim Hortons had its international headquarters in the United States five years ago. It has now moved those headquarters back to Canada because of our low tax measures. That is a perfect example of jobs being created in Canada as a result of our government's policies on lowering taxes for small, medium and large businesses.

Regarding the member's question about the Canada Labour Code and the change to the definition of “danger”, these amendments ensure that employees and employers remain at the forefront of resolving occupational health and safety issues. This would allow our government to improve our focus on critical issues that affect the health and safety of Canadians in the workplace. Employees still have the right to refuse to work where they have reasonable cause to believe a situation is dangerous. Health and safety officers remain available 24-7 to respond to real situations of danger in the workplace.

Worker safety is of the utmost concern to us, and it will remain at very high levels.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 Vancouver Kingsway, International Trade; the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Intergovernmental Relations.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the second federal budget implementation bill in 2013, and the fourth omnibus bill introduced in the House in the past two years. This time, the Conservatives have pushed the urgency to new levels to get their files through the House.

Bill C-4 was introduced yesterday morning and we have already started debate on a bill that is over 300 pages and that amends or repeals 70 legislative measures. This is yet more proof of the Conservatives' absolute contempt for the democratic process.

Once again, the NDP must express its opposition to these heavy-handed tactics. Canadians deserve better.

Canadians were asked to wait for an extra month for their MPs to come back to work here in Ottawa. The Conservatives said the prorogation was necessary and that it was time to reset the government's policy agenda. I certainly agree that the government's policy needs a serious redo, but that is not what Canadians heard last week in the Speech from the Throne.

Instead, despite soaring youth unemployment and nearly 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the recession, the Conservatives failed to lay out a jobs plan or take concrete action that would create good middle-class jobs.

Just today, the Bank of Canada issued a report. It said that it had significantly overestimated growth in its last report and has now lowered GDP growth projections for 2013, 2014 and 2015. That is the kind of job the government is doing. The Bank of Canada is now predicting that in 2013, GDP growth will be a meagre 1.6%. Clearly, the government's economic agenda is failing. The Prime Minister has failed miserably. I will say it again. The Prime Minister's economic agenda has failed miserably.

In fact, the government is pushing ahead with its plan to claw back $300 million from skills funding for the most vulnerable workers, even in the face of united opposition from the premiers. Bill C-4 focuses more on gutting Canadians' right to a safe and healthy workplace and prompting conflict with civil servants than it does on job creation.

Despite all the Conservative spin, Canadians know that only New Democrats can be trusted to put their needs first and to give middle-class Canadians a fair break. Canadians need a government committed to genuine consultation to get to the bottom of this. Only by working together and pulling in the same direction can we have an economy performing to meet the needs of all Canadians and Canadian businesses.

The NDP vision for the economy is one where we maximize the opportunities we have, based on our enormous advantages as a country, to deliver the best we can for Canadians.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the economy has been at the heart of Canadians' concerns. We have faced an endless number of foreign economic threats. Our recovery was marked by fear of a debt spiral in Europe and political impasses in the United States.

Today, the Canadian economy is facing new challenges. We still face threats abroad, but we are also facing threats that originate much closer to home.

Canadian families are struggling like never before. They are caught between a rising cost of living on the one hand and disappearing middle-class jobs on the other. Over the last 35 years, income is up for the top 20% of wage earners, but down for the bottom 80%. Our economy has grown nearly 150% over that 35-year period of time and yet median household income has declined by 7%.

Professor Miles Corak at the University of Ottawa said:

Over the last couple of decades or more the median wage rate has hardly changed, and wage rates below the halfway point have fallen by five to as much as 10 percentage points....

This means that many families who face lower wage rates have to run harder just to stand still....

In my own city of Toronto, a recent report by the Daily Bread Food Bank found that almost one-quarter of the people accessing food banks have someone in their households who is working. In the 905 region, that number is almost 40%. Therefore, paid employment, even a full-time job, is clearly not always a ticket out of hunger and poverty. That is shocking. That is simply unacceptable.

In September, Statistics Canada announced that household debt had reached a whopping 166% of disposable income. More than one in eight households has a debt-to-income ratio higher than 250%; that is one in eight. Mortgage debt alone now stands at roughly one trillion dollars. In many communities the cost of housing is squeezing household budgets.

A report by the Toronto Community Foundation found that according to 2001 figures, almost one-third of Toronto region households are spending 30% or more of their total income just on housing. Among the city's renters, the number was even higher, at over 43%. According to the OECD, the Canadian housing market is now among the most overvalued in the world. Taken as a whole, Canadian household debt is now dangerously close to American debt levels just prior to the financial crisis of 2008.

Before leaving his post as governor, Mark Carney warned that mounting household debt may force the Bank of Canada to pull back on economic stimulus. While the rate of growth of household debt has slowed somewhat since Mr. Carney's departure, the Bank of Canada says that household debt is still the “biggest domestic risk” facing our economy.

All of this, the rising cost of living, coupled with stagnating wages, has major implications for domestic demands. After all, if a consumer-driven economy is to succeed, consumers need money in their pockets to spend. This is, of course, what every business knows, especially small businesses.

Earlier this year, The Economist magazine remarked on Canada's economy:

...five years on, consumers are showing signs of flagging. ...So the authorities are casting around for another source of growth. The trouble is they cannot seem to find one.

The Conservatives promised to focus on affordability in their throne speech with a so-called “consumer first” agenda for the new session of Parliament, but Bill C-4 makes no progress for Canadian consumers. The Conservatives have made big promises about protecting consumers for seven years, but have failed time and time again to help consumers in need and consistently vote against consumer-friendly provisions put forward by the opposition.

Consumers are failed by the government. The Conservatives have been big on talk and very small on follow-through. By contrast, New Democrats have led the way on consumer protection and will be looking to hold the government members to account to ensure their actions match their words. We know that any serious attempt to tackle this complex issue has to start with an honest look at the economic conditions facing business and labour markets as well as families.

The Canadian labour market is facing significant challenges, in both the short and medium terms. Today, our unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. There is only one position available for every 6.5 Canadians looking for a job.

Even worse, youth unemployment is now over 14%, which means that the next generation of workers cannot gain the experience they will need to replace the older generation.

In my city of Toronto, one in five youth is unemployed. With households and workers facing such challenges, it is no wonder our business sector is struggling as well. We have heard the statistics, $600 billion in private money sitting on the sidelines. The former governor of the Bank of Canada has spoken about this.

While the Minister of Finance admonishes business to just step up and invest, New Democrats are more interested in working with business leaders, listening to them and finding out what the barriers are to them investing in the current climate. While Liberal and Conservative governments sat back and watched a generation of middle-class jobs disappear in Canada, pausing occasionally to wag their fingers at business for not doing better, we are more interested in working together, pulling together to create the next generation of middle-class jobs here in Canada.

Let us talk about those jobs, an area that the Conservatives have continually failed to take any action on, even in four omnibus budget bills. The real question is this. What kind of jobs are we creating?

Simply put, we want Canada to own the most profitable and productive slice of the global supply chain, 21st century knowledge economy jobs, in the most modern, innovative and energy-efficient industries, instead of falling further behind under the current government. I know that is easier said than done. However, the fact is that with as many challenges as we have ahead of us we have opportunities too. Canada has many advantages. Canada is among the most entrepreneurial countries in the world. Even through the worst of the recession, Canadian small businesses continued to thrive and multiply.

Yet one of the most disturbing trends in Canadian business development is that alarmingly few of those small businesses are growing into medium businesses and beyond. From 2006 to 2010, Canada lost more than 1,500 medium-size businesses, even as the number of small and large businesses grew. During that period, mid-size businesses were 10 times as likely to shrink or shut down as they were to grow.

Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz told the Vancouver Board of Trade:

A characteristic of a naturally growing economy is a steady increase in the population of companies. However, for five years after the start of the crisis, we saw virtually no increase in the population of Canadian companies.

This matters, a lot.

To maximize our potential we need effective education and skills training programs so that we have innovative companies ready to adapt to a changing global economy. This means doing the best job possible to tap into first nation communities so that they can develop to their full potential, while providing a badly needed skilled workforce, especially in remote areas.

Under the current government, a generation of young Canadians is facing double-digit unemployment; precarious, uncertain, low-paid jobs; and an equally uncertain future. The unemployment rate fell in September, but only because 20,000 young Canadians gave up searching for work. Yet Bill C-4 has only deafening silence to offer on youth employment. Instead, the Conservatives are focused on ensuring that Canadian workplaces will be less healthy, less safe and less secure for workers in the future. It makes no sense.

Canadians know that the NDP is the party most focused on the next generation. New Democrats have proposed a job creation tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses as well as large corporations. Therefore, the NDP is targeting businesses that create new jobs and contribute to economic growth.

Under the NDP proposal, companies could receive up to $1,000 for hiring a young employee and an additional $1,000 in compensation for the training of that employee. The tax credit would be doubled in the regions with particularly high youth unemployment rates.

The NDP tax credit for hiring young people would benefit both young workers and the companies that hire them. Canadians do not want to be left behind or told that they have to settle for less.

We want to do better, improve the situation and show leadership. These are our objectives.

In the 21st-century global economy, Canadian cities will be the engines of economic growth. Cities are the economic hub that brings together the mix of investment, technology and talent that allows our economy to thrive. There is a growing body of research that highlights the key cluster effect that cities play in our larger, macroeconomic picture, and the role that government can play in bringing these elements together. In my own city of Toronto, we have a film and television industry that is growing at the rate of 25%, more than double the economic growth rate of China, vastly outpacing the industry as a whole because of a partnership between industry, labour and government that has delivered these results. We need more models like that. Unfortunately, we are faced with a government that does not focus on the vital role that cities play as engines of economic growth.

Bill C-4 offers nothing for cities to address the massive infrastructure deficit that is a drag on our economy. In fact the PBO revealed that under the guise of a long-term infrastructure funding plan of $50 billion over 10 years, the Conservatives had actually cut infrastructure funding in budget 2013 by $5.8 billion. This is over the next few years. It is easy to make promises for years when they will not even be in government, I suppose.

What is needed is a serious commitment to sustainable and predictable funding in our urban centres. There are some things we can just do better when we work together. Investing in our future is one of them.

We should be asking ourselves what we can do better as a nation, what we can do together in addition to our efforts as families and communities. The Conservative government keeps telling Canadians, “We'll cut your taxes, but you're on your own. Don't count on us”. Services are being cut back. Programs are being cut back. Conservatives, again in this bill, are telling Canadians that they are on their own to ensure safe and healthy workplaces. When it comes to the needs of the country's veterans, when it comes to EI financing and taking real action for a more prosperous Canada for all Canadians, they say, “you are on your own”.

Speaking to Canadians across this country, I know that people still believe we need to work together to build for a better tomorrow.

Canadians understand governments have a role to play in supporting the economic conditions that improve their lives. In dealing with broad economic problems, we need solutions that address all sides of the ledger: creating good, high-quality jobs; making life more affordable for families; encouraging Canadians to save and invest for retirement; fostering the conditions for businesses and communities to succeed; ensuring all Canadians have a place to live; investing in needed infrastructure such as transit; taking a co-operative approach with the provinces on education and training; building a future full of opportunities for Canada's youth.

We need a balanced approach that will help us succeed. New Democrats can do better. We know that Canadians deserve better and New Democrats will stand up for Canadians every day until they get better.

In my time remaining, 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-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, because it:

(a) decreases transparency and erodes democratic process by amending 70 different pieces of legislation, many of which are not related to budgetary measures;

(b) dismantles health and safety protections for Canadian workers, affecting their right to refuse unsafe work;

(c) increases the likelihood of strikes by eliminating binding arbitration as an option for public sector workers; and

(d) eliminates the independent Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, allowing the government to continue playing politics with employment insurance rate setting.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is admissible.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments on the budget. It is interesting to note that she really condemned our government for not having an economic action plan. However, somewhere along the line, she has absolutely failed to recognize that we have created over one million jobs since the end of the recession. It sounds to me like we are getting it done.

My question for the member is how a $21-billion carbon tax, installed by the NDP, would help the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his rapt attention during my remarks.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the overall impact of budget 2012, the fiscal update in 2012, and budget 2013 will mean a loss of 67,000 jobs by the year 2017 and that there will be a reduction in GDP by almost two-thirds of a percentage point. I understand that he has some points that have been given to him to make, but we are falling behind other countries that are doing better on growth: the U.S., Scandinavian nations, Australia, and New Zealand, many of our trading partners.

The IMF has predicted that the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high levels of household debt. Part of this is about the decline in middle-class jobs, growing inequality in the country, and the government's failure to create good jobs for Canadians so that they can get ahead and give their kids the best start possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to infrastructure. There is absolutely no doubt that investment in infrastructure throughout our country is absolutely essential. We need a commitment to it.

One of the things I have felt is often overlooked when we talk about infrastructure is our national housing stock and the importance of investing in rehabilitation assistance programs for improvements to our housing stock. Some of these programs date way back to the 1970s. It is, in fact, a part of our Canadian infrastructure and something we should be concerned about.

Would the member like to provide some thoughts as to how important it is at the government level that we are prepared to set priorities for investing in and improving our national housing stock?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that serious question. In a country where the cost of housing is eating up a bigger share of the budgets of Canadians and where the issue of homelessness is still a massive problem for so many Canadians right across this country, it is shocking that the current government does not even mention housing and homelessness in this budget implementation act, Bill C-4. It is sad that there is so little action taking place on this pressing issue.

I understand the point the member is making. There is housing stock in co-op housing and elsewhere that is in need of investment for maintenance. There is nothing in this budget to provide for that. I am sorry also that in the 1990s, the Liberals cancelled the national housing strategy. That was a terrible blow to housing funding in this country.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very good overview of this budget bill. All I can see here is a tax on Canadians: municipalities, veterans, civil servants, credit unions, scientists, and environmentalists. I can only assume that this is the government's new enemies list.

What concerns me most is how this budget bill would target Canadians in the workplace and change Canadians' absolute right to healthy and safe workplaces. Every April, I go to a day of mourning that recognizes the workers, the men and women, who have lost their lives in preventable situations, in situations where these tragedies should never have occurred. I wonder how putting this kind of change in a budget bill can possibly be good for Canadian families.

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

I thank my colleague from London—Fanshawe for this question about occupational health and safety. I know her long-time and serious commitment to this issue. It is also an issue that so many of us have lived.

Working people know their own jobs best, and they know if they are working in a hazardous or risky situation. The rights working people have developed over the years to know about dangers in the workplace, to be informed, and to refuse unsafe work were hard fought for. Employers resisted them, but they have made our workplaces safer and healthier over the years. That the Conservatives would want to undermine the health and safety of Canadians in the workplace is unbelievable.

It makes no sense. It is not only dangerous for working people, it makes no business sense. It is bad for businesses. It is a bad direction the current government is taking our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. At over 300 pages, Bill C-4 is the latest in a long line of bloated Conservative omnibus bills.

Half of what is in this bill is totally unrelated to the budget. It contains important and worrisome changes to the Canada Labour Code, the National Research Council, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the immigration regime, the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees across Canada, and the Supreme Court Act.

In 1994, the leader of the opposition, the current Prime Minister, questioned how members could properly represent their constituents when forced to vote on omnibus budget bills.

Why does the hon. member think the Conservatives no longer recognize the undemocratic, anti-democratic nature of such omnibus bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that there are members in the Conservative caucus who are also very uncomfortable with these omnibus budget bills.

Canadians know that this is not good process, that this is not how we should be making our laws. It is not good process to have a grab bag of issues and concerns from different caucus members thrown into one omnibus budget bill. There is no reason to do that, unless the Conservatives do not want democratic debate, do not want Canadians to know what they are doing, or are not proud of what they are doing. It is a sad state of our democracy that the government persists time and time again with omnibus budget bills. I hear about it at the doorstep when I talk to Canadians.

Part of this budget implementation bill would correct mistakes from previous budget implementation acts that were put through with way too much haste; for example, doubling the amount of tax that credit unions would pay vis-à-vis Canada's major banks. That was a change the government made in a previous omnibus budget implementation act.

It makes no sense. It is a bad way to do legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague and friend, the MP for Cape Breton—Canso.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants may know that this is the first round in speeches with respect to the bill that is before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member is seeking unanimous consent of the House to split his time with the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. Does the hon. member for Kings—Hants have unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about this latest budget bill.

It is another omnibus budget bill. It is 308 pages in length, and there are 472 separate clauses, including amendments to the Supreme Court Act to ensure that Justice Nadon qualifies for the Supreme Court and to correct a mistake that the Conservatives seem to have made during the nomination process.

There is much in this bill that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. The government is, in fact, proposing to overhaul labour relations with the public service, which is one of the reasons my friend and colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, will be speaking to that issue today as the critic in areas of labour for the Liberal Party and its caucus.

Last night I saw a spectacle that I have not seen in almost 17 years in this place, which was that of a government that was incapable of organizing a budget briefing for members of Parliament. The budget briefing had to be called off because the government did not have its act together: it forgot to order translations for the meeting.

Sadly, it is part of a growing pattern of incompetence from the Conservative government and its finance minister. This is the finance minister who has added over $150 billion to our national debt with his reckless spending and his bad fiscal management.

Yesterday the finance minister was asked a very simple question. The throne speech told us recently that there would be balanced budget legislation forthcoming; the question to the minister yesterday was to help clarify what that balanced budget legislation would mean. The throne speech told us that the balanced budget legislation would “require balanced budgets during normal economic times”, and yesterday the minister was asked to define “normal economic times”. He responded that normal economic times are times when the government is not in deficit.

Today the minister seemed to confirm that his balanced budget legislation would only require balanced budgets when the budget is already balanced. It is no wonder that so many Canadians are losing faith both in this minister and in the Conservative government's management of the Canadian economy.

Now we have this budget bill, a bill that utterly fails to address the real concerns facing middle-class Canadian families. Either these failures are part of a systemic problem or else they speak to an effort of the government to distract Canadians from some of its recent scandals.

For instance, the government is picking a fight with the public service, a gratuitous fight at a time when we need to work with the public service to deliver better services for Canadians and better results for taxpayers. The Conservatives are picking this fight, and I believe that it is in fact to distract Canadians. This big fight with the public service is to distract Canadians from the government's growing list of scandals, the most recent of which is the Duffy-Wright-Prime Minister's Office scandal.

We all know that on June 5, the Prime Minister said in the House that Mr. Wright acted alone and that they were not only his decisions but that they were not communicated to the Prime Minister or to any members of his office. It has become very clear in recent days and weeks that this is not true.

On February 13, the Prime Minister defended Senator Pamela Wallin and said that her expenses were fine. He stood by her and her expenses. Now the government realizes it is mired in scandal and is trying to change the channel. That is why it is picking the fight with the public service union at this time.

In this budget bill, over 80 pages of the roughly 300 pages are devoted to overhauling relations with the public service. This is something that ought to have been achieved, if in fact there was a legitimate public policy issue, in a separate piece of legislation dealt with by the government operations committee, rather than by lumping it into a large omnibus budget bill to be dealt with by the finance committee.

The government is having trouble changing the channel away from scandals. It is trying to pick these fights, but the reality is that it cannot change the channel; the Prime Minister cannot even find the remote control. Perhaps Nigel Wright took the remote control with him when he left, along with all those files from the PMO.

Speaking of changing the channel, I have never seen a Speech from the Throne in which one of the principal focuses has been on the unbundling of cable TV channels. I do not think there is any country in the British commonwealth that has devoted so much ink in a throne speech to cable TV regulation. It is not part of any grand vision for the country that addresses the real economic challenges of Canadian families, and the fact is that middle-class families are feeling squeezed. They have record high levels of personal debt, they can barely make ends meet today when we have record low levels of interest rates, and they are petrified as to what will happen in the future as rates inevitably go up.

Middle-class Canadians have seen good-paying jobs replaced by part-time work, and for young Canadians there are still 224,000 fewer jobs today than before the downturn. The gap between Canada's youth unemployment and the so-called adult unemployment rate for people 25 years of age or older hit an all-time high this year. With the economy sputtering forward, our youth are being left behind, and this is not affecting just young Canadians: it is affecting their parents and, in many cases, their 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 and 43% have allowed their adult children to live at home rent-free for extended periods.

This is also contributing to higher household debt and lower retirement savings for parents.

It is time for the government to get serious about this issue and provide more support for young Canadians in need.

Helping adult children make ends meet is actually leading middle-class Canadian families into taking on a lot of additional debt and dipping into their retirement savings. It is also one of the reasons that Canadian parents 55 years or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not, and 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, with an average Canadian now owing over $27,000 in non-mortgage debt.

The Conservatives refuse to acknowledge these real financial pressures for young Canadians and their families, and instead of helping youth get meaningful work experience, they have actually cut the government's own summer jobs program by half. In their latest throne speech, more time was spent talking about finding the Franklin expedition than in helping Canadian youth find jobs. This is a government that is out of touch. It wants to make cable TV cheaper for Canadian youth, but it is doing nothing to help youth get away from the TV and into meaningful work opportunities.

The throne speech never once acknowledged the record level of high personal debt in Canada, and neither did this budget implementation bill. This bill does nothing to kick-start the Canadian economy for young Canadians and create jobs. It does nothing to help young Canadians and their struggling families and, consistent with the throne speech, it offers no real vision for the future.

Certainly some freezing of EI rates and keeping the small business tax credit in place helps, but it is nothing new and it is not good enough. Right now the economy is not growing. Just this morning the Bank of Canada slashed its growth forecast for the Canadian economy yet again. It says that the Canadian economy will not rebound to capacity until, at the very earliest, the end of 2015. The fact is that Canada has the worst record of economic growth under the current Prime Minister; R.B. Bennett was the second worst.

Right now there are too many young Canadians looking for work and there are too many middle-class Canadians struggling under crushing levels of personal debt, $1.65 for every $1 of annual income being the average. In fact, this bill would actually make things worse, for instance, for the mining sector, and changes to the labour-sponsored venture capital tax credit for investments in innovation in small business will make it harder for small businesses to attract investment and growth.

This budget actually corrects some mistakes made in the last budget implementation act. The last budget implementation act mistakenly doubled taxes on credit unions. Imagine. This budget implementation act corrects mistakes made in the last budget implementation act. One of the laws of unintended consequences of omnibus bills is that we see these mistakes made in the acts in the first place.

This tired, out-of-touch Conservative government, mired in scandal, devoid of vision, is offering nothing to help young Canadians and their struggling middle-class families. Canadians are tired of a government trying to change the channel. What they really want is to change the government. They want hope for a better future, pride in a stronger Canada and some positive vision and ideas for the future. That is what the Liberal Party and a future Liberal government is offering to Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we begin the period of time for questions and comments, I would remind all members, particularly when we just have five minutes, to keep their interventions to no more than a minute so more members can participate.

Questions and comments, the hon. minister of state for foreign affairs.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Foreign Affairs and Consular)]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that helped everyone, including young people, was our cutting of taxes, personal taxes, consumption, business and excise, and much more. It particularly helped young people when we cut the GST from 7% to 5%.

What interested me was the comment the member made on mining. I believe one of his colleagues has introduced a bill that directly targets our mining in Canada. Canadian mining companies and the sector are very concerned. I wonder if that member will support or speak against that particular bill because mining is very important to Canada, as he suggests, and he is worried about investment. However, the mining companies are very worried about that bill. After we have finished this debate, I believe that particular bill will be debated. I wonder what he would suggest for that bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the minister on her new role.

I think as minister of state for foreign affairs, it is important for her to have an understanding that strong corporate social responsibility—environmental governance, high labour standards and respect for human rights—is actually something that many Canadian mining companies are providing throughout the world. In fact, we can raise the bar further. We can do more to strengthen the brand of Canada in the world, with strong standards of CSR.

Mining is something that we are exceptionally good at as a country. It is an area where we are creating good jobs in Canada and in other countries. I do not think corporate social responsibility is something that Canadian mining companies are trying to avoid. I think it is something that Canadian mining companies are increasingly embracing.

Through Canadian mining companies acting responsibly as they grow business and develop opportunities around the world, we can build a better, more stable and sustainable world.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that this supposed budget implementation bill is, in fact, a grab bag of things totally unrelated to the budget. One very obvious example is the section about Supreme Court judges.

I find it interesting to see what is happening in Quebec these days. The federal government did a poor job of handling issues raised by the latest Supreme Court appointment. It is now attempting to make some changes, as we can see. However, the catch-all nature of the bill makes it impossible to properly handle such an important issue as Supreme Court appointments, a constitutional issue. This really deserves a separate bill, apart from the omnibus bill.

Could my colleague comment on the grab bag style of the bill? It is even more of a catch-all than the previous ones. It mixes together things that are not connected in any way.

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

I totally agree with my colleague, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that the government would seek to amend the provisions of the Supreme Court Act relating to court appointments in its budget implementation bill is ludicrous. In fact, it makes no sense and it is an insult to Quebeckers.

It is again correcting a mistake that the government made earlier when it followed a process of the appointment for Justice Nadon, ignoring what the requirements actually were. Let us imagine a government that ignores the law in appointing a Supreme Court judge. It makes absolutely no sense.

To double the insult and to actually include that in a budget implementation bill makes a farce of the whole process.

Bill C-4—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

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

I would like to give the House the courtesy of knowing that I intend to propose that four further days of debate be allotted, in addition to today, for a total of five days.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I have no doubt the House appreciates the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons giving notice.

Second Reading

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the House for allowing unanimous consent so that I could take part in this debate, which was noted by my friend and colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. He was not sure whether it was because the House had anticipated my comments so much and were so looking forward to what I had to say, or more so that they liked to limit my friend and colleague from Kings—Hants to 10 minutes. Whatever the rationale was, I appreciate the House allowing me to go forward.

I want to speak about the principles behind some aspects of the legislation. One of the comments that the parliamentary secretary mentioned when he led off the debate today was that it was not strange to have a bill of this size with so many components in it. It is 321 pages, but he said the last four bills have been of similar size.

The last four bills have been presented by the same government and concerns have been raised. Certainly the opposition parties voiced their disapproval with such a practice on those four occasions, but he was able to justify the bill by saying the last four were presented in a very similar manner. That would be like an NHL coach saying, “I didn't make the playoffs the last four years, but now you decide to fire me in my fifth year”. The unfortunate part is that maybe we do not get an opportunity to fire the government for another couple of years, but that day too shall come.

I want to talk about what was mentioned by my colleague from Kings—Hants with regard to some of the aspects of this piece of legislation as it deals with changing labour relationships in this country. I will read these into the record.

I want to talk about principles that a government must respect in creating legislation, such as what we are debating today, that affects millions of Canadians. In particular, it affects over 1.2 million hard-working Canadians who work in federal industries and the public service.

For Canadians, the affected workers in particular, to believe in these laws, they must have faith and trust in their government. However, trust and respect does not come with some gun pointed to their heads. Governing is about striking balance, a balance between things such as the environment and the economy, between one part of the country and the other, between social and economic values, and between the interests of the employer and the employee. Part of figuring out that balance is listening to people who may not agree with us and respecting the principles of fairness and due process when creating laws that fundamentally affect them. I do not believe there has been a government in recent history that has thrown so many things out of balance and replaced due process and fairness with political expediency than the current Conservative government.

The amendments to labour legislation in the bill are just another example of this. The government is using this omnibus budget bill as a back door to making major changes to the rules affecting collective bargaining in the public service. These changes, without doubt, are being made to weaken the public service unions by stacking the deck in favour of the employer and in this case, the employer is the government.

This type of behaviour only breeds mistrust and disrespect. It is not how we as individuals would expect to be treated and it simply lessens the institution of government when it continues out of control as we have seen under the current government. In order for our employees to prosper, whether it is in private industry or in government or workers in society or the economy at large, we need to have good labour relations. That is fundamental. We need labour relations that respect the interests of the workers and the employer in a fair and balanced manner, respecting due process and developed through real consultation.

Everything the government has done concerning labour relations since getting its majority has not been about striking balance. Instead, it has been about weakening the labour movement as much as possible in both the public and private sectors, from record use and methods used to impose back-to-work legislation to using—and one could say abusing—the private member legislation process as a backdoor way to introduce anti-labour legislation.

Bill C-377 was an obvious example. As we went through the testimony and the witnesses on that particular bill, we saw experts raise concerns about privacy and about the costs incurred, and not just by unions. The government tried to say that Bill C-377 was about union transparency by posting their actuals online. That would be a cost to not just the unions but also to administer it. This is the party of small government. The burden this would have placed on the CRA to administer such a mammoth undertaking would be significant to the treasury.

The government said it was all about openness and transparency. We threw a poison pill in there. We brought an amendment requesting it take the same rules it is asking of organized labour and ensure that our professional organizations play by them as well. Therefore, lawyers, doctors and chambers of commerce would have to post in the same manner as it is asking organized labour to. The Conservatives voted against that. It was not about openness and transparency. It was a poison pill. We did not think those organizations should have to post either. However, we knew that the Conservative government would vote against it because this was an attack on organized labour in this country.

Bill C-525 is now the second example. I expect we will see many more examples soon to come.

Never mind due process. Never mind fairness and balance. These terms mean nothing to the government. Political expediency at all costs is the motto across the aisle. Its fight with labour is based on an ideology that Canadians do not fundamentally believe in, an ideology that believes that if Canada is to prosper, the rights and benefits of workers must be sacrificed.

As a Liberal, I can say that I do not always agree with the labour issues. In past governments we fought with unions and we brought forward back-to-work legislation. However, we have always tried to respect due process. We know that the number one enemy for the Conservative government is labour. There is nothing in this bill that changes my mind. Giving federal employers the power to unilaterally declare parts of the public service an essential service, taking away its right to strike, and removing the option of unions to seek arbitration and settle a dispute to avoid disruption, stacks the deck unequally in the government's favour.

Balance in governing is an ideal every government should strive for, fostering trust and mutual respect as a goal. Labour relations are no different.

We have heard from FETCO, the organization that represents federally regulated industries. We heard from the CLC, which represents the people in those industries. They are both saying that the way to get this right is through consultation and consensus. They want the government to keep its nose out of their business. Instead, it continues to get engaged through private member legislation and aspects of these omnibus bills that continue to tip the scales. It is not just the unions or those workers who are saying this is unfair. The companies themselves see this as being unfair.

That is one of the problems we have with this omnibus approach to presenting legislation. If the government were confident about it, why would it not bring that forward to the House? It has a majority anyway. All we have to do is count. It will pass it anyway. Let us have the debate so it can tell us why it is doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we again find ourselves with another omnibus budget bill, the second one which the current administration of the government claims to be related to the budget of 2012. Yet there are many provisions, one in particular, that could not possibly be related to the budget. That is the change to the Supreme Court Act because the difficulty encountered with the appointment of Mr. Justice Nadon only occurred after the Conservatives put forward the budget, so that makes a mockery of the idea that this is a budgetary matter.

However, certainly there are the changes to the Canada Labour Code, as my friend referenced, the systematic attempt to attack fundamental collective bargaining rights and labour rights. I am troubled by what the impact would be on the individual worker, and every worker has the right to refuse dangerous work. The definition of “danger” has been quite watered down and would no longer, for instance, protect the worker from exposure to a threat that could create a chronic health hazard or a threat to reproductive health.

Does my friend have any comments on that?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we should not be surprised, but nonetheless every now and then the Conservatives throw one at us and we wonder what they are thinking, as is certainly the one with the Supreme Court reference in it.

In our country, our system is based on three pillars: judicial, administrative and legislative. For the Conservatives to take the highest court in the land and to tweak something that impacts on that court through a budget bill is a first, I am sure. I am sure many are amazed at that particular one.

I do not know the answer to that direct question, though. If the Conservatives pick these fights through these omnibus bills to divert Canadians' attention away from some of the scandals that are going on, such as members of their caucus being charged by Elections Canada or what is going on in the Senate, we opposition members, including I am sure my colleagues in the NDP, would say to break those bills out from the omnibus bill and let us have a discussion. If the planets line up, maybe they could even take some kind of an amendment to improve the legislation. That would be a rare day. I would go out and buy Insta Piks that day because the planets would be aligned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for his speech. I travelled to his beautiful region last summer.

Once more, we see the government using an omnibus bill to amend legislation related to employment and labour relations. These pieces of legislation have nothing whatsoever to do with budget implementation.

Last time, the government attacked construction workers by eliminating the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act, which guaranteed some trades a minimum wage on federal work sites.

The government is doing the same thing again by meddling in how essential workers are defined, something that was previously negotiated between employers and unions.

Now, the Conservatives are going to impose a definition like petty dictators, limiting the legal right to strike for many workers in public service jobs. On top of that, they are slashing arbitration, which will drive other workers to strike.

I would like to know whether my colleague feels the government wants to force workers to go on strike so that it can then force them back to work with other special laws.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I sat beside my colleague in the hearings on Bill C-377. I know he is very passionate and very capable on labour issues. We heard witness after witness give testimony. We saw none of that reflected in the final report on that bill. It is when ideology really trumps the needs of Canadians and Canadian workers that we all lose.

What is fearful, through the debate here today, is that the number of Canadians who are working for minimum wage has doubled under the current government. The Conservatives are intent on driving wages down in our country, hollowing out the middle class, and it is unions that have really contributed to developing a middle class. It is egregious and it is shameful.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we recognize the member for York Centre on resuming debate, I would just let him know there are only three minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders this afternoon. He can at least get started, and of course the remaining time will be available to him when the House next takes up debate on the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it is not the quantity of time but rather the quality, as the opposition has so aptly demonstrated to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-4. As my colleague has already so eloquently stated, we are proud of our government's achievements since the storm clouds first gathered over the global economy in 2008. Today, I will focus on the ways economic action plan 2013 helps strengthen Canada's economy in these uncertain times. Be assured, our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians. That is jobs, job creation and economic growth.

First, our government firmly believes in helping small businesses grow. That is why we have lowered taxes and tariffs, cut red tape and improved conditions for small business. These steps have established a solid foundation that has allowed Canadian businesses to create jobs and drive economic growth. Indeed, by implementing Canada's economic action plan Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Contrary to what the opposition leaders may believe, Canada is on strong economic footing. Since the depth of the recession over one million net new jobs have been created, most in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in G7 countries over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July of 2009 have been full-time positions with close to 85% of those being in the private sector. Also, growth levels are above pre-recession levels.

That is the best performance in the G7. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top credit rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid and they are sustainable.

However, to truly understand the strength behind this performance, one has to consider the hard work that took place long before, through the actions our government took to pay down debt, lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote free trade and innovation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for York Centre will have 17 minutes remaining in his time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 5:38 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It concludes its presentation by saying:

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

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

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

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Over and over again, she showed the fact the government has continuously pushed through budget bills that have problems in them. Then the Conservatives have to turn around and try to fix them. Then we see government that continues down that road. Instead of learning from its mistakes and saying maybe we should have more discussion on these bills, the Conservatives actually shut down debate.

I have had numerous complaints about the processes and the cutbacks that are taking place. With Veterans Affairs, for example, now people are going to be handed some money as opposed to getting the services that they actually deserve and they will be given the money ahead of the time. That is problematic for these people because they need the money when they need the money, not too far ahead.

Maybe the member could talk about that and whether the bill is actually transparent as to the amount of money that would be put aside and especially removing the funding cap for first nations, whether that is in there. That is really important when we are looking at the first nations education bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the points the member raised was the lack of transparency around how the bill was moving forward and the time limitations. A number of years ago we passed legislation that had to do with voter registration and voter ID. I know communities like the member's were impacted because of the fact that the bill had some mistakes in it and we subsequently had to pass new pieces of legislation to correct that legislation. The New Democrats at the time pointed out the challenges with that bill, but the Conservatives refused to listen to our amendments.

With regard to funding, the budget implement act contains absolutely no mention of the first nations education act. We saw a draft proposal that was released at eight o'clock on Tuesday night and that proposal talked about the fact that funding would come forward in regulation. We have no idea how that funding will be determined, what kind of criteria will be used, how first nations will be involved in developing that formula. When we talk about lack of transparency, that is just one more example of the lack of transparency of the government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the question of the week, we heard the House leader for the Conservatives say that the reason they imposed time allocation and limited debate was about scheduling. One would wonder about a government that thinks an efficient use of time is to introduce legislation, have it debated for a limited amount of time, refer it to committee, eventually it goes to the Senate, gets royal assent and then a couple of months later, it has to introduce another piece of legislation to fix legislation that had a mistake to begin with.

When we talk about efficient use of House time, having us go back to look at same legislation twice does not seem to be a good use of our time. If the Conservatives thinks that is a good use of their time, I suggest perhaps they might want to consider their future as good economic managers in our country.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-4 regarding the implementation of budget 2013. Budget 2013 is full of good news and helpful measures for my community of Mississauga and, indeed, all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the measures that are of great significance to my community, but before I do so, I believe it is important to note what is not in budget 2013. What is clearly missing from budget 2013 is new taxes. That is right; unlike Liberal budgets of the past and the dreams of the NDP, our government did not increase the tax burden on hard-working Canadians. In fact, our government has reduced the tax burden on working Canadians and job creators more than 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Our government is delivering more than $60 billion in tax relief to job-creating businesses. The federal general corporate income tax rate was reduced from 21% to 15% and the corporate surtax that represented an additional 1.12% was eliminated for all corporations. The small business tax rate, which is so important to the thousands of small business owners and their employees in Mississauga, was reduced from 12% to 11% and the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000.

In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant annual savings for a typical family of four of over $3,200. We have achieved this by cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; increasing the amount that Canadians can earn without paying tax; introducing pension income splitting for seniors; reducing the GST from 7% to 5% and putting an estimated $1,000 back into the pockets of an average family; introducing and enhancing the working income tax benefit; introducing the tax-free savings account, which is the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP; and increasing the age credit and the pension income credit. Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls.

As a lawyer engaged in advising businesses, I unfortunately witnessed thousands of jobs leave Canada during the 1990s and early 2000s due to very high personal and business tax rates compared to those in most other industrialized nations. For years, businesses chose to create jobs elsewhere and individual entrepreneurs and people with high technology skills chose to live in the United States because the unreasonably high tax rates in Canada made it difficult for them to operate a viable business.

Today, the combined federal and provincial corporate tax rates in Canada compare very favourably with those in jurisdictions such as the states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and California, places that we compete with every day for the creation of jobs. This is particularly the reason why our national unemployment rate is below that of the United States for the first time in 30 years and our job-creation record is the best in the G7. With our enviable fiscal situation, having the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, we are in a very good position to keep our taxes at low and reasonable levels while our counterparts in the United States and Europe will be forced to raise their taxes to reduce their deficits and debts.

When I first ran for office, people in my community said they did not believe that any politician would actually lower taxes. Our government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, did exactly that, and they began reducing taxes immediately upon forming government in 2006. The Mississauga Board of Trade has told me it believes that our government's tax policies have helped its members' businesses survive the recession, recover, expand and hire new employees. These are some of the most important reasons that our economy is doing much better than our competitors in the United States and Europe and that Forbes magazine has declared that Canada is the best place in the world in which to do business. I am confident that our government's tax policies will help to ensure a bright economic future for all Canadians.

In addition to the good news about taxes, the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget speech that Canada remains on track to balance the budget in 2015-16. This is very good news indeed. In addition to holding the line on government growth, budget 2013 includes more savings in government spending, totalling $2 billion by 2015-16 through numerous common sense improvements, including reducing wasteful departmental spending, reducing travel costs through the use of technology, continuing to control public service compensation and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit a select few.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada is leading the G7 in net debt to GDP ratio, and at the recent G20 conference in Russia, the Prime Minister showed real international leadership in committing to further reduce Canada's net debt to GDP ratio to 25% and encouraged other G20 nations to follow Canada's lead and make the same government spending reductions necessary to reduce their debt ratios as well.

In today's very competitive global marketplace, it is important that our manufacturers continually upgrade their productive machinery and equipment to make use of the most efficient and up-to-date technology. Utilizing the latest processes improves the quality and marketability of their products, reduces their costs of production and makes them more energy efficient.

Our government understands these realities of modern business. That is why I was very pleased to see that in budget 2013, our government is providing an additional $1.4 billion in tax relief to job creators through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment.

This is very good news, especially in light of the Prime Minister's announcement of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. Our manufacturers now have very good reason to want to invest in new plants and machinery as they ramp up to take full advantage of the unprecedented access to the more than 500 million European consumers that the CETA agreement will provide to Canadian producers.

The extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance could not have come at a better time. Our government understands that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. More Canadians are employed in small businesses of less than 10 employees than in any other size of business.

Many of my neighbours in Mississauga are new Canadians. They have come to Canada from every nation in the world with skills, drive and ambition, strong work ethics and a determination to succeed. However, most new Canadians do not find work in the ranks of large industrial corporations. More often than not, they start their own small businesses and create work for other Canadians.

That is why I am happy to note that budget 2013 will extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses. An estimated 560,000 employers will benefit from this measure, and it is expected to save small businesses about $225 million in 2013.

I have been told by many small business owners that this has helped them to expand, and with the signing of the CETA agreement, these entrepreneurs will be able to meet the new opportunities created by opening European markets to our goods and services.

Investments in public infrastructure create jobs, drive economic growth and provide a high quality of life for families in Mississauga and every community across Canada. Mississauga and Peel region have benefited greatly from investments made by our government since 2006 in transit, roads, water treatment, a new celebration square, improvements to community centres, libraries and pools, a new instructional centre for University of Toronto Mississauga and a new Mississauga campus of Sheridan College, among dozens of other projects.

Mississauga and other municipalities have been asking for long-term predictable infrastructure funding. Budget 2013 delivers this certainty for the next 10 years by providing more than $53 billion in predictable infrastructure funding.

This represents the largest and longest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history, including a community improvement fund of $32.2 billion through gas tax fund payments and the GST rebate for municipalities to support community infrastructure projects that will improve the quality of life of Canadian families; a new building Canada fund of $14 billion to support major economic infrastructure projects; a renewed P3 Canada fund of $1.25 billion to build infrastructure projects faster through public private partnerships; and over $10 billion in investments in federal public infrastructure.

Canadians know that our Conservative government believes in keeping families strong. Budget 2013 contains several key measures to help Canadian families, including enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the unique costs associated with adopting a child, and supporting palliative care services.

Canadian businesses succeed globally and are well poised to take advantage of the new opportunities created by unfettered access to the European market by continually innovating and commercializing new products and technologies. Our government is supporting them by improving support for Canada's aerospace industry by investing almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, which will benefit important Mississauga employers such as Pratt and Whitney Canada and Honeywell.

All of these measures and more will ensure the future economic prosperity and security and quality of life for the people of Mississauga and all Canadians. For these reasons, I am pleased to support Bill C-4 and encourage all hon. members to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga—Erindale for his speech. Unfortunately, however, he still believes in magical thinking.

The member is contradicted by the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. In a recent speech to the Economic Club of Canada in Toronto, Tiff Macklem clearly stated that Canada's exports have fallen dramatically. In fact, they remain $35 billion below their pre-recession peak and more than $130 billion below where they would be in an average export recovery.

In fact, the observation that the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada made was that many Canadian exporters have gone bankrupt or have turned to the domestic market.

I would like to know how my government colleague can deliberately turn a blind eye to such a dire situation.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is forgetting that Canadians export not only products but services as well. In fact, the Canadian service sector is very large and growing every day. The good news about the Canada-European Union trade agreement is that it also includes free trade for services.

When we take that into account, we will find that Canada is doing very well indeed. That is why Canada has created over one million net new jobs since the bottom of the recession. That is why it is leading the G7 in job creation. That is why the economic future of Canadians is very bright indeed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is fairly well established that one of the greatest expenditures a province has is in the whole area of health care. One of the greatest voids or vacuums that is out there is any form of leadership on the health care file coming from the Prime Minister and the Conservative government.

In fact, we all know the health care accord expires in 2014, yet there has been zero effort from the Prime Minister and the government in trying to address the need to replace the health care accord.

This issue is very important to every Canadian. No matter where they live in Canada, Canadians are concerned about the future of health care. They want to know that health care is going to be there for them and their family members.

When we take a look at budget implementation or the priorities of government in dealing with the budget, we wonder why the government has not taken the opportunity to be very clear and make a solid commitment in the form of renegotiating a health care accord that would take us into the next decade.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course health care is very important to every Canadian, but I find this a bit rich coming from a member of the Liberal Party, which cut $25 billion out of health care transfers to Canadian provinces and put the health care system in Ontario at great risk. I can speak from personal experience on this.

I find it bizarre that he is asking me about our government's spending on health care when our government has, first of all, restored the $25 billion that the Liberals took away from health care transfers. We increased the health care transfers for 6% every single year and we continue to do so. Those negotiations are ongoing.

No government has ever spent more on health care funding than this government.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mississauga—Erindale for his speech and, in particular, for mentioning the improvements that our city, Mississauga, has seen through various economic action plans over the years. He has been in the House longer than I have, so I think he knows a bit more about the history, but I do see every day, when travelling through my riding and the hon. member's riding next to mine, that there have been many benefits to Mississauga.

Could the member perhaps give us a few more details about some of the infrastructure projects and some of the improvements that the economic action plans over the years have given to Mississauga?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her great question. She is doing a wonderful job representing the people of Mississauga South. Of course she knows, as I do, that Mississauga has received funding from the federal government for approximately 250 projects across the city, which is completely unprecedented in Canadian history. Never has the City of Mississauga received more funding from the federal government. In fact, the former Liberal member of Parliament for the riding that I represent said that in the 13 years she was a member of Parliament, the federal government invested a total of maybe $15 million in one project in the City of Mississauga.

Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time to go further, but I know that my colleague knows of many of these projects. Everywhere we go in Mississauga, we will see improvements that the federal government has invested in there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my comments to today's debate on Bill C-4, a piece of legislation that would create jobs and economic growth in communities across our country, including my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Indeed, today's legislation is part of our government's plan to create jobs and economic growth and to secure Canada's long-term prosperity for years to come.

As a matter of fact, since 2006, our government has been taking concrete action to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong. Unlike the high-tax New Democrats and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in keeping taxes low and leaving more money where it belongs: in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. That is why since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Overall, our strong record of tax relief has helped remove over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. That is not all. It has also meant savings for a typical Canadian family in 2013 totalling over $3,200.

How did we accomplish this? The answer is simple. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes, and more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax; introducing pension income splitting for seniors; reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs; reducing the small-business tax rate from 12% to 11%; eliminating consumer tariffs on babies' clothes, sporting goods and exercise equipment. The list goes on.

It is measures such as these, which leave more money in the pockets of Canadians, that have helped Canada to emerge from the recession in one of the strongest positions among the developed world. In fact, since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, with most in high-wage industries. This is by far the strongest job creation record in the entire G7. Indeed, Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. Contrary to what the opposition leaders may believe, Canada is on strong economic footing.

However, we are not the only ones who think so. Let us see what others are saying. Moody's report on Canada for 2013 states that thanks to its diversity and solid fundamentals, Canada's economy has weathered the post global financial crisis period better than most of its peers.

According to Fitch Ratings:

Canada has a good track record of prudent fiscal management. Its fiscal credibility was boosted by the timely withdrawal of the fiscal stimulus implemented during the global financial crisis and the roadmap provided...to achieve a balanced federal government fiscal position by 2015/16. ...the consolidation path is realistic.

With reviews like these, it is no wonder Canada is one of the few countries in the world to boast a triple-A credit rating from the three major credit rating agencies.

Let us talk a bit about support for job creators. Despite Canada's economic success, we cannot become complacent, and our government understands that. We have repeatedly said that Canada's economy is not immune to economic challenges beyond our borders. We have been and will continue to be impacted by the ongoing turbulence in the U.S. and Europe, among our most important trading partners. That is why the Canada–EU trade agreement is so significant. It will bring an additional $12 billion annually to the Canadian economy, creating 80,000 new jobs and opening up a market of 500 million consumers and a $17-trillion economy.

That is also why economic action plan 2013 focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the future.

Today's legislation contains a number of measures to support job creation and economic growth. This includes extending and expanding the job hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and provide an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013. Bill C-4 would also increase and index the lifetime capital gains exemption. This positive measure would increase the rewards of investing in small business by making it easier for owners to transfer their family business to the next generation of Canadians. Today's legislation would also expand the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation.

That is not all. Our government is continuing to build on our sound economic position by freezing EI premium rates for the next three years. This action alone would leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Despite what the opposition may have us believe, this tax relief would help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustained, business-led, long-term growth. However, do not take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say. Diane J. Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada agrees. She says, “This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure.”

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the “announcement of an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs. This move will keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.”

There is more. Joyce Reynolds, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association's executive-vice president of government affairs notes:

Payroll costs have a significant impact on overall labour costs. They are a barrier to hiring, particularly for inexperienced workers.... We are pleased the government is demonstrating commitment to youth...by holding the line on these profit-insensitive costs.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadian families. I encourage the members opposite to vote in favour of this important measure, which would leave more money in the hands of Canadians.

Canada is leading the world in job creation, with more than one million net new jobs created since the depth of the recession. However, there is work yet to be done. That is why implementing Canada's economic action plan is so important. It is for that reason that I urge all members of the House, and especially the members opposite, to support these job creating measures.

Although, who are we kidding, we all know the opposition will be voting against these measures as they have time and time again. The only thing the NDP seems to support are risky spending schemes and forcing a $20 billion carbon tax on Canadian consumers and job creators. That is more than I can say for the Liberals, who unbelievably do not even have a plan for the economy. They have announced the plan will be released during election mode in 2015. That is unheard of.

It is clear, and Canadians know this, that when it comes to the economy, our Conservative government continues to be the right choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the member has very obediently recited his talking points on this issue, I note that he was very interested in quoting people in support of his statements. I have a quote for him, and I would like him to comment on it. It comes from Michel Leblanc, who is president and CEO of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. He is referring to labour-sponsored funds, for which, as we know, the tax credit for investors will be gradually eliminated, falling from 15% to 0%.

Mr. Leblanc's remarks are as follows:

Labour-sponsored funds are a key part [of our financial ecosystem]. They have invested more during hard economic times. They have helped Quebec perform better. Quebec businesses did not suffer the credit crunch [in 2008 and 2009], as was the case elsewhere.

It clearly states here that abolishing the tax credit could result in the elimination of 20,000 jobs in Quebec and that more than 110,000 jobs have been created so far and are being maintained by the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité.

I would like to know how the member for Sault Ste. Marie can justify this measure, which will destroy jobs in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there have been over one million net new jobs since we formed government, since the depth of the recession. That is what is important to Canadians.

We are going to create even more new jobs with the Canada-European Union trade agreement. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “with the global economy continuing to struggle, such initiatives are more important than ever”. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business applauds the federal government. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives said, “For Canadian consumers, companies and workers, the overall impact [will be] positive”. The Forest Products Association of Canada said, “We welcome this trade deal and appreciate the government’s...push in the area of freer trade”.

This government is working toward jobs. It is positively happening and will continue to happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member is making. One of the biggest concerns Canadians have is with the whole process we are expected to follow with the Conservative majority government mentality, which uses budget implementation bills to corral other legislative initiatives, pack them in and then apply time allocation, thereby preventing due diligence and an adequate amount of debate on a wide variety of bills. In fact, when he was in opposition, the Prime Minister was very upset when the Liberals introduced an omnibus bill that had 100 pages to it. The current bill is 400 pages. In the last session another was 500 pages. We had one that was 800 pages. They are huge bills.

With regard to his thoughts on providing due diligence, how does he justify putting time allocation on a bill that would change so much in terms of legislation? It is not just the budget we are talking about but many other pieces of legislation. How does he justify that to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, at that time I actually was not in opposition. I am a new member of Parliament but that is okay, I am happy to be here now.

With respect to this particular budget—

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

We're happy to have you.

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

Thank you, I'm happy to be here.

Every Canadian had access to pre-budget consultations. In my riding, I held budget consultations. I stood in front of city council and had budget consultations with council members. I gave them the opportunity to speak and listened to their concerns. That is what is incorporated in the budget implementation bill, the concerns of my constituents and constituents across Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for his thoughtful words. I am reminded by not only his speech but the speech from the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, of a good friend of mine that I went to university with, Dr. Brent Weinhandl, a dentist in the city of Wetaskiwin. After the election in, I believe, 2000, when the Liberals somehow won and had no right by our standards to do so, I said to him, “That's it, I'm moving out of here. I can't stand these high taxes. I have the skills necessary and I'm going to move to the States”. I cooled off a little, but the next day I phoned him up and he had already made the move to sell his business and move to the States to avoid the taxes and the gross misconduct of the previous government.

I want the member to talk about the value of the low taxes that we have across the board and also what was in the throne speech about capping spending and legislating mandatory balanced budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. As a former small-business owner in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, I cannot say enough about low taxes. They are so necessary.

For major corporate employers in Sault Ste. Marie, such as Essar Algoma Steel, Tenaris Algoma Tubes, G-P Flakeboard, it is absolutely imperative that the corporate tax rate stays where it is. This is a globally competitive economy. We need to compete and we have a government that understands that.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House to speak to the debate that is ongoing here and to talk about my riding and the economy in that part of our country.

First of all, I want to thank the people of Labrador for electing me as their member of Parliament and for allowing me the great privilege of representing them in the House of Commons of Canada. I also want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues within the Liberal Party and our leader of the Liberal Party for having such a dynamic vision for Canada, for being part of a team that is out there promoting the Liberal values and morals that are the foundation of our country.

I live in a very beautiful and vast region of this country. Even to this day, very few people know of its beauty and the value of its place in our country. It is known as “the land God gave to Cain”, which was coined by an explorer, Jacques Cartier, in 1534. It is a land known for its rugged beauty and distinct culture and as the resource energy house of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a vast landscape that has spiritual beliefs steeped very deep within its roots, and these roots are far-reaching and wide.

Let me give that statement a bit of context as I tell members about Labrador. Labrador's land mass is roughly 300,000 square kilometres. To look at it another way, we could fit the entire provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and the island of Newfoundland within Labrador's borders. This is a good reason so many people call Labrador “the big land”. I do not have to tell my colleagues what it is like trying to travel through my riding when I have to cover that kind of distance over so many different communities, some that are completely isolated, others that are connected by road.

For thousands of years, the indigenous people, including the Innu and the Inuit, harvested the land and the sea for the sustenance and longevity of their communities without much involvement or interference from anyone, including governments. However, as time passed, and through the late 1700s and early 1800s, trading with European companies increased. We have heard a lot of talk about trade with Europe in recent days.

Even back in the 1800s, trading with European companies was starting to increase. More and more, the English and the French began to settle in Labrador, as well as missionaries, including the Church of England, the Methodists, the Moravians, and the Roman Catholics. All of those faiths shared a belief with the indigenous people. To this day, the Moravian and the Roman Catholic churches remain an important piece of modern-day aboriginal culture in many parts of my riding.

Labrador's history is indeed rich and indeed has been very challenging over the years. Labrador was under Quebec jurisdiction between 1774 and 1809, when it was returned to Newfoundland. Quebec disputed the decision until 1927, which is actually just less 100 years ago. It was the British Privy Council at that time that defined the western boundary of Labrador and deemed Labrador to be under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland. There was no vote. There was no referendum. In fact, at no time in our history did anyone ever ask the people of Labrador what they wanted.

That is how the evolution of the great riding I represent came to be today. The political drama of who was to own Labrador did not end there, however. In 1932, the then bankrupt Dominion of Newfoundland was embroiled in a political vote and scandal that saw the resignation of its prime minister, Sir Richard Squires, and the attempted sale of Labrador back to Canada. The deal to sell the big land fell through, and once again, without any input from Labradorians, Labrador was given back to Newfoundland.

As part of the youngest province in our great country, our history's future began to speed up with the onset of World War II. The Canadian Forces base in Goose Bay, now forever known as 5 Wing Goose Bay, was built in 1941. It was used by the United States and Canada during the war that saw thousands of military personnel change the landscape and identity of Labrador forever.

Central Labrador is now the hub of that region. It is where south meets north and west connects east. Labrador is home to roughly 30,000 people, with approximately two-thirds of them living in western and central Labrador. Western Labrador is where some of the largest and richest iron ore deposits in our country are. In fact, it has some of the largest deposits of iron ore in North America.

The natural resources available in Labrador have caught the world by storm. At no other time in history has there been so much international attention and interest in the region, from iron ore to nickel to hydro-electric power, not to mention the natural gas and oil that is being discovered off the Labrador coast. All of this development and exploration has had many effects on Labrador and on Labradorians, some of them positive and some of them negative.

What this progression has done for our province on the world stage is have a direct and undeniable effect not only in world markets but on the future of our aboriginal people.

Labrador is home to three distinct aboriginal cultures. This adds to the colourful tapestry of our history and our lineage. As I alluded to earlier, for thousands of years, the Inuit and Innu travelled throughout Labrador, hunting and fishing and later trading with Europe.

Today the indigenous people have made many positive strides in self-governance and preservation and promotion of their own culture. In 2005, the Labrador Inuit Association, the political advocacy group that represents the Inuit in Labrador transitioned to self-government with the formation of the Nunatsiavut government.

Now under the leadership of their president, Sarah Leo, the Nunatsiavut government has direct control over Labrador Inuit lands and has regional governance over five communities in northern Labrador. In fact, the impact of the Inuit in Labrador is far-reaching. In southern Labrador, there is evidence of Inuit settlements and documentation of English and French traders working with and engaging in social activities with the Inuit people.

Today, the NunatuKavut community council, which is led by former member of Parliament, Todd Russell, represents some 6,000 southern Labrador Inuit and continues to press the provincial and federal governments for their own land claims, self-government, and recognition. I will push for them, as well, under Canada's aboriginal self-governance model, because they deserve to be represented as part of the aboriginal Inuit population of Labrador.

We reference Canada as a multicultural country. Labrador being one of the most unique regions of this nation could be considered a multicultural body in its own right. Like the Inuit and Innu of Labrador, we have a deep spiritual and strong practical connection to the land and to the sea. The Innu first nations people, numbering over 2,200, are formally represented by the Innu Nation. They live mainly in two communities in Labrador: Sheshatshiu in central Labrador and Natuashish in the north coast of Labrador.

Since the formation of the Innu Nation, the Innu people have benefited greatly from many natural resource developments in the region, and like the NunatuKavut, the Innu Nation has land claim agreements and impact benefit agreements with both the provincial and federal governments.

The aboriginal peoples, along with the white settlers, who date back nearly 400 years in that area, and the Basque whalers who came from Spain over 1,500 years ago, are the people who chose Labrador as their home. They have all gifted us with their knowledge and colourful history and have shown Labrador respect, demanding only the best from those who govern and real attention from those who choose to be the decision-makers in their land.

This last year, Red Bay, which was the home of the early Basque settlers who came from the old country, was designated a world UNESCO district. I want to congratulate all those involved in making this happen for the community of Red Bay. It puts Labrador on the map of the world so that many people may learn who we really are, not just as Labradorians and Newfoundlanders but as Canadians.

Labrador is also home to Torngat Mountains National Park, which lies in the sacred lands of the Inuit and borders Ungava Bay in the north. I have had the opportunity to hike and camp in the Torngat Mountains. I have witnessed the melting of the glaciers and have seen first hand the impact of modern-day industry on our environment. Those who defy that such things are happening are living in a land that will continue to suffer because of their attitude.

In my treks through the Torngat Mountains, I have had the opportunity to learn the trails of the early Inuit who crossed over from Labrador to Quebec, and yes, I have been to the highest peak in Labrador. The view from there is breathtaking, as it is from all across our country.

Today we are focused on two other famous Canadian landmarks that lie in the heart of my riding of Labrador: the Mealy Mountain national park, which is currently in the planning and implementation phases at Parks Canada; and Battle Harbour, the 17th century fishing village that represents our fishing industry and trade with Portugal, Spain, and France as well as the link for the Newfoundland floater fishery for more than 200 years.

Battle Harbour is currently designated a national historic site, yet it is run by a non-profit board that finds it difficult to continue without core funding. This historic piece of Canada is at risk without the financial support and recognition of Heritage Canada and the Canadian government.

We are a country that takes pride in who we are and in our history. Therefore, we should always make way to ensure that it is preserved and continues to tell the story of a great nation.

As rural Canadians and distinct aboriginal cultures, our challenges as a society are compounded. We have some of the largest developments and exports of minerals, such as iron ore, nickel, and copper, and the largest energy development project in history, on the Churchill River, with another development ongoing that will add 850 megawatts of clean energy to Canada's energy warehouse. We have a fishery with export and harvesting partnerships that we share with the Arctic and other foreign jurisdictions.

We have a tiny population of 30,000 people over 300,000 square miles, but we employ at least 3,000 or more people, other Canadians who fly in and out of Labrador, on a daily basis. We are very proud of our industrial record and of what we are able to contribute to this country from such a small group of people in a corner of rural Canada.

We are Labrador's resources. We are the second largest contributor to the GDP of Newfoundland and Labrador, next to oil and gas, but we lag far behind the rest of the province and country in infrastructure. I ask you why. How could a land of such abundance be lacking in so many ways?

In the 21st century, Labrador is only now being connected by highway. While the northern portion is not yet built and the southern portion is bad, gravel-top road, the Canadian government today that governs this country has not seen its way to designate the Trans-Labrador Highway as part of our Trans-Canada Highway system. This in itself shows the real disregard for our people who live in a rural and northern society of our country.

We are one of the most industrialized regions, contributing millions in tax dollars to the country. We have the largest exports of iron ore of anywhere in North America, yet we do not have cellphone coverage in most of our communities. We do not have broadband or even Internet access. Companies say that this is an investment for governments, for there is no return for them as a private company to build the infrastructure in these northern areas.

The government opposite talks about a break on roaming fees, which is all good, but what about those who have no place to roam in the digital age? What about all of those communities in the rural and northern areas that cannot connect? As Canadians, if we cannot connect, we cannot be full players in the 21st century in this country.

Earlier in my speech, I talked about 5 Wing Goose Bay, the Canadian military base in Labrador whose assets and geographic position make it the primary location for search and rescue and training for the north, including the Arctic regions. This base, 5 Wing Goose Bay, is a valuable Canadian asset that, if mandated appropriately, could be one of the major response bases for training the military and our Canadian Rangers and for search and rescue operations. It could be the staging area to launch our jurisdictional claims to sovereignty in the Arctic. I am asking the government opposite to stop using this military base as election bait and start using it to create real opportunities for the Canadians in this country.

The government opposite has been clouding 5 Wing Goose Bay with false promises, promising the moon but delivering darkness. Show people real respect, I say to the government opposite. Follow through on commitments. Start investing and measuring up to the expectations that it has left with people. They are people who work hard on the ground in the country every day.

I will not relent on this issue because I know the potential is there. If only the naysayers within government would remove their blinders and see the real opportunity that comes with a gift such as 5 Wing Goose Bay.

I could go on extensively on many of these issues. As the House knows, I have spent my life in Labrador. I am the proud daughter of a fisherman and of a mother who crafts from seal skin in a very elegant way. I am the granddaughter of an Inuit woman, and I know the significance of being in a culture that is dependent on the land and the sea for survival. I represent people who are strong supporters of this country and who have contributed so much in building the country we know today. We are northerners. We are rural people. We deserve the same benefits in this country as all other people.

I will work hard to ensure that the economy of these regions is recognized by the government opposite and ensure that these people get the investments they so deserve.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech. I am guessing this is her maiden speech in the House, so I congratulate her on that.

I wish her all the best of luck in convincing the rest of her Liberal colleagues and former Liberal senator Mac Harb on the value of the seal hunt. I wish her well with that. We are pretty solid on this side of the House insofar as supporting rural economies and ensuring we respect those traditions.

The member for Kings—Hants cannot contain himself, so I will ask a question for the member about the member for Kings—Hants, who might be a bit worried about his position as the finance critic, given the great comments from his party's candidate in Toronto Centre if she should ever get elected. This is Chrystia Freeland speaking in the presence of a leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Kings—Hants. Here is what she had to say on jobs:

It is increasingly the case that your job prospects are correlated not with how hard you work, not with how well you did at school, but with the job that your father had.

I find those comments a bit ironic and, frankly, moronic. I just wonder if the new member for the Liberal Party would agree with that sound economic policy from the Liberals' star candidate.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first I am going to say that we take the equality of opportunity very seriously on this side of the House. My colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, has been one of the few people who have stood up in this Parliament on a regular basis talking about what is happening clearly with young Canadians and how they have borne the brunt of the recession that we have experienced in this country. He has talked about the youth unemployment rate. He has talked about the need to reach out and extend more resources to young people all across the country. He has done a marvellous job, and we commend him for that.

On the seal hunt, I want to say this, and I want to ensure it is noted on the record. My father went to the ice. My brothers still go to the ice to hunt seal. My mother has sewn sealskin until her fingers have been sore. To this day she makes a living from making this product. I cannot determine what the views of individual members of Parliament are in this House of Commons or in the Senate. I cannot determine how other Canadians will reflect upon this industry. However, I will tell members that it is a part of who I am, and it is a part I am proud to say I belong to. We continue to promote this industry, we continue to hunt, we continue to use the product and we do so in a very humane way. It is a part of who we are, and we make no apologies for that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the member for Labrador on her speech. I have a history with the hon. member. In fact, she and I visited southern Labrador many years ago when we were both in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature. She sat as an independent at that time, and I do not think I need to tell hon. members here today that she will be as feisty a member in this House as she was in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature for 16 years. I congratulate her on her maiden speech, that being the conventional name for this, although it is probably a little inappropriate given the member's political experience.

I was in southern Labrador recently during a provincial byelection, and I can agree with the hon. member about the road conditions and about the lack of cellphone coverage. Never mind roaming fees or fees of any kind, residents of southern Labrador, and other parts of Labrador as well, just cannot communicate in a modern way, and I know these improvements have to be made and I know the member will continue to fight for them.

I want to talk about search and rescue in Goose Bay in particular. We all know about the tragedy of last year. Is the hon. member aware that the search and rescue mandate of the squadron in Goose Bay was in fact downgraded? Instead of having, as it had before, a secondary SAR responsibility, when the report came out after the tragedy of last year, the military spokesperson said it had no role in search and rescue other than any other military aircraft anywhere. Is the member aware that this downgrade has taken place? What is she prepared to do to help fight to restore that?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. My first election in politics was as an independent member in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature in 1996, and he was at that time the leader of the New Democratic Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we actually shared a wing of offices. We got to discuss many issues back in those days.

I am aware of what has been happening with regard to the search and rescue operations in Labrador. It is really unfortunate that it took the loss of life of a 14-year-old Inuit boy from the small town of Makkovik, for people to start looking at where search and rescue is in this country and how we have not been able to fulfill the expectation or even meet the basic safety requirements to ensure people that comfort in many parts of the country, especially in northern regions of the country.

When that happened, people in Labrador, in Newfoundland, all over the country and in this legislature asked the government opposite to do an inquiry into the death of Burton Winters to see what went wrong. Where did the protocols go wrong? Why was the response system of search and rescue not adequate to respond at that time? Where do we need to make improvements?

We never did get the inquiry. We never did get the investigation. Instead, a government minister, who is no longer in this legislature, flew into Labrador and made an announcement that a third helicopter would be added to provide those services in Labrador. We found out a few months later that at the base in Goose Bay there was no longer a requirement to respond to those search and rescue calls. What was the point of adding the helicopter?

If there is a supplementary question, I will explain the rest of the answer in more detail.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask if the member would continue on in her response. This is a supplementary question to her to finish her answer.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that when the announcement was made that there would be a third helicopter added at 5 Wing Goose Bay and that this would be seen as an improvement to responding to search and rescue operations, we learned two things: one was that protocols got changed and there was no longer a requirement to respond, but we also learned that when the next tragic event occurred, the helicopters were not available. They were down for maintenance, or were unable to be used or had been sent out. There was every reason why these helicopters could not respond.

It is no good to pay lip service when people's lives are in jeopardy. When Canadians need to make the call for search and rescue, someone has to respond. They cannot respond if the human resources and the infrastructure are not provided in this country to do so. That is the reason that our party has been calling upon the government on a daily basis to respond to those needs.

Just recently, my colleague, one of the senators, obtained a DND report through freedom of information, which I had an opportunity to read. In that report it highlighted very clearly the deficiencies that exist in search and rescue in northern Canada and the depleted and worn-out aircraft that are available and their inadequacy to respond in emergencies. It also talked about coastal waterways and response mechanisms of the Canadian Coast Guard and how those need to be improved as well.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, 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 Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs.

Before we resume debate I would also remind members that, with the last speaker, some of the questions and answers were a little long, which was okay, but from this point on we will go back to our normal period of time for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a whole speech planned, and then when I was looking through this document, Dominion Coal Blocks jumped out at me on page 209.

To a lot of people here, the Dominion Coal Blocks probably do not mean a lot, but they are located in my area. I want to give a little history about them and discuss the importance of what is going to happen with the federal government and industry with regard to moving forward on things not only in my area but across Canada.

In 1905 the Dominion Coal Blocks, which are commonly referred to in my area as parcels 73 and 82, were part of lands that were received from the federal government in exchange for the subsidy to use for the construction of the Crowsnest railway, which is commonly referred to now as the Crow rate. The coal blocks were created because of the coal that was found in the Elk Valley back in 1898. As a result of that, this land has sat for the last 107 years more or less on its own, with a bit of forestry and a bit of top burden being used over the years.

The importance of these lands to Canada, British Columbia, and the Elk Valley became evident several years ago, in 2011, the year I was elected to Parliament. The importance of coal with respect to Canada's exports was highly regarded.

The federal government has decided to divest itself of the Dominion Coal Blocks. This is huge for Canada and for the export of metallurgical coal. I want to briefly explain why it is so important.

There are very few places in the world where one can find metallurgical coal, or steel-making coal, as it is referred to. One of the main places that it can be found in the world is in the very southeast corner of British Columbia, in a place called the Elk Valley.

We produce about 1% of the national GDP each year from the export of metallurgical coal, and as a result of that the Dominion Coal Blocks become very important.

The decision to consider selling a portion of the Dominion Coal Blocks is consistent with the government's commitment to effectively use public resources. Private sector ownership of the Dominion Coal Blocks could allow the property to reach its full economic potential and maximize its contribution to growth, jobs, and new investments in British Columbia and across Canada while generating revenues for taxpayers.

It is really important to understand that by selling the coal blocks, not only would we obtain the opportunity to give back to the taxpayers of Canada, but more importantly, we would get to do the three things that we promised we would do as a government: create jobs, grow the economy, and ensure that Canada's prosperity continues to move forward. The Dominion Coal Blocks would do just that.

At this point in time it has not been decided what the final sale price would be. This is very valuable land, with some of the richest metallurgical coal deposits in the world, and as a result of that, it would benefit all Canadians.

Proposals received from foreign buyers will be assessed through a standard bid evaluation process. This would ensure consistency with the new guidelines for state-owned enterprises under the Investment Canada Act announced in December 2012.

That again is very important, because we understand that investment in Canada has to be of a global nature. Most of the coal that we dig out of the ground in the southeast corner of British Columbia is exported to foreign countries to ensure that steel-making companies around the world can continue to provide their products for an ever-expanding opportunity worldwide.

The Dominion Coal Blocks are believed to contain globally significant deposits of metallurgical coal. There is an important distinction between the market for thermal coal and metallurgical coal, which is used to make steel. A lot of people get the two confused. Although thermal coal is of great importance. it is used for heating. Metallurgical coal is used for making steel.

It is important that the Dominion Coal Blocks be released by the federal government.

Coal remains a key input for the manufacture of high-quality steel. As a result, long-term price expectations for metallurgical coal remain relatively strong despite recent price volatility. It is very important to understand that coal prices, especially for metallurgical coal, have fluctuated since 2008. It used to be at $40 a tonne; it is now at $150 a tonne, and two years ago it hit a peak of $320 a tonne.

I would like say that I am splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

The great member for Kitchener Centre.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

The great member for Kitchener Centre. I forgot to mention that.

Part of the Dominion Coal Blocks are of huge value, and they are centred in a great area. Right now, as we speak, Teck Resources has five coal mine operations in the Elk Valley. I would like to provide an understanding of what that means to Canada from the perspective of economics and job creation.

In the Elk Valley, a small community of 15,000 people, about 5,000 people are employed in the coal mines, all open pit. From that, there is a contract with CP Rail, the single largest contract with CP Rail in Canada. Thirty per cent of its gross comes from the Elk Valley. There are 15 dedicated coal trains that send coal from the Elk Valley to Roberts Bank in Vancouver, of which five go in and five come out every day. Each train is worth $2,295,000, which is equal to $11,475,000 a day for each of the five trains that are exiting the Elk Valley. With the Dominion Coal Blocks, it will only mean more for the small communities of the Elk Valley, but what it contributes to Canada and the province of British Columbia is vitally important not only for health care but for schooling and many other of the provincial responsibilities the federal government gives money to.

It is interesting to hear colleagues in British Columbia sometimes call coal the four-letter dirty word. The reality is that dirty word, as I said, is about 1% of the national GDP.

Aside from that, I want to explain that with specific regard to the Dominion Coal Blocks, first nations have been at the table right from the get-go. The Ktunaxa first nations have been there right from the get-go. They will be involved with the entire process and will have jobs in the coal industry, as they do now.

It is very important to understand that first nations are vitally important in my area of British Columbia. I believe they hold a strong, important value to the economic growth of the communities. I would like to applaud the Ktunaxa nation for being able to involve itself from the get-go.

One of the final things I want to say is that all resource development projects in British Columbia undergo a thorough environmental assessment process and face a high degree of regulatory oversight in order to manage and mitigate the environmental impacts. While the sale of the Dominion Coal Blocks would not be subject to an environmental assessment, any future development proposals would be subject to such an assessment.

I cannot say enough about the federal government divesting itself of the Dominion Coal Blocks. For the Elk Valley, it means 20, 30, or maybe even 100 more years of employment for the coal industry. Until we find a replacement for carbon, we will require metallurgical coal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kootenay—Columbia for his speech on what this omnibus bill means for the coal blocks. I had the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I hold him in pretty high esteem.

However, I would like to talk to him about the omnibus nature of the bill and the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, will be left to do all the work. The committee will have to examine this part of the omnibus bill and many others.

Since this is such an important and delicate issue, I would like to know if my colleague believes that it would have been better to separate this part of the bill and allow members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to examine it directly.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Dominion Coal Blocks, from the perspective of natural resources, have been studied since the 1940s, not only by the federal government but by the provincial government. The reality of the situation for the finance committee is that this will bring great value not only to the Government of Canada but to all Canadians and British Columbians. I believe that it is well suited within the bill.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are starting to learn a bit more about what is in the minds of the Conservatives in the budget. With regard to infrastructure, in the budget in the spring they mentioned all these billions of dollars that were going to be spent over 10 years. That said, in Cape Breton we have the CBRM, the municipality, and it puts forward a report with all the infrastructure needs it has. It is all costed and includes timelines.

With great fanfare, we are hearing some announcements on infrastructure, such as the Toronto subway. When can a place like Cape Breton, or CBRM, sit down with the federal government and get some commitment for the infrastructure dollars it needs for the upcoming year? When are the other areas going to get what they need from this infrastructure budget?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the former mayor of Sparwood, B.C., for six years, I know one thing, and that is that we rely on the federal and provincial governments for money, but the reality is that the municipalities had better be shovel-ready when these announcements are made. We promised $2.7 billion in the budget this year for the community improvement fund, which will be rolled out in due course. I strongly suspect that as long as they have projects that are shovel-ready, small communities in Canada will have ample opportunity to ensure that they can move forward with them, so I would encourage the member to tell his people to have shovel-ready projects ready.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in this proposal. I am glad to have the opportunity to pose a question directly to the member in whose riding the Dominion Coal Blocks are found.

I think a lot of people were relieved to hear that the federal government was paying attention to the ecological sensitivity of these lands in announcing earlier this fall that not all of the Dominion Coal Blocks would be put up for sale. Those who paid attention will know that this is an area of unique ecological importance and of transboundary importance. In fact, the United Nations has spoken of the critical importance of restricting mining in the area because of any threat to the waters in Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which at this point is the longest remaining wildlife corridor on the continent.

My question for the hon. member is this: of the 20,000 hectares in the Dominion Coal Blocks, how much will the federal government set aside to ensure ecological integrity, and not sell to metallurgical coal development?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of what is referred to as parcel 82 is subdivided and will be guaranteed to have no mining extraction from it. The part that flows into the Elk River drainage will be open for mineral extraction; the part that flows into the Flathead drainage will be protected from any mining at all. Lot 73, which falls north of parcel 82, will be open for bidding.

The member brings up a very valuable response. It is important for Canadians to understand that in this very interesting part of the country, heavy industry works very well with the environment. We have learned how to play well in the sandbox. We have some of the best ecological areas in all of North America and we are working side by side with heavy industry. It is in things like this, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said, that we can agree that there are certain areas that we just cannot touch. We have come to understand that in the Elk Valley, and we are very proud of it.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of budget implementation act No. 2. This act would ensure that important provisions in budget 2013 would be implemented.

Before discussing the highlights of the bill, I want to mention the government's plan for balancing the budget and I also want to mention Canada's economic success. This government has an effective plan to balance the budget by 2015. It is a challenging task, but achievable. As with budget 2013, the bill would help the government to achieve financial sustainability.

World leaders, of course, are very interested in Canada as a result of our government's example and our economic success. Canada leads the G7 in job creation, in income growth and in keeping debt levels low. Canada is among the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating.

The government's continued sound fiscal management will generate continued respect, but despite our strong financial performance, there are still challenges that we must face. The United States is experiencing ongoing difficulties. The European Union is continuing its long upward climb.

Last week's historic trade deal between Canada and the European Union shows our government's determination to seize international opportunities for Canada. The government must reduce its deficit so Canadians will be encouraged to do the same. We must practise what we preach.

The deficit was a justified response to the 2008-09 economic recession, but it must be temporary. By 2015, the government will balance the budget and will introduce legislation to encourage balanced budgets in the future. This will ensure that in normal economic times there will be concrete guidelines for returning to balance after any economic crisis.

With an aggressive debt to GDP target of 25% by the year 2021 and a plan in place, this government is on the right track. I am proud that the government, during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years, remains recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. I am very proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance.

The bill will deliver real solutions for Canadians and it reflects the goals of reducing the country's deficit and returning to balanced budgets. I want to highlight three aspects of the bill that I am particularly pleased with. I will elaborate on how the bill would support job creators, close tax loopholes and also respect taxpayer dollars.

Job creation is especially important to me as the representative for Kitchener Centre. BlackBerry, based in Kitchener—Waterloo, has suffered losses over the past couple of years and some of my constituents are on the hunt for jobs that match their highly talented skills. We enjoy some business incubators which support start-up companies and these include the renowned Communitech and also programs at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, world-class leading centres of education.

As Canada's small business week wraps up tomorrow, I am grateful to say that this bill would extend the hiring credit for small business. This would benefit 560,000 job creators across Canada, and hundreds of those job creators are in my region of Kitchener—Waterloo. With over one million jobs created since the depth of the global recession, this hiring credit would create even more places for the bright minds of Canada's future.

The bill would also freeze employment insurance rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone. EI costs employees and employers hard-earned money. When I look at small businesses employing just two, three or four individuals, I see that this freeze will help owners to balance their books just as the government is balancing its books.

The government will also help the environment through the expansion of the accelerated capital cost allowance to include investments in clean energy generation. I was very pleased to see this. It adds to the government's existing investment for small business which is given through a small business financing program offered by Industry Canada and by loans offered by the Business Development Bank and by grants from the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.

Achieving clean energy solutions is a priority. The challenge business owners face is to secure initial capital to develop those long-term solutions. Finding cost-efficient clean energy solutions is critically important for our future and developing those solutions takes extensive research.

As a long-time member of the environment committee, I am always looking for ways to ensure a sustainable future. Job creators will be encouraged to continue looking for clean energy generation through the accelerated capital cost allowance measure in this bill.

I am confident that Bill C-4 will benefit small businesses, start-ups and job creators in Kitchener Centre over the next number of years based on these new initiatives.

A second focus within this bill is closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion. I want to highlight the importance of these measures.

Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that the bill would ensure that everyone would pay their fair share of taxes. When everyone is paying their fair share, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and creates incentives to invest in Canada.

The government will introduce new administrative monetary penalties and offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

Although this government will always keep taxes low, we insist that all citizens pay all of their required taxes. Heavier penalties will force wrongdoers to use proper software and pay what they owe.

The government will also close more tax loopholes related to money transfers to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. It has already introduced rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans. There is also an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions.

Finally, the government will extend in certain circumstances the time for the Canada Revenue Agency to reassess taxpayers who fail to report income from foreign property.

The third point that I will highlight are measures to respect taxpayer dollars through initiatives introduced in March, scheduled to be rolled out upon budget approval. For example, by modernizing the Canada student loans program with digital communication, the government will deliver efficient ways for students to pay down their debt quickly and to apply for loan approvals or extensions sooner.

Another timely measure in economic action plan 2013 are steps to prevent abuse of the temporary foreign worker program, abuses which concern my constituents. The program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians were not available. It was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace Canadian workers. The reforms brought forward in the spring budget stem from the government's ongoing review of this program.

The budget would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits, enabling immediate action against employers who did not comply with the rules. These changes would also require that employers using the temporary foreign workers program pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes made to the program to remove unintended incentives to hire foreign workers. These reforms would ensure that Canadians would always be at the front of the hiring line.

Other measures will deliver important savings for Canadians. The fact is that many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than in the United States. By removing tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, budget 2013 will ensure that difference is reduced.

We can all be pleased that budget implementation bill No. 2 delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and still balancing the budget by 2015.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. I ask that members vote yes to this bill.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his speech.

A little earlier today, the President of the Treasury Board had a hard time answering one of the questions asked by my hon. colleague from Pontiac regarding how the Conservatives are changing the designation of essential services for Canadians in Bill C-4.

The definition of essential services will no longer be decided on jointly by workers and the government. Instead, the government will unilaterally decide which services are essential.

My question to my colleague opposite is simple: what services will the government designate as essential?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's preamble really quite surprising. I have known and watched the President of the Treasury Board for many years and I find him to be not only very articulate but, as with all of the ministers on this side of the House, very hard working and very dedicated to the best interests of all Canadians. I look forward to working with him for many more years to come.

The reality is that everything a government does is subject to law, to judicial interpretation and to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although I have some experience in law, I do not pretend to be an expert, not nearly as much of an expert as my colleague opposite is on labour unions and their rights. I suspect she is an expert.

The courts pretty well jealously look after charter guarantees, freedom of association and that labour rights are protected accordingly. I expect that any decision made by the government to designate an essential public service will be based on real need and quite justifiable to the courts or anyone else.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we noticed that the government has these logos or terms that it likes to talk a lot about, such as the economic action plan, job growth and long-term security.

The government takes the slogans it develops and literally spends millions and millions of dollars, in excess of half a billion dollars, in advertising, trying to get Canadians to think that these are wonderful times.

The most popular petition I have been tabling is one that affects seniors. It is on the government's decision to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. If the economy is doing so well, why is the government so determined to make the change by increasing the age of retirement for seniors?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say, considering the question came from a member of the Liberal Party, that there is nothing that can compare to the $1 billion the Ontario Liberal Party wasted on moving gas plants. That member and his party have nothing to complain about when it comes to the question of government expenditures.

On the question of changing the age of retirement, it may have escaped the member's notice, but when the original OAS scheme was introduced in the 1960s, the average life expectancy was around 72 or 73 years. Consequently retiring at age 65 meant something entirely different than it means today when the average life expectancy is more like 83 or 85 years.

The costs of supporting someone through a longer retirement are just an economic reality. As much as the third party and the NDP might wish to ignore economic realities, a responsible government cannot. Also, the demographics have changed. People living longer and healthier lives means that there are more seniors who need to be supported by fewer people still participating in the working economy.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my charming colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It is my privilege today to be able to speak to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. I am not privileged because of the quality of the bill, which still leaves something to be desired. I am privileged because so few parliamentarians will be able to debate this bill.

Just this morning, in fact, in the hours following its introduction in the House, the government imposed time allocation on Bill C-4.

After forcing us to wait a whole month before resuming work by proroguing Parliament, the Conservatives decided to bring in a time allocation motion that prevents members of Parliament from speaking to this omnibus bill. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to move time allocation on the bill in order to fast-track the debate. However, this bill is not just a simple legislative bill.

By means of Bill C-4, the Conservatives are trying for the fourth time in two years to escape the scrutiny of parliamentarians and the public. They are trying to get major changes through Parliament without sufficient study by Parliament, despite the fact that some of the amendments in Bill C-4 are meant to correct mistakes they made in their big rush to pass the last omnibus bill.

I will be voting against Bill C-4 both because of its content and because of the process used, which I feel is wrong. The New Democratic Party will not support the Conservatives in their attempt to avoid parliamentary oversight. The bill contains many extremely complicated measures that deserve to be studied a great deal more attentively.

The government before us today is worn out and negligent. The NDP refuses to play the Conservatives’ game. We must take Parliament and our institutions seriously and act accordingly.

Taking advantage of the introduction of Bill C-4 to amend through the back door a number of measures that are not even related to the budget shows a total lack of consideration for Canadians. The government is trying to make major changes secretly and without consulting those who will be affected by those changes.

I realize that the Conservatives are not really crusaders for consultation, but they should take the time to listen to what Canadians are saying. Canadians are giving serious consideration to what is currently happening on Parliament Hill. They are losing confidence in the political class, and the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing to help them regain that confidence quickly. I am highly critical of the government’s lack of study and I am deeply worried about the consequences it may have for our country. It greatly undermines action by Parliament.

I would like to highlight a few examples to clarify my point, and I would like to start with the frontal attack on the rights of workers. For the President of the Treasury Board, it must be absurd for the government to have to negotiate and deal with workers in good faith. Please let me explain.

First, the designation of essential services to Canadians would change with Bill C-4. At present, workers and the government decide in tandem what an essential service is and what it is not. Now the government wants to make the decision about essential services on its own.

How does this affect workers? Well, it is a direct attack on the right to strike. Essential services are services that must be made available to Canadians during a strike. The repercussions of this decision are extremely serious.

With the proposed changes, unions cannot call a strike if public servants designated as essential by the government are involved. Who is designated as essential, though? This question has gone unanswered. I even tried to get an answer from my Conservative colleague opposite who just spoke, and he was very good at being evasive.

My colleague from Pontiac tried to ask the President of the Treasury Board about this in question period earlier today. He refused to answer. We heard absolutely nothing.

Another major change to workers' rights is the change in the definition of the word “danger”. A worker who does not feel safe in his workplace can inform a health and safety officer of his concerns. Bill C-4 changes the definition to imminent danger or serious danger. What do these new changes mean? What tangible effect will this have on our workers? These are valid questions.

Furthermore, workers will no longer contact their health and safety officers about these problems. Instead they will contact the minister's office. Will he work 24/7 to respond to workers in danger? Will it be more difficult for them to exercise their rights? Will there be more accidents in our workplaces? The official opposition is truly worried about the health and safety of Canadian workers.

What worries me the most is that these measures that I just spoke about, which affect the rights of workers, have absolutely nothing to do with a budget implementation bill. What are the Conservatives playing at?

In conclusion, I would like to briefly mention the direct attack that the Conservatives made on francophones throughout Canada. Once again, I will provide some explanation.

I would like to quote an article by Marie Vastel that was published in the October 24 issue of Le Devoir. It says:

When the government introduces any major legislation, it holds a briefing for MPs, senators and their assistants in order to explain that legislation. Usually, simultaneous translation is provided and officials then answer questions in both official languages. However, such was not the case on Tuesday, when the briefing on the budget implementation bill that was introduced that same morning began in English only.

The government was giving a presentation on a bill that is over 300 pages long, the fourth mammoth bill that the Conservative government has introduced, and there was no simultaneous translation from English into French. It was an NDP member whose mother tongue is French who stood up during the government's briefing and asked for the French translation, saying that the bill was extremely complex, that it was over 300 pages long and that she did not understand the details. After she spoke up, there was some commotion. In the end, another English MP spoke up and said that someone would have to translate so that the member could understand. People left the room in protest and the government finally decided to postpone the briefing to Wednesday, which was yesterday. The briefing therefore began after Bill C-4 was introduced in the House.

The opposite never would have happened. There never would have been a briefing in French without simultaneous translation into English. That would never happen. Honestly, I am a bit surprised that it took so long for them to react. I cannot believe that this happened. Some MPs speak English, others speak French. Those are our two official languages, and this demonstrates a lack of respect, not only for the Quebec nation, but also for francophones across the country. I am extremely disappointed in the way Bill C-4 treats Canadians.

This bill touches on many areas; we could go on for days. This bill affects more than just workers' rights. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is given new powers, and I have yet to find the link between that and a budget implementation bill. It affects unions' venture capital funds. It addresses the mistake of increasing taxes on credit unions and so on. There are even changes to the Supreme Court. It makes no sense.

I want to say, once again, that I am extremely disappointed in how the Conservatives opposite are treating Canadians. I look forward to seeing how the voters will treat them in 2015.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. However, I take issue with the fact that she is making the statement that this is not fair to people across Canada, including Quebec.

There are 800,000 persons with disabilities in this country who are ready, willing and able to go to work. In this budget we are funding the program that will assist those people in finding jobs and match them to jobs. Is this something in her mind that is fair to the people who have disabilities in this country, especially persons in Quebec who have disabilities?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while talking to my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, I tried to take notes as quickly as possible.

It is good to mention people with reduced mobility. In my opinion, it is extremely important. There is a great deal of consultation on the subject. I also think that most of my colleagues have talked to people in their riding about the tax credit for persons with disabilities

I have a question about that. Can someone explain to me why the Conservatives have eliminated training on the tax credit for persons with disabilities? They are concealing information. We are compelled to distribute information everywhere, because the government no longer wishes to make information available on this. Playing cat and mouse with the Canadian people does not lead to good outcomes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to the comments of the member regarding the idea of the bill preparation and what should have been done.

I think she is quite right in her assessment that many people, if not most people, would feel offended by it. If I was going to a bill debriefing and everything was provided only in French, being primarily Anglophone, I would be quite upset about it, and that should be vice versa. We are in fact a bilingual country. Given the nature and importance our of budgets and how much time the government had to do the job right, I would have thought that presenting the bill as well as the supporting documents in a bilingual format would have been an absolute given. I would ask the member to provide some comment.

We noted that the day on which the bill briefing was taking place, we actually had the time allocation notice given. We did not even have a complete bill debriefing before the government introduced time allocation. I wonder if the member could provide some comment on that, as well as the fact that we have the bill under time allocation today.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. He touched on a number of extremely important subjects I raised in my speech.

For example, he said that simultaneous interpretation was not available at the briefing for parliamentarians. My colleague represents a constituency where many Franco-Manitobans live. In his riding, that probably made some people’s hair stand on end.

The comment I could make relates to the fact that there is still a time allocation motion on an omnibus bill that is more than 300 pages long, and the two official languages are not being respected. This is something extremely important to bring to the attention of Canadians. We have to tell them what kind of respect the Conservative government has for the people of Canada. I do not believe there is much to add on this subject, since the actions of the government in the House speak for themselves.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, which is of extreme importance to Canadians and Quebeckers.

We are living in critical times. It is time for us to have a productive debate here for Canadians. The situation is critical. I will explain why it is extremely important to discuss this bill without having a time limit imposed on us. Canadians need us today, and they expect us to take action because their indebtedness and that of young Canadians are at critical levels.

First of all, I want to say how disappointed I am with everything the government has done since its throne speech. Today is the first time I have had a chance to rise, and I am doing so under a guillotine. I know that the Conservatives will cite all kinds of reasons for that, in particular that this bill must be passed extremely quickly.

However, the situation is so serious that the government has no reason not to allow a fair and democratic debate in the House of Commons.

I really believed, but wrongly so, that the Conservatives would take the summer and the additional month to reflect and perhaps even consider the importance of democracy and respect for democracy. However, this bill shows that exactly the opposite is true.

This is the fourth omnibus bill. We know how the Prime Minister shouted and tore his shirt when he was in opposition and the Liberal government tried to introduce omnibus bills. Unfortunately, that was then and this is now, as they say.

This bill is 300 pages long and amends at least 70 statutes, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. We can already see the government’s bad intentions.

It is introducing a budget that, on the whole, attacks workers' rights, amends rules respecting the Supreme Court, and so on. There is not much about tax evasion or young people, for example. As for the government's new approach, it leaves something to be desired.

This is really a shame for democracy and for the Canadians and Quebeckers who are supposed to be represented here. This government's scandals and mismanagement are so unimaginable I no longer know where to turn. I do not even know where to start.

This is a failure. The government's economic plan is a failure. Instead of tackling household debt, it attacks workers' rights and the family itself. However, it is not focusing on the real problems. For example, the Conservatives are going to leave us with the biggest deficit in Canadian history.

It is unbelievable how the Conservatives can boast, but they offer nothing concrete. In 2015, Canadians will see how badly the Conservatives have mismanaged the economy. Canadians will see that the Conservatives have left them to deal with the biggest environmental, economic and social deficit in Canadian history. Canadians will have no trouble seeing that record because the figures prove it.

In addition, what is disturbing is that most of the measures in this budget are not budget measures. They amend the rules for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Prime Minister just realized he had to correct his own mistakes.

I challenge any Conservative to rise in the House and show me how changing the rules for the Supreme Court will help Canadian families get out of record debt. Can any Conservative explain that to us? I would really like someone to do that. I can hear them laughing on the other side. I do not think this is funny.

Today, my colleague from Gatineau moved a motion to remove the appointment of Supreme Court judges from the budget implementation bill.

I sincerely hope that the government will take this proposal to heart, because it is the kind of proposal that must be discussed. However, this should not be done within the framework of an omnibus bill, because these are things that involve our justice system, not our economic system.

The Conservatives never get tired of saying that Canadians know they cannot rely on the NDP to put their needs first and give middle-class Canadians a well-deserved break. However, the NDP’s view of the economy is one in which we maximize opportunities by drawing on Canada’s enormous advantages, in order to give Canadians the best in everything.

We have the best score on the budget, from sea to sea. This is a fact. It is as simple as that. My colleague has been shouting for a while now that I am being rhetorical, but it is a fact. The proof is in the figures. The NDP governments have the best scores in terms of budgets and finance.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I hear my colleague from Manitoba shouting at me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some respect. I would like to be able to talk without being called names by my Conservative colleagues on the other side of the House. Thank you very much. I am entitled to respect when I am speaking. If they do not agree with what I am saying, that is all right, but I do not want them shouting at me when I am speaking.

The gap between rich and poor is growing. We are seeing an increase in the cost of living, because the Conservatives have forgotten about the middle class in all their budget measures.

We are seeing an increase in the cost of living, and incomes are lower than ever and they keep on dropping. Of course, if you are a highly paid executive, there is no problem. On the other hand, what is the government going to tell the people in the Toronto area, for instance, who cannot find stable employment? Will it tell them to take two or three jobs so they can make ends meet? No, that is not what a government should say.

In September, Statistics Canada announced that Canadian household debt had reached an all-time high of 166%. How is it that since 2006 the Conservatives have not been able to do anything to stop this increase?

This means that for every dollar a person has, he or she owes $1.66 on a loan or a credit card.

In 2008, our neighbours to the south in the United States learned the hard way just how seriously over-indebtedness could hurt their economy.

I think it is time to help Canadian families. Economists agree that Canadian household debt is a threat to Canada’s economy. Clearly, under the Conservatives, we are on the path to jumping in there with both feet.

The economic situation is even worse among young people, where the unemployment rate has reached 14%. This means that the next generation of workers will not be able to acquire the experience they need to replace the generation that went before.

Increased unemployment among young people early in their careers, and the precarious household debt situation—I think I have clearly described the critical situation to which I referred in my introduction and about which the government has refused to do anything.

In other words, they are in favour of justice and democracy, except when it does not suit their purposes.

We support various amendments in Bill C-4 that aim at reducing tax evasion. We support those amendments, but we are very concerned that the Conservatives are not paying serious attention to the issue of tax havens and the people and the companies that are not making a fair or just contribution to the Canadian economy.

As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan mentioned, we have here a budget that is once again a direct attack on the rights of Canadians.

As I have one minute left, I would simply like to tell the Conservatives that although they say we just vote against everything, we are only waiting for them to invite us to work with them in providing Canadians with a budget that is fair and equitable and gives everyone an opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, not only the people who are on their side, but all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was truly bowled over by my colleague's praise of NDP governments. One only has to come from Manitoba, as I do. High taxes and rising unemployment are the track record of NDP governments. Thankfully, the people of Nova Scotia saw fit to throw the NDP out after one term. In B.C., they took only one look at the NDP. The NDP was leading in the polls for about a month of that campaign. Sure enough, the voters in B.C. threw them out.

One looks at the track record of hard, left-wing governments around the world. Look at the ruins of Detroit, the chaos in Greece, and entrepreneurs leaving France. Why does my hon. friend still believe in this toxic, outmoded, socialist ideology?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know why? It is because the Minister of Finance has a report that says so.

I would just like to read a portion of a press release:

Tuesday the Department of Finance released its annual Fiscal Reference Tables...the NDP comes out on top as the best fiscal managers...since 1980...with a 44.9% record of balancing the budget. Conservatives come in second, with 40.8% record of balanced budgets. The Liberals score lowest as fiscal managers, with a record of only 25.0% balanced budgets.

Why do I believe so? It is because their own ministry says so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, something the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and I share is that we have a bit of knowledge about the Manitoba government. I served many years with the NDP in government. I could tell you a litany of issues. Do not believe everything you read. That is one of the things I would tell you when it comes to the document you might be looking at.

I could tell you that the most recent debacle in the province of Manitoba from the NDP is with regard to its determination to lie. It said in the last provincial election that it would not increase the provincial sales tax. It was actually the premier, Greg Selinger, making that bold statement on TV. Of course, if you take a look at the NDP budget, you will see that it increased the sales tax from 7% to 8%. I know that this is the government you want to model yourself after.

We can talk about balanced budgets during the one year I was there, when the New Democrats borrowed money to get themselves in a balanced situation. That was one of the weirdest budgets one would have seen. The provincial auditor said that they had, in fact, cooked the books to create that balanced budget.

Given some of the facts about Manitoba that both I and the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette have about the NDP governments in the Prairies, would you consider rephrasing some of your statements?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. We have been back eight days, and already this is the third time I have said to this member that he ought to address his comments to the Chair, not to his colleagues. It happens repeatedly.

There is a reason the rule exists in this place to pass comments through the Chair and that is to maintain decorum and respect in this place. I would ask the co-operation of all hon. members in this regard.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, believe the Liberals hold the record for promises not kept. They can take my word for it.

I remember a prime minister who, one day, in order to get himself elected, said that he was going to reduce the federal tax. I will not name him out of respect for his colleagues, but the member knows very well who I am talking about. This prime minister then explained that unfortunately, he could not do so because the financial situation was too grim.

My friend can perhaps continue to spout Liberal propaganda and draw applause from the Conservatives. This shows clearly that between Liberals and Conservatives, there is no difference. The fact remains that the report issued by the Department of Finance unfortunately states that the Liberals balanced their budget only 25% of the time.

I know it pains my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, to hear it, but the Liberals did not do their homework, while the NDP did.

I know it is frustrating, but that's life.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on some of the key initiatives in economic action plan 2013 no. 2.

Our government remains focused on the economy and creating jobs, all while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. The key to success is balancing the efforts to support job creation and economic growth while respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets over the medium term.

With the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. Canada has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% full time and nearly 85% private sector, since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. This is the strongest job growth record in the G7. Not only that, but both the IMF and the OECD project Canada to have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. In fact, the OECD recently projected that Canada will lead the G7 in growth in 2013.

Our government is also committed to keeping taxes low. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. Since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings for a typical family of four in 2013 of over $3,200. Unfortunately, the NDP opposition thinks that higher taxes are the answer.

Just a couple of weeks ago the NDP leader reconfirmed his party's plan to impose a crippling tax hike on job creators and the millions of Canadians they employ, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy. As if imposing a $20-billion carbon tax on Canadians was not enough, the NDP leader has another multi-billion dollar tax hike he wants to impose. At a time of global economic uncertainty the NDP wants to take over $10 billion each year out of the pockets of Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses to fund big, bloated government schemes. This punishing NDP tax hike would target job creators, especially small and medium-sized companies with a nearly 50% increase in their tax bills.

When I was very young I started working for my father who had his own hardware wholesale business. Small business taxes at that time were crippling for him. While he managed to stay in business for many years, he always appreciated it when governments understood that small businesses were not in the business of feeding the government coffers. Their business is to sell goods and to employ people.

My father ran his own business over the course of 35 years. The periods of greatest growth were during times when business tax rates were reasonable and low. Our current Minister of Finance and our government understand this and that is why we continue to support job-creating businesses, like the one that I worked for when I was younger.

Of course I did not have to apply for the job. I was given the job automatically because my father owned the business, but I still worked hard. The business did well when it was not all about red tape and spending many hours working out the calculations needed to pay that kind of debt to the government. That is why I want to talk about the small business advantages that we are giving them and the tax increases that would kill jobs and stall Canada's economy. Clearly, Canadians cannot afford these risky tax-and-spend schemes. Thankfully, as I said, our Conservative government understands that high taxes are not the answer.

Our government also understands the importance of general fiscal responsibility. Indeed, before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years. This fiscal prudence and impressive debt reduction placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global recession.

When the global recession hit, we were able to respond quickly and effectively with Canada's economic action plan. While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position of any G7 nation. In fact, our net to GDP ratio in 2012 was 34.6%, the lowest level among G7 countries, the second lowest being Germany at 57.2%. We can see the gap there. The G7 average is 90.4%.

While the NDP and Liberals want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015. Our plan to return to balanced budgets is working.

In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. Our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars played an important part in these results with direct program expenses falling by 1.2% from the prior year, and by 3.8% from 2010-11.

Overall, measures taken by our Conservative government since budget 2010 will result in a total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion. This legislation builds on this effort. Bill C-4 will phase out inefficient and ineffective tax subsidies. One example is the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. Indeed, a number of independent experts have recognized this subsidy as being ineffective when it comes to creating jobs and supporting Canadian businesses.

Members should not take my word for it. I will tell them what others are saying about this tax credit, the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

A recent paper by the Montreal Economic Institute says:

All things considered, labour-sponsored funds are financial instruments that fulfill neither their economic objectives, namely to make venture capital available to help Quebec businesses, nor their financial objectives of offering a good return to contributors, their performance being interesting only by taking into account the additional tax credit.

Jack Mintz, a respected economist, said:

These credits have not only been ineffective in generating more venture capital, but they have also helped finance poor projects that should have never been funded in the first place.

He said that in 2012.

The C.D. Howe Institute also recognized that providing tax relief to these funds has been:

...a disappointing use of taxpayers’ money. Such funds have been shown in multiple studies, including this one, to do a poor job of achieving public policy aims.

That is from the C.D. Howe Institute E-Brief of September 2012.

I also want to talk about closing tax loopholes, which is contained in Bill C-4, loopholes and other schemes that only benefit a select few. Closing these loopholes is important because when everyone pays their fair share, our tax rates can be kept low, which makes Canada a more attractive place to work, save and invest.

In fact, since 2006 and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. This will result in $2.5 billion in additional revenues in 2013-14, and more than $2.6 billion in 2014-15. Indeed, the legislative proposals in budget 2013 to close tax loopholes are estimated to raise $100 million in revenue in 2013-14, rising to over $270 million in 2017-18, for a total of close to $1 billion over the next five years.

Shamefully, the NDP has voted against every single attempt by our government to close tax loopholes since 2006. I am not sure why it is doing that. I do not think they understand the importance of the one million jobs that have been created since the depth of the recession.

We understand there is still more work to be done and that Canada is not immune to the kinds of global challenges that come from beyond our borders. That is why we are so convinced that our job-creating measures are important and that we need to continue along this track. That is why I believe the legislation should go forward quickly.

The House may know that I had the good fortune to work with our esteemed Minister of Finance, who has won global accolades around the world for his work, his fiscal responsibility, his understanding of Canada's economy and for making sure that we are leading the G7 on so many indicators. It is difficult to be humble on his behalf. The Minister of Finance is, I believe, responsible in large part for the major credit rating agencies giving Canada a rock solid AAA credit rating. Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's have all given Canada this solid rating. It is something we take for granted. Canadians do not think about that every day. They are able to go about their business knowing that our economy is well looked after by the Conservative government and this Minister of Finance. It is important for Canadians to understand that our commitment to balance the budget by 2015 is an important one. It is ambitious, but we have made that commitment. Ultimately, it enables us to keep taxes low. We have cut taxes 160 times.

Earlier today my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre was talking about her family and the fact that she is not only a chartered accountant but a mother and that she appreciates the measures our government has taken on both of those fronts. I would say too that it is about helping families. We are looking at many countries in Europe that cannot afford to give tax breaks to families. They cannot afford to offer tax credits such as the children's fitness tax credit, which I have taken advantage of with my own children, the new children's arts tax credit and the universal child care tax benefit. These are the kinds of things that help families, putting money directly into their pockets so that they can use those funds for whatever they feel is necessary.

That is the kind of choice we like to provide to parents. We would not be able to do that if we did not have a strong economy. It is all about jobs, the economy and maintaining that long-term economic growth and prosperity. That is why I wanted to speak to the bill today, Canada's economic action plan.

If I might, I would like to compare that to something the Liberal leader said over the summer. I believe it was at the Liberals' caucus retreat. When asked when he would release his plan for Canada's economy, he said that it was too soon for him to be talking about the economy. He did not plan to release that for a long time, possibly a couple more years, maybe before the next election.

It is a good thing that the Liberal Party is the third party in the House, because I cannot imagine a prime minister without a plan for the economy. He has been the Liberal leader for many months now, since the beginning of the year, and he apparently needs a few more years to come up with an economic plan.

I am so proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance in Canada who already have a plan, and that plan is working.

I would be happy to take questions, if there is time, and talk about my support for job creation and this bill's support for job creation and Canada's economic action plan, which is working.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member extols the virtues of the our Minister of Finance. It reminds me of a time when the finance minister sat on the front bench of the Government of Ontario. Many front bench members of the Conservative cabinet also sat on the front bench of the Conservative Government of Ontario of that time.

One of the most amazing things that happened is this, and it underlines the whole narrative, the whole foundation of neo-conservative, neo-liberal economics. When that Conservative government took office in Ontario, a subway line had already begun on Eglinton. The hole was dug. One of the first things the Conservative government of the day did was to spend millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to fill that hole. That is what they did. That is the kind of economics and support for small business that the member extols today.

I wonder if she could speak to the disconnect between her speech and the reality of the economic policies of this government?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about disconnect for a moment. I lived through the dark years of Bob Rae from 1990 to 1995. Some days I wonder how we did it in Ontario. Those were dark days. I do not believe Ontario had an AAA credit rating. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite. If there was a ZZZ tax rating, that is what Ontario—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I appreciate that there is genuine enthusiasm for what the member for Mississauga South has had to say, and I am sure she would love the opportunity to address the question from the member for Davenport.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I relish the opportunity. I worked for the illustrious Conservative premier who Ontario elected in 1995. Ontarians were waiting for election day in 1995, so that they could throw out the NDP Bob Rae government. In fact, I think the exact same thing happened in Nova Scotia recently. It has been proven that NDP governments do not work.

Speaking of subways, I wish I could talk a little more about subways, because there was a great announcement in Toronto of $660 million to build a subway. I know the member for Scarborough Centre is so pleased about that. So are many other Torontonians.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm for my colleague that, yes indeed, they have thrown out the NDP government in Nova Scotia.

Our Liberal leader has certainly outlined the tremendous opportunity we have in the economy of Canada and a platform that we will bring forward as the Liberal Party. One of the main planks in this platform that she needs to realize is paying down the huge debt that has been accumulated under the Conservative government. It has increased the debt by $150 billion since it took office.

The Liberal governments in the past have paid down a debt of $150 billion in our country once, and we are poised to do it again. It will be done through the economic initiatives that will be announced by the Liberal leader. I want to make sure that the hon. member knows that.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I do know is that when the Liberals are in power they balance the budget by cutting transfer payments to the provinces. That might be the easy way of doing it, but that is not how we are doing it because it is not the right way. When it is done that way, it hurts children, seniors and families. That is not how we are going to balance the budget.

I imagine that if the Liberals have a plan, that must be their plan. Let us hope Canadians do not fall for that, because that is not the right way to balance the budget.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very touched by the comments of the member for Mississauga South when she talked in terms of growing up in a family business and what that meant to her.

It made me think about the opportunities I had, not so much in a family business. My dad was a pretty poor truck driver from Holderville, New Brunswick, and my mum was from Cape Breton. Our family was born out there, so we never had quite the same opportunities, not that opportunities are not there on the east coast, but my parents moved to Upper Canada and some things happened from there, so we have carried on in this family business tradition.

Appreciating the importance of family business, and I am thinking of how small business can survive, what does the member feel this budget would do to help small businesses to grow, because those folks are the real job creators in this country?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for sharing his story. Maybe he could confirm by a nod whether the town was really called Holderville. It is excellent that the town was really called Holderville.

It sounds as if my friend and colleague understands small businesses too; for example, what a great advantage the hiring tax credit is to 500,000 businesses in Canada. We are talking about people who need a job, want a job, want to work hard and want to put food on the table and be able to do their fair share in their communities.

Our policies, initiatives and budget and this economic action plan allow them to do that. That is why I am so proud. It fits in nicely with what I did when I was growing up. It fits in with the kinds of values I learned through hard work and the fact that my father ran his own business for almost 40 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also grew up in a family business and I appreciate some of the points overall. I have been listening to speeches all day and the references to job creators, to businesses. Right now we have very low corporate tax rates, lower than other countries in the OECD. As a result, the corporate profits from any company in the U.S., they now have transferred those corporations paying taxes to Canada to paying taxes to the United States.

Economists, everyone from Mark Carney, our former bank governor, to the RBC economist looks at what has happened. Corporations are not reinvesting that money in hiring Canadians. They are not job creators. These deep tax cuts are where jobs go to die. It is now called dead money. Over $600 billion in dead money, an astonishing 32% of GDP, is not being used by those corporations to create jobs to invest in Canada to modernize.

I wonder when the Conservative Party is going to recognize that this is a failed strategy and that there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that its strategies are creating jobs.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree that there is no empirical evidence. The evidence is in the numbers, over one million net new jobs created. We talk about it a lot because it is really important. We are talking about lowering taxes for small business. We are talking about lowering taxes 160 times for ordinary average Canadians.

If my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands does not believe that lowering corporate taxes for businesses creates jobs, then we do have a fundamental disagreement. I think that when government takes away from the bottom line of corporations or businesses, they are going to look into reinvesting that and expanding. When they expand and reinvest, they need to hire more people. That is how it works, and that is why we lower the taxes.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

This is another example of a missed opportunity for the current Conservative government in terms of job creation and in terms of accountability and transparency. It really underlines the mean-spiritedness in which the government participates in the process of bills and law-making in this House.

I have been listening very carefully to some of the debates and comments from my hon. colleagues on the government side, and it is almost as though they live in this fantasy world where they give the greatest gifts to the wealthiest corporations and keep saying over and over what neo-conservatives have been saying for 30 years, that these wealthy corporations will just trickle that money down like manna from heaven and we will all just be fine.

I listened with particular interest to my colleague from Mississauga who talked about her father's small business. I also listened to the member across the way, who grew up in the town named after him, talk about his family and small business.

Where I come from in Toronto, small businesses are one- and two-person operations. Small businesses are operated out of people's kitchens and basements. Small businesses are a mother and father working 12 or 13 hours a day running a store on Bloor Street. They are looking for some relief and what they are hearing is that the government has been doling out these wonderfully handsome tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations in Canada, who are not investing back into the economy but are sitting on the money. There is nothing in this bill that deals with one of the most significant issues of our time, and that is how we deal with the explosion of precarious work in our society.

In Toronto, in the GTA right now, in the member's riding of Mississauga South no doubt, almost 50% of workers cannot access a full-time, stable job. That is an outrageous statistic, which should engage this entire House, not just because it is my city but because it is an outrageous statistic. We are letting down and failing workers, and in particular we are failing young workers.

This budget implementation act, which would again throw in more than 70 law changes with everything but the kitchen sink in here, has not a single thing to address precarious work in our society. We listen to the rhetoric of job creation on one hand and we see the stats on the other hand where 15%, 16% or 17% of young people are unemployed, and that is the official rate that does not include those who have given up and those who are working very marginal, part-time jobs. This is the reality for so many urban workers: precarious work. People cannot find a full-time job. We are talking about folks who are now working as independent contractors.

The Conservatives are so consumed, almost obsessed, with their attack on organized labour that they cannot understand that people who run a small business want customers to come in. Those customers actually have to make a living wage in order to spend some of their money in the store. This is what the Conservatives do not understand. They do not understand the realities of urban workers today. They do not understand the reality of small business today.

We proposed many measures that would make it easier for small business owners to deal with their business.

We have a consumer program this government has borrowed some ideas from. They should actually take the whole thing. We would be willing to give it to them, because there are some excellent ideas, and they would actually deal with some of the main problems small businesses face with things like transfer fees for credit cards at point of sale, and that sort of thing. These are the issues many small businesses bring to us, which is why we have brought our proposals to the Canadian public on some of the very important issues for small business.

This is a government that, along with the Liberals, pillaged the employment insurance fund to the tune of about $57 billion and that is making it harder for Canadian workers to access the program to which they contributed. This is not the government's money. It is workers' money. We have legions of workers who cannot access basic employment insurance, basic income security, in times of need. Those times of need for many people are right now.

The Conservatives talk about job creation. They never talk about the kinds of jobs they are creating. In the GTA, we have a preponderance of $10.50 an hour jobs. I do not know, and I would be interested to find out from the member from Mississauga, if people in her riding could live on $10 an hour. Could they pay their rent? Could they raise a family? Can people raise a family on minimum wage in Toronto or in this country? The answer is absolutely not. It is very difficult. That is why people are working multiple jobs. It is why the fabric of our society is in such turmoil. It is because people in our large cities are working day in and day out just to survive. It is impacting on people's health.

We now know that precarious work adds incredible stress to the body. We have not calculated the health care costs of ripping the support from under workers today. I do not see that calculation in this.

We have not seen the government actually focus any attention on youth employment. The other day, the minister said, in answer to a question on precarious work, that if young workers have a problem in their workplaces, they should complain to the various tribunals out there. They are putting the onus on young people who, right now in Ontario, for example, are graduating, on average, with about $37,000 of debt. Then they are being welcomed into a workforce where they are either offered jobs that do not pay any money, as interns, or piecemeal jobs. They cannot get into the fields they studied for. The other day the minister said that they could blow the whistle on their companies if they feel that they are being treated poorly.

We are failing young workers. The government has utterly failed to address some of the key issues that affect urban workers. The fact is that too many people cannot access a workplace pension. Too many of us cannot access any kind of workplace benefit, and there is absolutely no job security for urban workers. All the bill does is make it worse.

The member from Mississauga talked about key tax cuts that would reap benefits for all Canadians, but what we are seeing in reality is that the tools the government uses to deal with the economic issues have just made things worse.

Bill C-4 is the fourth attempt in two years by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. Canadians are watching. They want to see the government and this place function the way it is supposed to, which is with proper scrutiny. This side of the House, the official opposition, is doing its job. We would like to see the Conservatives start to do theirs.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Davenport specifically about jobs.

Does the member know that of those million jobs, roughly 90% are full time and that these are jobs created not by government but by individuals who run their own businesses and understand the importance of creating jobs?

I understand that good wages are important, but I also understand that at some point, you have to have that job and be able to move up. It is about having a job and then supporting your family. I want to know what the member's plan is to make it better that we are not doing. What would he do differently?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the first priority of our plan is to get rid of the Conservative government. That is the first step.

To the member's point, people come into my office who are working full time through a temp agency. Do you know how much they are making? They are bringing home $8.00 an hour. One cannot live on that.

If you want to talk about full-time jobs, come to Davenport and talk to people who are working in temp agencies and find out whether you can live on $8.00 an hour. Come to Davenport.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the chair.

The hon. member for Davenport, should he wish it, will have two minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on the question.

It being 6:04 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on our economy and the second budget implementation act of our government's economic action plan 2013. The implementation of these remaining provisions would have a tremendously positive impact on the lives of all Canadians. While many of the changes in Bill C-4 are technical in nature, many provide clear benefits for all Canadians.

Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy, helping to create jobs, balancing the budget and reducing the cost of government. We are achieving this with the longest-serving Minister of Finance in the G7 at the helm, who is providing Canada with strong fiscal leadership, management and responsibility.

Our actions have not gone unnoticed. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's most sound for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its AAA status in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid, and they are sustainable.

Canada is on a strong economic footing. Since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, mostly in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in the G7 over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, with close to 85% of those in the private sector. Also, the growth levels are above pre-recession levels, as I stated.

Jayson Myers, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, had this to say:

We have a strong Canadian dollar because investors around the world want to put their money into Canada. They see a better fiscal environment, a strong financial sector, and the strength of the resource sector.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax cost, which includes corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property taxes and wage-based taxes, is more than 40% lower than in the United States. In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Earlier this week, the media were reporting that last year's federal deficit came in at nearly $7 billion lower than projected. This is an undeniable sign that our government is on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, a promise we made to Canadians back in 2011.

As many Canadians are now aware, our government recently reached an agreement in principle on a free trade agreement with the European Union. This historic agreement will create thousands of jobs for Canadians and give Canadian business access to half a billion new customers. This is the biggest deal so far in Canadian history, and may be remembered as the biggest trade agreement that Canada has ever signed. The Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement will open new markets to Canadian exporters throughout Europe and generate significant opportunities for all Canadians.The benefits of this agreement are equivalent to creating 80,000 net new jobs, or increasing the average Canadian household's annual income by $1,000.

On the first day that the agreement comes into force, 98% of all European Union tariffs will be eliminated, directly translating into increased profit and opportunity for Canadian businesses of all size and in every part of our country. Whether a fisherman in Atlantic Canada, a forestry worker in Quebec, an auto worker in Ontario, or an engineer in the west, each will benefit from this agreement. Jayson Myers went on to say that, “This is the Wayne Gretzky of trade deals”.

Canada's automobile industry, to name but one, stands to benefit tremendously from this deal. Currently, Canada exports approximately 13,000 vehicles a year to the European Union. This agreement will increase that number up to 100,000 units annually. It goes without saying that this increase in annual exports will have a direct correlation to the number of jobs in the Canadian automobile industry, undoubtedly adding hundreds, if not thousands, of employees to Canada's vehicle, equipment and parts manufacturing companies.

Kevin Williams, president of General Motors of Canada, had this to say:

We applaud Canada and the European Union for completing a modern, high-standard comprehensive economic and trade agreement that will provide enhanced opportunities for growth in both regions. We appreciate the hard work to find creative solutions that improve market access for Canadian-produced automobiles, while ensuring Canada continues to benefit from the integrated manufacturing sector that has developed in North America over the past 50 years.

Supporting small business is something our government takes very seriously. Small businesses make up to 98% of businesses in Canada, all of which are in the midst of celebrating Small Business Week. It makes me tremendously proud to speak about how this bill would provide support for Canada's job creators. This bill includes in it a number of key measures to support business, including extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. Approximately 560,000 small businesses will benefit as a direct result of this measure. We are also increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 and indexing it going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption will increase the reward for investing in small business.

In response to the global recession, the government froze the EI premium rate in 2010 at the lowest level since 1982. We are again freezing EI premium rates, this time at 2013 levels, for the next three years. With this freeze in 2014 alone, we are leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and Canadian workers. This tax relief will help provide employers, especially small businesses, with the certainty and flexibility that they need to keep growing.

Since forming government in 2006, our low-tax plan for Canada has allowed for small business to see their tax bills drop by 34%. Corporate income taxes have been lowered as well. In fact, Canada currently has the lowest corporate income tax rate in the OECD, as I referred to with regard to the KPMG report. That is a carrot that is more powerful and effective than any marketing campaign in attracting foreign investment to Canada.

In recognition of the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy, the bill also announces extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors for an additional two years. This will provide the sector with support of $1.4 billion over four years for retooling, and will enhance competitiveness and economic growth and enable manufacturing and processing companies to plan and invest over the coming years.

We are delivering a new $53 billion building Canada plan to invest in Canada's public infrastructure over the next 10 years. This will create jobs, promote economic growth and provide a higher quality of life for families in every city and community across this great country. One of the new building Canada plan's three key funds, the community improvement fund, has had a direct investment in my riding of Don Valley West, by providing just under $1 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The funds are being used to renovate, and eventually reopen, the CNIB's pedestrian bridge, which has been closed since 2011. This bridge is essential for patients, visitors and employees to safely cross one of Toronto's busiest streets.

I will wrap up by saying that this bill puts forth a number of measures that are meant to respect taxpayers' dollars. While the opposition is busy focusing on issues that do not matter to Canadians, our government remains focused on the task at hand. We continue to look for ways to increase the efficiency of the inner workings of government and making sure that job creation and economic prosperity are at the forefront of any new legislation. With that in mind, this bill would make significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member who just spoke on Bill C-4 is wearing the poppy, like I am, and as all of us should be in these weeks before Remembrance Day.

I know the member, and I know he is sincere in wanting to honour the men and women who served our country with such courage and made such tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the Government of Canada and, more importantly, on behalf of all the people of Canada.

However, in Bill C-4, we have changes that adversely impact those very veterans we are honouring by wearing the poppy. Bill C-4 reduces the number of permanent members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, from 28 to 25. If we are going to be serious, we need to address the fundamental issues with respect to the board.

On this side of the House, my NDP colleagues and I, and in particular the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, have been advocating for a very long time that we replace the politically appointed board with a medical, evidence-based, peer-reviewed process for making decisions on veterans' disability applications.

I want to ask the member a question. He, like us, is wearing the poppy in this House today. Will he not do the right thing, honour veterans and vote against this bill that takes away services from Canada's men and women in the armed forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of Don Valley West being home to the largest veterans home and hospital in the country. That is Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, which has a veterans wing with 450 residents who fought in World War II and the Korean War.

I do support and applaud our veterans. I had the privilege this past week of hosting seven veterans from Sunnybrook Hospital for lunch on the Hill. It was the first time that they had taken a tour of this great facility.

Our government believes in our veterans. These are the people who have provided us with freedom and democracy in this great country. I applaud them, and I support them.

I also encourage the member to recognize that we have increased access to service for our veterans, whether at home or through offices across this country. I will vote for this bill. I support our veterans and will continue to do so.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my caucus mate for explaining to Canadians the benefits of this particular part of Canada's economic action plan.

I listened when he was speaking, particularly with regard to small business people, who are the principle generators of Canada's gross domestic product. I wonder if the member could expand on what this bill means to people in small business, who are hiring anywhere from 2 to 55 people in order to keep this country going, and expand our ability to trade, not only in Canada but with the rest of the world. What are some of the benefits to small business in this bill?

I wonder if the member could expand on that for the benefit of people who are watching and listening today.

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

Mr. Speaker, small business is the lifeblood of this country.

I come from a small business background, as does my colleague. As we celebrate Small Business Week in this country, we applaud those who take risk in small business through personal hard work and hard-earned investment.

To the member's question with regard to the opportunities in front of us, we will be opening up a market of 500 million new consumers. Small business from coast to coast to coast will have access. EI tax credits specifically give small business the opportunity to invest in their employees and create an environment of stability and sustainability.

However, do not take my word for it. Let me read what Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had to say:

Overall, this is a good budget for small business. [The finance minister] has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada's entrepreneurs. [...] We're particularly pleased the government publicly acknowledged taking some of these measures—such as the expansion of the EI Hiring Credit—at the recommendation of CFIB's...members.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the EI issue, which the member spent quite a bit of time discussing.

An EI freeze for the next couple of years would create an incentive for business and workers. It would reduce costs in business. It would put money back in the pockets of our workers.

I wonder if the member would be good enough to explain why she is against job creation and sustainability in small business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Clearly, what we are also seeing is a major move on the part of the Conservatives to control workers and unions.

In Bill C-4, we see that the Minister of Finance is given the power to manipulate the setting of rates. The Conservatives, in fact, have now completely broken their promise to have an independent and accountable body oversee employment insurance funding.

The government talks about and champions transparency, and forges ahead saying that it is the government that stands for greater accountability and much more transparency. Unfortunately, that is not at all what we are seeing here and these are not at all the principles that this government claims to have guaranteed.

Clearly, this amendment in Bill C-4 will simply prevent workers from having meaningful access to their unions and, at some point, will clearly and specifically prevent them from having any access to their premiums.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her excellent speech. She is always ready to stand up for her constituents and for workers in general.

On a number of occasions, she emphasized how completely absurd, irresponsible and anti-democratic it is to table such a lengthy bill and to allow parliamentarians so little time to study the repercussions of all the amendments to the 70 acts, not to mention the two new acts, contained in Bill C-4.

The Conservatives say loud and clear that they are standing up for workers. However, as we read the bill, we see clearly that they are continuing their attack on employment insurance.

Could the hon. member provide more details of the attack on the public service? She discussed it briefly, but we must understand the dangers and the concerns that lie in store for workers in terms of their right to present cases and in terms of the unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

First, I would like to go back to Bill C-4, another omnibus bill that deals with technical changes.

Clearly, this is another smokescreen, but we have not been taken in. It does not hide the fact that Bill C-4 really is trying to slip in major changes with no real prior consultation.

Once more, we are seeing a complete lack of democracy and of debate. Debates in this House have become impossible, and all workers, all Canadians, are having a hard time with that.

We are talking about major changes to the public service. A huge number of our workers will be affected by this tired old government's latest moves to take control of all our institutions at all costs. It really is unacceptable.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and speak to economic action plan 2013.

I rise in the House to better inform not only members here but more specifically Canadians on the impact that the act would have and the key measures in economic action plan 2013, as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate the economy and secure long-term prosperity across our great nation.

I am pleased to first address our government's continued reduction of Canada's deficit. This past Tuesday the Minister of Finance introduced the “Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada” for 2012-13. The report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13 the deficit fell to just under $19 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, or $7.4 billion, from the deficit just last year, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. This shows that we are still on track to balance the budget by fiscal year 2015-16.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide support for job creators. Since 2006 our government's top priority has been the economy and job creation. We are extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers right across this great country of ours.

Currently, there are thousands of jobs available across Canada that are unfulfilled. In fact, CIBC World Markets stated in a report in December 2012 that 30% of businesses in Canada are facing skilled labour shortages. In addition, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated in its “Business Barometer” report that 34% of small and medium-size businesses identified a shortage of skilled labour as a constraint to their growth.

Difficulty in hiring has increased over the recovery and is becoming a key issue for employers in some sectors and regions of our country. In particular, persistent pockets of unfilled positions exist for skilled tradespeople and professionals such as electricians, millwrights, carpenters, machinists, heavy equipment operators, engineers and architects, just to name a few. The hiring credit for small business will continue to bridge that gap.

In recognition of the importance of small business owners, farmers and fishers, economic action plan 2013 proposes to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing. The exemption also helps these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement and facilitates the intergenerational transfer of their businesses.

From speaking with farmers in Northumberland—Quinte West as well as small business owners, whether they be at the corner store, an insurance agency or many other businesses, this is their RRSP in addition to the money they have been able to save, and in some instances it might not be that much. This is their future. This is their ability to be able to retire after a lifetime in some cases of working from about 5:30 in the morning until about 8:30 to 9:30 at night and sometimes longer.

Furthermore, to provide support to job creators, we are freezing employment insurance premiums for the next three years. This will leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Economic action plan 2013 would ensure that the government will promote education in high demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and math. It is critically important for young Canadians to have access to information on a variety of careers in order to make informed choices about their education early in their lives. Making good choices early can help ensure that young Canadians obtain the skills and experiences necessary to find work quickly, avoid unnecessary debt and get a better start to their careers.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes to reallocate $19 million over two years to help inform young people about the fields of study that are relevant to the existing and forecasted demand for labour in particular occupations. The government would provide more information on job prospects and the benefits of working in various occupations and it would develop new outreach efforts to promote careers in such high demand fields as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as the skilled trades.

Economic action plan 2013 would help break down youth employment barriers. This past June, in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West, a community training and development centre in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity Northumberland received over $90,000 from the skills link program for one of its projects. The skills link program is part of the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy. With annual funding of approximately $300 million across Canada, the youth employment strategy helps youth, particularly those facing barriers to employment, obtain career information, develop skills, find jobs and stay employed.

If I can go back to the Habitat for Humanity program that I am referring to, the particular Habitat project in question is called the “Faith Build”. For the benefit of those outside of Northumberland, who are unaware of this particular build, Habitat for Humanity wanted to build one housing unit for a worthy family. Of course, we know that Habitat for Humanity depends on a lot of volunteer help. Madelaine Currelly, who works at the community training and development centre, was successful, as I mentioned, in obtaining a $90,000 grant. Ten young people who were experiencing barriers to employment were hired to work on this project, utilizing this $90,000. Today, I am told that the vast majority of those young people are now working in full-time jobs because they obtained the necessary skills and experience on that project.

In addition to pre-existing funding, economic action plan 2012 invested an extra $50 million to enhance the youth employment strategy with a new initiative that connects young Canadians with jobs in high demand, and helps them develop tangible skills and gain work experience. Economic action plan 2013 proposes an additional investment of $70 million over three years to create 5,000 more internships.

Furthermore, our government not only assists youth in finding jobs, it also assists young scientists and engineers with the launch their businesses. Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation launched two initiatives in collaboration with FedDev Ontario, the Spark Centre and the IDEAHUB in Port Hope. Scientists and engineers in business provide matching performance-based grants to graduates of science, technology, engineering or math, or as we refer to them, the STEM programs.

The CFDCs offer free business counselling and financing for small and medium-size enterprises for start-up and expansion, strategic planning support for local projects and community economic development in rural areas right across our great country. Economic action plan 2013 would continue to fund programs such as the Community Futures Development Corporations, which promote the growth of science and technology, as well as other fields.

Manufacturing in Ontario must increasingly seek to become more competitive by investing in innovation and moving up the value chain. That is why, in economic action plan 2013, we propose to provide a new, advanced manufacturing fund to be delivered by FedDev or the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.

Firms in manufacturing sectors, including information and communication technologies, life sciences, machinery and equipment, and sophisticated niche sectors are pursuing competitive advantage through the development of transformative products and technologies that open and expand markets. To support the efforts of advanced manufacturing in Ontario to become more competitive, economic action plan 2013 would provide $200 million over five years for the creation of an advanced manufacturing fund. The new fund would support investments by manufacturing firms and activities that create new and innovative products or production methods, such as prototyping, demonstrating projects and advancing product testing.

I am confident that economic action plan 2013 will continue to provide for Canadians, and in the face of global economic uncertainty, keep our economy strong.

I am prepared now to answer any questions and hear comments from my fellow parliamentarians.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He spoke at length about the importance of creating jobs for young people. However, we know that the youth unemployment rate is double the national average for other age groups.

Could the hon. member explain his government's really depressing record? In addition, could he tell us what he thinks of measures such as the one that the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park and I proposed a few weeks ago? This was a tax credit for small and medium businesses to train and hire young employees. I feel that this is a great way to help businesses, and especially young people, whom this government seems to overlook.

Given the importance he attributed to the issue, especially at the end of his speech, I wonder if he might be ready to help us get such an important initiative passed.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, during my speech I mentioned specific instances where we have, through different government programs, shown how we can employ young people, especially those with barriers, those who do not possess the skills necessary to get the jobs that are available. I mentioned the Habitat for Humanity project and the fact that we now have young people who are currently fully employed who probably would not be otherwise.

The hon. member mentioned that youth unemployment is double the average, and he is correct. There are far too many young people who are not employed. However, what he leaves out of that statement is the fact that in the western economies, Canada is one of the best when it comes to youth employment. It is still not where it should be. We readily agree with that, but when he mentioned credits for hiring people, I already mentioned in my speech the hiring credit for small business, where the Government of Canada provides credits for people who hire workers, and in particular, workers who have the skills necessary.

This government, more than any other government, has concentrated more money in the science and technology fields. Therefore, while the hon. member mentioned some facts, he left out the fact that Canada is doing, compared to our neighbours, fairly well when it comes to youth employment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to change the focus slightly from what the hon. member covered in his speech and just ask him about the measures we are seeing brought forward in Bill C-4 about which he is excited. I have to admit, I have less excitement in the sense of happiness about them. I am concerned that it is becoming too predictable a trend that the bulk of the government's legislation that we see in any session of Parliament is coming to us bundled together with many unrelated pieces of legislation. In fact, over 30% of the government legislation in the previous session of Parliament came in the form of omnibus bills.

These measures, about which my hon. friend is so happy, are ones that I am very concerned about, such as the changes to the Canada Labour Code, changes to the public service act, changes to the Supreme Court Act. These have nothing to do with one another or with the budget. Would they not have been better handled as separate bills?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that during the lead-up to the last election, the Green Party candidate in my riding said that the economic policies of the Green Party were very conservative in nature. Yet I noticed the voting record of the only member of the Green Party is pretty close to 95% to 100% of that of the New Democratic Party. The policies of the Green Party are very democratic socialist in nature.

She mentioned that we have these omnibus bills and we need to talk at length about all the things that happen. My constituents tell me they are tired of a bunch of politicians who talk and talk, and very little gets done. I tell my constituents that we are getting things done, that we have had more private members' bills in the history of this country happen under this government, that we get things done such as the economic action plan, that our place in the world, especially in the G7, is at the top of the heap and not where we want it to be quite yet but getting there. They tell me that they want to see action taken, not more talk from a bunch of politicians here in Ottawa.

I am happy that we get things done and that we do not sit here babbling ad infinitum about things that are not really of interest to average Canadians. They want action, and that is what they are getting from our government.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill, which, as you know, the Liberals will oppose.

I would like to address three issues. One is the fact that it does nothing for middle-class families. Second is the omnibus nature of the bill. Third are issues related to immigration.

The basic problem with this bill is that, really, it does nothing for the middle class in Canada.

This is an important issue, because the middle class is really struggling. It is only this week that the Bank of Canada came out with a radically more pessimistic projection for the Canadian economy. We know that the youth unemployment rate is twice the national average. We know that there are 224,000 fewer jobs for young people today than there were before the recession. We know that Canadian debt levels are at a record level. It is about $1.6 dollars for every dollar of income, which is considerably higher than it is in the United States. We know that tuition fees have been going sky high way faster than the rate of inflation.

We know all this, yet I do not think the government does anything significant to address these fundamental issues facing middle-class Canadians. Yes, the Conservatives would extend the hiring credit, but that is just the status quo. Yes, they would refrain from further increases in employment insurance premiums, which they had for the last three years, to the tune of $600 million per year. They would freeze them. They should have frozen them for the last three years as well as for the next two years, because this is a job-killing tax. A time of economic weakness is not the time to increase EI premiums.

Yes, the books have to be balanced over the longer term. Economists agree with that. However, that does not mean that we have to have increases in premiums every single year during a period of economic hardship. The fact that the Conservatives have increased those premiums in each of the last three years has done damage to the economy and damage to jobs.

There are many other details, but the fundamental point is that middle-class Canadians are struggling, and this budget implementation bill has essentially nothing to provide assistance or to provide hope to those people. At best, it is the status quo with little that is new or novel or helpful to help the Canadian economy at this time of weakness.

The second issue I would raise is the question of omnibus bills. This is a bill of 308 pages with 472 clauses.

We are fully aware that the problem with this kind of bill is that it goes against democratic principles. Neither the House nor the committees of the House have had the time to study the provisions of this bill. This has been a problem since this government arrived and it continues to be a problem.

Another aspect of this problem is that mistakes are made.

One example of mistakes I would mention is the question of credit unions. In the budget, the Conservatives proposed a major increase in taxes on credit unions. This bill has a decrease in taxes on credit unions, but that is only because they made a mistake the first time around. They increased the tax on credit unions radically more than they intended. That was a mistake partly related to the omnibus, complicated nature of the bill, and now they have to undo that mistake.

They throw in corrective measures regarding the Supreme Court, which have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is an important issue for Canada but one parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to study in any detail.

The last point I would like to make has to do with immigration, which is currently and recently one of my responsibilities. There are two aspects I would like to mention. The first is potentially positive. It is the idea that new economic immigrants would first write a letter of interest, and then the government would decide whether those people were likely to have the skills and qualifications to match the needs of Canada before they were allowed to make a formal application. Other countries have done this. To some extent, it makes sense, in principle. However, here is a case where the devil is in the details. How would the government implement this? Which people would be advantaged? Which people would be disadvantaged, and according to what criteria?

This is where the regulations and the details of the proposal, which are absent from the bill, have to be studied in detail by the immigration committee to see whether the proposal, which in principle maybe makes sense, will in practice make sense, given the way the government plans to implement it, which is something we do not yet know.

The last issue I would like to mention is perhaps the most egregious, the most serious, in the area of immigration. It is the dramatic increase in waiting times for family class immigrants.

Over the last five years, we have seen those waiting times double, triple, and quadruple. In the case of China, the average waiting time five years ago, in 2007, was seven months. In 2012, that had ballooned from seven months to 39 months. In other words, the average waiting time has gone from just over half a year to more than three years. China is not alone. For India, the waiting time has tripled from eight months to 24 months. The situation is at least as bad, or worse, for Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and many other countries.

Many new Canadians come into my office desperate, often in tears, because they are waiting interminably for their spouses, their children, or their parents to be allowed in. The waiting times keep growing and growing. The government said absolutely nothing about this issue in the throne speech except a modest amount of self-praise, if one can believe it, for its treatment of family class immigrants. There is nothing in the budget to correct this egregious situation.

As one who represents Canada's most diverse community, Markham, I know very well from the day-to-day work in my office that this is a huge issue for new Canadians. It is not only the waiting times to be reunited with children, spouses, or parents. It is also the denials for parents or grandparents who want to come to attend the weddings of their grandchildren or funerals in the family or other important family events. They keep being turned down, for no apparent reason.

This is a sin of omission, not of commission. There is nothing in the throne speech and nothing in the budget bill to address this problem, which is of huge concern for all the new Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious economics question for the member. A lot of us in this place talk about economics. The member for Markham—Unionville is one of those who is actually qualified to speak to it, having achieved a Ph.D., having taught at four universities, and having been the former chief economist at the Royal Bank.

I am curious about his views. We keep hearing the mantra that cutting corporate tax rates, so that Canada now has the lowest corporate tax rate in the OECD, is helping the job creators. However, we are also seeing that our job creation rate is very low. Youth unemployment is 14%.

Current RBC staff are telling us, as Mark Carney from the Bank of Canada pointed out, that low corporate tax rates are resulting in a large accumulated pile of what Carney called “dead money”. It is not going into the economy. It is not stimulating jobs. A current RBC economist says that it is now $600 billion. I believe that is 32% of our current GDP. I wonder if my friend from Markham—Unionville has any comments on this.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her reciting of my various credentials.

I believe that Canada already has a very low corporate tax rate on the largest corporations. I believe that it is something in the order of 25%, when we include both the federal government and the provinces, whereas in the United States, it is something in the order of 39%. There is a huge gap.

In previous election campaigns, we in the Liberal Party said that we did not want to go back to super high corporate tax rates, but we thought that given other needs of the economy, this gap was larger than it needed to be. At the time, we wished to freeze corporate tax rates rather than allow them to go down further.

That was in the past. If we look to the future, I take her point about the proceeds from these lower taxes not always being used to advantage the Canadian economy through investment. There is a lot of what Mark Carney called dead money. Personally, if one thinks of all the possible tax cuts, it seems to me that the cut in corporate tax rates to the low level it is at today would not be among my top priorities. I do not think there is a great deal of evidence that the cuts we have seen to date have had a major positive effect on investment and jobs in the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre says amen to taxes. The Liberal member over there is talking about corporate taxes. He thinks they should be reallocated. In fact, Stephen Gordon, an economist who runs the Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, has actually pointed out that a low corporate rate lends to better productivity and eventually higher wages for skilled workers. There are some very good benefits there.

I would also like to remind the member that when corporate taxes are raised, the people who are able to manage the taxable amounts they pay to the treasury are corporations. He refers to dead money. The market will actually allocate where those resources can be best put to use. It is not dead money; it is called savings.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that my hon. friend over there is guilty of what one might call selective Conservative listening. I certainly never said that I was advocating an increase in corporate taxes. What I said was that among the options for lowering taxes, I would put corporate taxes fairly low on the list.

It was not I who talked about dead money. It was the governor of the Bank of England. His name is Mark Carney, who, the member might remember, used to be the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is hardly a railing socialist or communist, yet he was the one who used that expression with regard to Canada's corporate sector.

There are only a limited number of dollars available. If we have very low corporate tax rates, we have to have other kinds of higher taxes or lower social spending. There is only so much money in the pot. We have to make choices. My point was that taking corporate taxes to the point where they are some 14 percentage points lower than they are in the United States may not be the best allocation of limited Canadian resources.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

This act would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013. It would also implement certain previously announced tax measures that will help create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Canadians have come to rely on our Conservative government to remain focused on the priorities that matter most to them: creating jobs for hard-working families and economic growth for local economies in all of Canada.

Since the depth of the global economic recession, Canada's overall job growth record remains the strongest among all G7 countries. Our government's plan for jobs and growth has helped contribute to the creation of more than one million new jobs, and we are on track to keep creating jobs and balance Canada's budget by 2015.

However, we also recognize that the global economy also can be volatile. We sympathize with those who are still struggling to find a job and we realize we are not immune to what happens outside our borders. That is why our government is working hard to implement positive job-creating measures from economic action plan 2013. These includes tax breaks to help small businesses create jobs, the Canada job grant to help get more Canadians trained and into skilled jobs, the largest-ever federal investment in job-creating infrastructure, new tax relief to help our manufacturing sector, and much more.

Nowhere is it more apparent that we need more skilled Canadian workers than in my riding of Prince George—Peace River. In fact, several local employers have come to me to express their increasing frustration with their inability to fill jobs because they cannot find workers with the right skills. Meanwhile, there are also far too many Canadians out there looking for work. That is why so many employers within my riding are looking forward to the full implementation of the new Canada job grant.

The Canada job grant would provide $15,000 or more per person in combined federal, provincial, territorial, and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. Once fully implemented, the grant will help nearly 130,000 Canadians each year to access training at eligible institutions such as community colleges and trade union centres. This new program will ensure that Canadians have the skills employers are seeking and that employers are able to fill those key jobs.

In addition to the new Canada job grant, economic action plan 2013 is investing in skills and training for Canadians by reducing barriers to apprenticeship accreditation, supporting the use of apprentices in federal projects, and strengthening training support for persons with disabilities.

Building on these important new job-creating measures, we continue to remain focused on Canada's long-term prosperity by introducing economic action plan 2013 act no. 2. As we all know, small business entrepreneurs are big job creators, responsible for nearly half of all private sector jobs in Canada, and are a key driving force in making Canada a leader on the world stage.

We also know that to help create jobs, we must also help businesses. That is why Bill C-4 introduces more positive job-creating measures for small business entrepreneurs. One important measure is extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business for one year to help employers with the cost of new hires.

In addition, we will promote stability and predictability for employers and their employees by freezing employment insurance premium rates for the next three years. This will leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

We have also included measures that will increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 and index it going forward. This positive measure will increase the rewards of investing in small business by making it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation of Canadians.

Manufacturers and processors are also major contributors to our economy, employing approximately 1.8 million Canadians in a wide range of industries across Canada. A strong manufacturing sector also helps create jobs among suppliers and contributes to innovation throughout the economy. That is why in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2 our government is strengthening the competitiveness of this sector by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. This measure will allow businesses in Canada to face current economic challenges and improve their long-term prospects by adopting new and innovative technologies to increase productivity, thus helping businesses to compete globally while creating jobs in all regions of Canada.

These initiatives demonstrate our government's clear commitment to support small-business entrepreneurs to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians in all communities, like those in my riding of Prince George—Peace River.

At the same time, we understand that we must also respect Canadian taxpayers' dollars. Whether on job creators, hard-working families, or any other Canadians, low taxes are a crucial part of our economic success. Our Conservative government has cut taxes over 150 times, including income taxes, the GST, and business taxes, and we are justifiably proud of that record. Because of our actions, the average family is now saving over $3,200 a year. Economic action plan 2013 would take further action to support Canadian families by eliminating tariffs on babies' clothing, sporting goods, and athletic equipment.

Canadian seniors are also benefiting from a low-tax plan. In fact, the average senior pays $2,260 less in taxes each year as a result of our tax reductions. The average single senior can earn almost $20,000 a year and the average senior couple almost $40,000 a year without paying a single nickel of federal income tax, one thing that definitely affects my parents.

Small businesses as well are benefiting from our government's tax reductions. A small Canadian private business with a taxable income of more than $500,000 now pays 34% less federal tax than in 2006, equivalent to a tax savings of $28,000 that can be reinvested to fuel growth and job creation.

Bill C-4 would take further action to ensure Canadian taxpayers' dollars are respected by introducing measures to improve the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery.

Economic action plan 2013 also includes measures that would modernize the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery, as well as plans to phase out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

Meanwhile, we remain on track to balance Canada's budget by 2015. Earlier this week, the annual financial report of the Government of Canada for 2012-13 was released. It shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12 and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10.

Our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars has played an important role in these results, with direct program expenses falling by 1.2% from the year prior and by 3.8% from 2010-11. This is just further proof that we are finding savings within government and are refusing to spend recklessly. We will find these savings without raising taxes or cutting transfers to Canadians or the provinces and territories.

These initiatives demonstrate our government's clear commitment to support small business entrepreneurs to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians while respecting Canadian taxpayers' dollars. That is why I am pleased to support this bill, Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments from my colleague from the west.

However, he did talk about creating opportunities in the trades, and if he would go to the front page of the economic action plan website, he would find a link called “creating opportunities in the trades”, where there is a link to a video in which 90% of the people who are getting education in the trades are men and the only education being given to women in the trades is for cutting hair, applying fingernails, and cutting food.

Over on this side of the House, we think that women can do anything that men can do. Why do the Conservatives not think so?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a tradesman myself. I was a carpenter for many years before I got this job, and one thing I will say is that trades are open to both males and females. It is just up to them to decide which trade they would like to enter.

I notice that in my particular trade, carpentry, there are many more females on the work sites today than there were before. Things are changing. Our government would like to see both males and females becoming skilled tradespeople in all types of trades, and we would welcome that in our current economic job market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Prince George—Peace River could expand on measures in Bill C-4 that build on the budget and address investments in communities and infrastructure. We know it is very important.

I know the member has some communities that are very challenged with respect to building up infrastructure. There is a lot of growth and there are some big needs when it comes to moving people and goods around. If the member could expand on that aspect, I would like to hear his comments.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure is a big deal for us in the northeast of British Columbia. I always tell my constituents that we have a big economic engine in the northeast and we need more resources and more infrastructure to keep that engine working efficiently.

The gas tax transfer fund has been well received in British Columbia. We are seeing some changes within our municipalities in the way that funding is being designated, but it is being well received within our part of the province and our part of the country, as I am sure it is across the country. It will provide the much needed infrastructure to keep this economic engine running at full capacity.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the debate began, I have heard a number of government members talking about employment and the economy. This always leads me to the same question, and I still have not managed to get an answer.

I am trying to understand why this omnibus bill contains a provision regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges. My own theory, which many of my colleagues on this side of the House share, is that the process was bungled for the most recent appointment in Quebec. The problem is ongoing and still has not been resolved.

With that in mind, it seems the government tried to create a catch-all budget implementation bill by including provisions concerning the Supreme Court. I still do not see how that is relevant.

Can my colleague tell us why these measures were included? If not, can he tell me whether the government will support a motion that we plan to introduce to separate this aspect from the rest of the omnibus bill?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a colleague from this side of the House said earlier that we are a government that likes to get things done. Including legislation in budget bills is often a way for us to get a lot done in short order.

That has been our Conservative mantra over the last few years: we are a government that does get things done, instead of just having endless debate over issues that we know Canadians want answers for right now. That is why we do what we do in terms of getting legislation through. We see it as an efficient way of passing legislation, as opposed to what the opposition would say.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I are both from the west coast. I would appreciate it if he could give us some insight on how the provisions we are discussing this morning would impact the west coast.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on the economy and on keeping the Canadian economy in general chugging along. Among the things we talked about, the job skills grant is going to affect us greatly and will answer the need, especially in the west, for skilled workers in our workforce. We are already being hit by that need. It is going to hit us even more, and we are responding to that need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which was to be a budget implementation bill but it is much more. It is that much more that has a bunch of us on this side of the House worried about what the government really intends to do. For example, this budget implementation bill includes a redefinition of what constitutes a danger in the workplace.

The definition has been in the Canada Labour Code for many years and is well understood now by the health and safety officers, workplace safety committees, employers and employees and to change it in a manner that will not allow us to have full and fulsome debate is a dangerous practice in itself.

We will not know what the new definition means. The old definition talked about any existing or potential hazard or condition, or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it.

The new definition requires that this danger be imminent or serious. What the heck does imminent or serious mean? To find out, we have to ask the minister. The minister is the only person who is now able, under this legislation, to determine whether something is an imminent or serious threat to an individual, because the government has taken out health and safety officers across the country and replaced them with one individual.

Each and every declaration of a danger to a person in a workplace in Canada now has to be determined by the minister himself or herself. I do not know if the minister has enough time to get to all the workplaces in Canada. The minister is pretty busy legislating companies back to work, so I do not know if he or she has enough time to do that.

It is a very serious measure that is being taken in a budget implementation bill with very limited time for discussion.

The other thing that is happening in the bill is that for the public service the definition of what can be arbitrated, in terms of what we call interest arbitration processes, has changed dramatically. The definition of what constitutes an essential service is now in the head of the minister. It is not in a jointly agreed to by both parties system.

The minister can decide what is an essential service in the civil service. For example, the minister could decide that his or her driver is an essential service and therefore that person would be prohibited from taking any action.

The danger with this kind of tinkering with the existing well-known and well-understood legislation is where it may lead in the rest of Canada. We have police forces, fire departments, ambulance services and paramedic services across the country that rely on an arbitration system to feel as though they are getting paid appropriately for their work and that their terms and conditions of work are dealt with. They are not allowed to go on strike. They are not allowed to exercise what the rest of Canadians have, which is the ability to withdraw their services.

All of those other folks across the country have to be wondering where the heck the government is going and where it will lead the provincial governments that deal with these things as well.

The government has not only redefined what is an essential service and just basically said that the minister can pick and choose what he or she wants it to be, but it has redefined what constitutes the terms under which an arbitrator can decide a collective agreement.

As members will recall from a year and a half ago, or maybe two years, the former minister of labour actually set the conditions under which an arbitrator was free or not free to decide a collective agreement. When it came to Air Canada, Canada Post and CP Rail, those agreements were decided by an arbitrator, except the arbitrator's hands were tied.

If I were in the police force or if I were a firefighter, I would be worried about where this federal government was leading us, down the road of re-defining what could and could not be done by an arbitrator.

I want to talk about this issue, because I am the deputy critic for persons with disabilities. The member for Winnipeg South Centre talked in glowing terms about the fact that the government had made the enabling accessibility fund a permanent feature of future budgets, which is a good thing. The problem is that fund is a Conservative slush fund, unfortunately. I do not mean that any of the groups that receive the money are somehow complicit in this, but 85% of the money goes to Conservative ridings.

Conservatives do not represent 85% of the population of Canada. I think something like 24% voted for them last time. How is it that 85% of the enabling accessibility fund goes to Conservative-held ridings, or if a group or organization is turned down for money under the enabling accessibility fund, all it has to do is have a friend like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that minister will grease palms or whatever it is he has to do to change the decision by whoever made the decision so a group or association can get money out of the enabling accessibility fund?

We do not have any objections to there being an enabling accessibility fund. In fact, it should be bigger than it is, but we would like to see it distributed fairly across the country. I have groups in my riding that have been turned down for enabling accessibility money and cannot fathom the reasons why, because they are not given. There is no sudden decision that a group did not get it because of X, Y or Z. The decision is made that they just did not get it. When we hear that groups in Conservative-held ridings have no trouble getting money, we wonder where the money is coming from.

The other thing I want to say about the budget implementation act is that the government has determined it can add new stuff that was not in the budget. Not only were the issues dealing with the redefinition of what constitutes a danger, the removal of health and safety officers and replacing them with the minister, the changing of the arbitration for the civil service, but a redefinition of what constitutes a Supreme Court justice has been added, someone coming from Quebec. How is that in a budget bill? How is that something that we can think costs money? The Conservatives response, and I understand where they are coming from, but I do not like it, is that it is something that came up just recently, that they have to fix it really quick and that they can rush this thing through and get it done in a hurry.

There are a whole bunch of other things that came up just recently that have not been included in the bill but have to do with money, that have to do with budgets, that have to do with taxpayers and their pocketbooks. The Conservatives talked about them in the throne speech, but they are not here.

The throne speech talked about “pay to pay”. For those who do not know what that means, a cable TV or a cellphone subscriber with any of the big carriers in Canada has to by $2 to get a paper bill. If they do not have Internet to get their bill, they have to pay $2 and the government collects tax on that $2. No wonder it is delaying it because it wants to keep collecting that tax.

Most of the people affected by that are seniors who do not have access to the Internet, who do not have ready accessibility to electronic forms of payment. Not only that, even those people who have opted to get it electronically are now being told that if they want the detailed billing, they have to pay $3 to get it electronically, and the government will tax that. Therefore, there will 15¢ federally and in Ontario another 8¢ provincially going into the coffers of the government every time people pay their bill or accepts the bill in paper. The Conservatives promised to do something about that in the throne speech. Where is it? If they can do things really quick like this, why can they not put this in the budget implementation act?

There is no help for airline passengers. The Conservatives voted almost unanimously, if not unanimously, against Bill C-459, which would have provided a system to help airline passengers from the vagaries of the airlines bumping them off a flight. There was talk about that before the throne speech, but there is nothing in the throne speech or in the budget bill.

There is nothing in the budget bill that is a relief for the 200% increase in cable TV fares that have cable and satellite fees that have taken place since it was deregulated completely by the CRTC. In the throne speech the Conservatives did not even talk about that. They said that consumers would be able to pick and play whatever they want, but at a cost. If I pick a channel, it would cost me an arm and a leg. There is nothing in here for the pocketbook of the ordinary Canadian. If the Conservatives want to talk about pick and play, let us apply it to this legislation. We would like to pick and play those things that are good for Canadians and not have to vote against them, while we can vote against those things that are not good for Canadians. That is the kind of pick and play I would like to see.

We have no relief for bank fees. People from the Syme Seniors' Centre in my riding told me that just recently the banks told them that in order to get a printed statement of their bank account they would have to pay. It is a not-for-profit seniors centre that is trying to struggle through with whatever little money it can get from grants and the rest. It now has to pay to get that statement. It did not used to because it was a seniors centre. Now that it has to pay to get the statement, there is no relief. There is nothing in the budget bill that actually reduces those exorbitant bank fees.

We need to rethink how we do these budgets and not put things in a budget that have nothing to do with budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to answer a question in regard to essential services. He mentioned firefighters and police officers would be subject to this. The Public Service Labour Relations Act is legislation that only applies to those who come under it. Could he explain how he would square the two? It seems to me he is creating some confusion for the people who are watching. I look forward to his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not in fact what I said. What I said was that there were groups of individuals in the country who were bound by the definition of an essential service, and I referred to police, firefighters and ambulance attendants. Those individuals, seeing a change at the federal level, ought to be worried about where that will take us at the provincial level. When the federal level starts re-deciding what can be arbitrated and how badly an arbitrator's hands would be tied, those kinds of indications at the federal level will spring up at the provincial level. We get, “If the feds can do it why can't we?” Those individuals ought to be worried about where the government is taking us.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the government members mentioned that it created these omnibus bills to get things done. I want to ask my colleague if he would comment on this ends justifies the means type of attitude, particularly in terms where the Conservatives seem to divide Canadian workers from Canadians. Canadian workers are the bulk of Canadian citizens. Thus, the attacks they are making on these workers are attacks on Canadians. Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment that the government tends to attack working Canadians. It does this more than any other I have ever seen. The attacks that we find in this omnibus budget bill are attacks on ordinary Canadian workers. I use the term “budget bill” lightly because it really is not a budget bill when the government includes redefining the definition of a danger in a workplace. Those attacks take place in the context of something that the government is saying is a necessary part of the budget bill.

The government wants us to think, and wants Canadians to think, that this is ordinary, regular business, that it is ordinary for governments to throw everything into a budget, including the kitchen sink. It is not ordinary. It is extraordinary and it is extraordinary to limit debate on it. We, as parliamentarians, will not be given the opportunity to say our piece on the matters that the government has added to the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to talk about the catch-all nature of this budget bill. Rather than really talking about the economy, it seems that this bill is actually a way for government ministers to correct the mistakes they have been making from the outset. The Minister of Justice made mistakes in appointing Supreme Court justices? No problem. We can change that in a budget bill. The President of the Treasury Board is a bad negotiator with public servants? No problem. We can change that in a budget bill.

This type of mentality is unbelievable, particularly from a government that says that the economy is its priority. That does not seem to be the case in this budget bill.

I would like my colleague to comment on how important it is for small businesses to have low tax rates. I was looking at the report on the state of the federal government's finances, and I noticed that the tax rate for small businesses has dropped by only 1% since this government has been in power. In comparison, the tax rate for large corporations has dropped by about 20%, if I remember correctly.

Like me, the hon. member is probably a member of the chambers of commerce in his riding. He must understand that this is unacceptable for such a government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question certainly points to the difference the government has made when it comes to big business versus small business.

Obviously, big business has done very well under the government because their taxes have been reduced substantially, to the point where they are now sitting on half a trillion dollars in free cash that they are not investing. The whole point of cutting taxes for the big businesses was that they would create jobs. They did not. The real job creators in this country are the small businesses and they have not received the same kind of tax relief that we would have proposed. The government has not done this for those small businesses.

Those small businesses are the first ones to say that the bank fees they are being faced with when it comes to credit cards, which are not in the budget, are not being addressed by the government. Those small businesses are hurting from those bank fees.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

As members know, the bill is on the budget that was introduced in the spring of this year, and it is a very important budget.

The economic action plans that we have had have really helped the Canadian economy weather the storm of the financial turmoil that we have had around the world. We are also taking some important measures for my own city of Toronto and my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, and I would like to talk about that. However, before doing that, I would like to talk about the broader strokes of why the economic action plan is so important.

First of all, there is the identified need when it comes to skilled people in our economy, the disconnect between the available jobs out there and the people looking for work. We have put in place a plan, through the budget implementation act, to actually make that happen. We will get the provinces to get on board. They have been doing things for a long time now and we have had a lot of feedback from businesses.

The missing stakeholder in all of this job creation when it comes to labour training has been businesses and they have said very loudly, and we have responded to their request, to put in programs that really respond to their needs. That is why we have proposed the Canada job grant, subject to participation by the provinces. We hope that they will see the need and enough businesses will tell the provinces to get on board with that program.

The other big element in the economic action plan, of course, is the long-term infrastructure plan, which is critical. This is the first time that a government has put such a big infrastructure investment plan together. We are looking to invest in the much-neglected infrastructure in our cities, provinces and communities. It is critical that we have a long-term investment in infrastructure, and not just to move people around but to move goods and create jobs. That is why it is an important pillar of the economic action plan, and I will talk about some specific projects in my city of Toronto and why they are so critical.

There is also a recognition that we are now in the 21st century and our economy will be transitioning all the time, more so now than ever. That means there is a needed investment in research and innovation with a focus on the commercialization of all the great R and D that we do in this country, recognizing that once we have a commercialized set of programs, projects and services, it becomes a virtuous cycle of investment. That is the kind of far-sighted thinking that we have in this budget and why I support it so much.

Another important pillar is supporting families and communities. There are a lot of things we need to do to make sure that the costs associated with raising a family are recognized and that the measures we take in our communities to support the raising of families are also recognized.

As well, we have to look at the great successes we have had in our country with our great companies and the businesses that are world players. We have companies based in Toronto and cities across the country that can compete with anyone. They need the tools to succeed on the global stage, and they have been doing that, but they need that extra help from the federal government. In many cases, it is a “get out of the way” for the federal government. There are some measures in place in this budget implementation act that would do exactly that.

Underpinning all of this is an overall plan to return to balanced budgets, which is really critical. We are leading the G7 and most within the OECD when it comes to having a manageable debt to GDP ratio, and we are going to continue with that. We have a plan in place that would reduce our deficit and balance the budget. It is a combination of growing the economy and at the same time not raising taxes, unlike the opposition parties that keep talking about new taxes.

Members within the opposition parties say things like “amen” to new taxes. We are not saying that. We want to listen to Canadians who are saying “keep our taxes low”. They recognize that when they give $100 to the government, far less of that is actually spent on them. There is a big cut that the government takes for its bureaucracy.

Canadians want to keep their taxes low and in many cases they want to deliver the services themselves for things such as child care, for example, where they can find efficient means within their own home communities. That is why we introduced the universal child care benefit several years ago. They know they can efficiently get the child services they need.

I am going to talk about some of the context before talking about some of the specifics.

We have created over a million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in 2008. By far, it is the best job creation record in the G7. It is not just this government saying that, it is many other bodies, such as the IMF and OECD. They project that Canada is going to have the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. That is because of strong, stable and consistent government when it comes to supporting business and investment, and making sure that we have the foundation for a strong economy.

The World Economic Forum ranked our banking system the soundest in the world. It is the fifth year in a row it has done that, and of course, we have our AAA credit rating in this country, which lowers our borrowing costs, again keeping our deficits low. It is really important that we keep doing some of those things and stay on the track we have been on.

Before the global recession, the Conservative government, between 2006 and 2008, actually paid down $37 billion in debt. We were looking ahead, recognizing that we needed to pay down debt. I should also mention that we did that while reducing income taxes, consumption taxes and business taxes. We grew the economy and reduced taxes and paid down a lot of debt. There was an increase in the debt during the recession. Ours was actually less than most countries around the world. Now we are looking to get back to a balanced budget.

Let me talk about taxes. A significant source of revenue for the government is tariffs and in the economic action plan we are going to eliminate tariffs on some important items, such as baby clothes, sporting goods and exercise equipment. That is about $76 million in tariff relief. This is over and above the half a billion dollars a year in tariff reduction that we have already put in place. This is very important to people who need to be able to buy things affordably and support their families, things such as baby clothes and sporting goods, even clothing. There are all kinds of things on which we have reduced tariffs significantly and we hope to keep doing that.

Another important form of taxes, of course, is EI premiums. We are looking to extend the hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 for new hires. I should mention there were over half a million employers that benefited from that. They saved about $225 million in EI premiums. That is really important. It provides that added incentive to hire some new people. There has been some strong feedback from the small business community, in particular. It really supports that program.

I am going to mention briefly some things that we are doing in BIA 2 now. There are some specific actions that we have put into BIA 2 that talk about how we need to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. It is really important that everyone pay their fair share. In many ways people are getting more sophisticated when it comes to avoiding taxes and we have put some measures in place that will show that we mean it when we say we are going to crack down on tax cheats. We are going to close some tax loopholes, clarify the tax rules and reduce international tax evasion. There are some tax shelters that have been utilized by Canadian companies and they will not be able to use them anymore. We are really going to reduce that aggressive tax avoidance.

One thing that really impressed me was the level of detail that we went into in BIA 2, describing even how we are going to introduce new criminal offences to deter the use, possession and sale of electronic suppression of sales software. There are businesses that have actually built tools into their point of sale software so they can avoid taxes. That is clearly illegal and it is finally time that our legislation caught up with some of these tricks that certain people are using. We are going to make that a criminal offence and that is why it is part of BIA 2.

I want to mention another important measure that I talked about earlier, which is infrastructure. This is the largest and longest federal commitment to provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure in Canadian history. No government in Canadian history has planned to spend as much for as long a time as this government when it comes to municipal infrastructure. We are seeing some of the benefits of that in Toronto.

I should mention that since 2006 the federal government has spent over $4.5 billion on infrastructure and investment in the GTA. The GTA is an important part of our country. It is an economic engine, as are many other parts of the country. It has also had a lot of growth. Some of my colleagues from the GTA can testify to that. It has basically doubled in size as a city within our lifetimes, yet the infrastructure has not caught up. There is a real important need to make those investments. That includes things such as the Bloor-Danforth subway extension in Scarborough. We are investing in the Spadina subway extension. We are making investments with our partners in the Ontario government to improve GO Transit, for example. Of course, there is the Union Station revitalization, which is a really important building architecturally but also as a transportation and transit hub for the entire GTA.

I should mention some of the specific measures that are outlined in BIA 2, the budget implementation act. We are helping businesses succeed by providing tax relief for manufacturers. Manufacturing is important in southern Ontario, and through these measures tax relief will temporarily accelerate the capital cost allowance so the industry can make new investments in critical equipment that improves its productivity.

Regarding some specific items that are outlined in the budget, I appreciate very much the investments in things like Massey Hall, which is an important institution for the city of Toronto.

I hope the opposition will support the BIA 2. It is an important bill to keep the country moving forward.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

It would be nice to be able to support and pass this kind of bill, and we would really like to do so. However, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas raised a number of fundamental problems.

I have a simple question I would like to ask. What are clauses 471 and 472 doing in Bill C-4? What are two clauses about appointing judges to the Supreme Court doing in a budget implementation bill?

The devil is always in the details when it comes to the Conservatives, and that is unfortunate. Then they turn around and criticize us for voting against something that is being referred for an opinion, that is challenged just about everywhere and that has nothing to do with any budget items.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Quebec be represented on the Supreme Court.

This therefore needed to be included in a budget bill immediately, quite honestly, because it is crucial that this judge be appointed to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. This is simply a technical qualification.

Let me get back to the main point about the budget. There are so many good measures when it comes to keeping taxes low and encouraging investment. That is the most important thing. That is what creates jobs in this country. Of course, the legal framework has to be there. We are a fine country when it comes to having that framework to support business investment.

That is what is really attractive about this budget, and that is why I support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has touched on many great projects that are in both economic action plan 2013 as well as this particular budget implementation act.

I want to make my comments, and then I have a question with regard to the Canada job grant.

Like many MPs, I spent a lot of time in my riding over the break consulting with local businesses and employers: job creators. I heard from many of them. West Manufacturing, in my area of West Kelowna, makes some of the most creative products for forestry, as well as tanks for oil and gas. However, it specifically noted that a lack of skilled labour is a key concern. The company wants to go from two shifts to three shifts, and it does not have the skilled labour.

I also met with a lot of people who are underemployed; they have credentials but they cannot find the work.

Could the parliamentary secretary flesh out why this is an important program to carry forward?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just small businesses; I have many small and medium-sized businesses in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I spent some time this summer with the construction crafts union, a local trade union that has a fabulous training facility in Richmond Hill. It would like to participate in the Canada job grant. It says it could do the training much better than the province, and it would like to participate with the federal and provincial governments to help train much-needed people in the construction industry in the GTA. It was interesting to note that they pointed out the same gaps in the current training programs that the employers have identified.

I hope the opposition and the provinces will get on board with this great new plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's global competitiveness has been hampered by the Conservative government's inaction. Low taxes alone have not attracted innovators, and it is not a creative marketing policy for our economy.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada's competitiveness would be further enhanced by improvements in its innovation ecosystems, particularly government procurement of advanced technology. It has been saying the same thing for the past five years. Why did the government wait this long? Unfortunately, my suspicion is that the government's libertarian market recklessness was responsible for this hesitation in changing its economic policy.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to making Canada a more innovative place, governments in general across the country have been spending a lot more. We are basically at the top of the OECD countries when it comes to spending.

Where we have been lacking is in the private sector. Private sector employers in Canada do not spend nearly enough on research and development. We recognize that. That is why we are supporting some advanced research and commercialization projects. We are trying to get some of the colleges and polytechnics on board, which could do some of that work when it comes to commercialization. That is one of the important measures in the budget, and I support it.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a week that has been dominated by the drama of a Senate scandal and the political noose that is tightening around the Prime Minister's neck, the Conservatives' latest budget implementation bill all but flew under the radar of Canadians' attention. Despite this, Bill C-4 is profoundly important to my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

As with all budget implementation bills, I always look forward to them with some hope. I am always optimistic that the government will recognize the trajectory of economic indicators and play a positive role in mitigating potential negative impacts for hard-working Canadians. However, while hope springs eternal, my optimism vanishes when I crack the spine of the latest Conservative budget bill. Bill C-4, unfortunately, was no exception.

In fact, this latest Conservative effort was summed up perfectly by the Toronto Star's columnist, Chantal Hébert, who aptly described the content of the 308 page bill as amounting to “a handful of sometimes half-baked and always ill-defined promises”. It was indeed a huge disappointment.

We returned to Ottawa last week after a summer recess from parliamentary proceedings that was extended by yet another prorogation. All of us have had plenty of time to knock on doors in our communities and talk to the very people who are most directly impacted by the government's budgetary policies. I certainly did that this summer. What I heard was continuing anxiety about stagnating wages, job insecurity and high household debt. Those fears are well-founded; they are not based on paranoia.

Let us review some of the facts. Over the past 35 years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, incomes have increased for the top 20% of Canadians, but have decreased for everyone else. There is 80% of Canadians who have seen a drop in their income. Our economy has grown by 147%, yet the real income of the average Canadian family has dropped by 7%.

At the end of last year, Canadians' household debt reached 166% of disposable income. Canada's total household debt is now dangerously close to the peak levels prevailing in the United States just before the 2008 economic crisis. Indeed, the Bank of Canada is now referring to this debt as “the biggest domestic risk” to the Canadian economy. This is not only a burden on Canadian families, it is a threat to our entire economy. Yet, all the Conservatives have to say to the millions of families struggling to make ends meet is that they have to make do with less, and their children have to make do with less.

Conservatives have done nothing to reign in the high cost of living for families. They have done nothing to guarantee retirement security for seniors. They have watched a generation of middle-class jobs disappear, but they have done nothing to create the next generation of middle-class jobs. We can and must do better.

It is time to put the interests of Canadians first. The budget implementation bill could and should have been the perfect opportunity to do just that. It should have made life more affordable for hard-working families. It should have created quality well-paying jobs. It should have ensured secure retirements. It should have fostered opportunities for young Canadians. What we got instead was a continuation of the austerity agenda, which is premised on the mistaken belief that we can cut our way to prosperity.

As David Olive from the Toronto Star noted in March of this year:

...sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending--including essential services and infrastructure upgrading--merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

It is not as if the finance minister were oblivious to that. He, himself, has repeatedly warned of the threat that household debt poses to the economy, yet neither his spring budget nor Bill C-4 does anything to offer help to Canadians.

In a scathing review of the Conservative record on the economy, Michael Harris said, in iPolitics:

Apart from pitching a free-trade deal with Antarctica, the PM has nothing to offer on the economy besides glowing self-appraisals, bad commercials on the public dime, and discount-rate foreign workers inflating his dismal job creation numbers.

He also said:

The PM and his government are not good managers. The nauseating repetition of the claim that the Tories know what they’re doing with the country’s finances will not make it so. They’ve pissed away more money than Madonna on a shopping spree—a billion on the G8--20 meetings that put a dent in the world’s Perrier supply and little else.

They just plain lost $3.2 billion and the guy in charge over at Treasury Board is still there [...]

They are such good fiscal managers that we now have the highest deficit in our history.

With that as the backdrop, let us have a look then at Bill C-4. Unfortunately, its provisions would do nothing to prove the previous statement wrong. Instead of acting on the economy and creating jobs for an agenda of growth, the Conservatives are doing the exact opposite. Instead of creating jobs, they are continuing their ideological attacks on Canadian workers. A full third of the bill is designed solely to undermine the rights of workers.

The bill would eliminate the basic right of workers to a healthy and safe workplace, and continues its attack on the federal public service. Allow me to say a few words about those outrageous changes.

It is no exaggeration to suggest that Bill C-4 would place the lives of workers in the federal sector at risk as a result of the cynical amendments that the Conservatives would make to the Canada Labour Code. The bill would attack the right to refuse dangerous work, a hard-fought right that offered basic protection to Canadian workers. By redefining and limiting the word “danger” and undermining the work and expertise of health and safety officers by giving many of their powers to the minister, the Conservatives are essentially saying that forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions is absolutely fine by them. No New Democrat will support that. No worker should ever be forced to work in unsafe conditions and I cannot believe that any member of the House would ever knowingly vote to put workers in harm's way.

I urge my Conservative colleagues to please do the right thing and respect the rights of workers. With lives literally hanging in the balance, I urge them to ignore the party whip and do what they must know is the right thing to do, which is to oppose these objectionable changes to Canada's labour laws.

In fact, let us delete all of the labour sections from the omnibus bill. The changes that Bill C-4 would make to the Public Service Labour Relations Act would eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. What could possibly be the motivation for that, other than to prompt labour unrest and conflict with civil servants. Again, if my Conservative colleagues do not believe in gratuitous attacks on the very people who serve both them as government and the Canadian public, then they must vote to oppose the bill.

I am sure all members heard the interview that the Conservatives' colleague, the MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka and President of the Treasury Board gave on CBC Radio in Ottawa yesterday. It must have given every Conservative backbencher pause. The minister was being asked about sections of the bill that arbitrarily designate what “essential services” are. This is important because, as members know, any public servants that are deemed “essential” are not allowed to go on strike. That is a very serious infringement of a fundamental right. In essence, the government is stripping workers of their full collective bargaining rights.

In the very tense exchange with the CBC reporter that I referenced above, the minister absolutely refused to spell out how the government would use this new power. The President of the Treasury Board said, “I am waiting for this legislation to pass and then details will come forward.” That is contempt of Parliament. How can we be asked to vote for something that is not defined?

In the interview, the minister suggested that border guards would be deemed “essential”, but he hedged on scientists. When he was asked whether he would clarify who would be deemed “essential” ahead of the upcoming contract negotiations with a large number of bargaining units over the coming year, the exchange got downright testy. He would not deny that he could change whom he deemed “essential” at any time, including in the middle of the bargaining process. I would commend the verbatim record of that exchange to all members of the House, and Bill Curry has helpfully reproduced it for us in The Globe and Mail.

To recap, we are being asked to approve a bill that fundamentally would change collective bargaining in our country, yet we are not allowed to know the details before we vote. Instead of being ashamed of that, the minister became downright hostile when interviewed on CBC Radio.

That attitude is all of a piece when it comes to the way the current Conservative government operates. Whether it is the Senate scandal or this budget bill, there is zero accountability. The Conservatives have utter disdain for Parliament, and by extension, for the Canadians who elect us to represent them here.

I am not worried about my voice being silenced; the government should be so lucky. However, I am profoundly worried about a government whose members believe they are above the law, a government whose members believe they can do whatever they want, a government whose members believe the end always justifies the means. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our number one priority has to be to address the real priorities of Canadians. That is what I was sent here to do, and that is the responsibility that my NDP colleagues and I take very seriously.

No, I cannot vote for this budget implementation bill, and I would encourage members on all sides of the House to oppose it with me. At best, we are being asked to adopt a pig in a poke. At worst, we are continuing down a road of stagnating wages, job insecurity and high household debt. Canadians deserve better. As parliamentarians, we can and must do better. As a member of the government in waiting, I can tell members that an NDP government will do better, starting in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for that very clear and passionate speech.

She referenced the CBC exchange, and I have a bit of the transcript here.

The CBC says, “Who will you deem to be essential?”

The President of the Treasury Board says, “Well, I'm not going to be on your show to decide that right now, but I think we have to be fair and reasonable who we deem essential.”

CBC: “Well, can you give us an example, because...people want to know”.

The President of the Treasury Board: “Border guards.”

CBC: “Okay. I mean scientists, government scientists, would they be deemed essential?”

The President of the Treasury Board: “Look, you're going through a speculative question-and-answer and I am not going to indulge you with that.”

CBC: “Well, when will you tell the public that?”

The President of the Treasury Board: “When we are ready to tell the public.”

I wonder if the member could tell us what happened next.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted, because I am sure it was absolutely the worst interview that any minister's communications assistant has ever seen their minister give.

The next question was, “And when will that be?”

The answer was, “Well, first of all this bill has to be passed, so to engage in speculation when a bill is still before Parliament I don't think is appropriate.”

The CBC asked, “Well, will you make that clarification, though? Will you make it from the outset, or will you make it in the middle of a labour dispute and suddenly deem a group of people essential so that they are not allowed to strike?”

The minister responded, “Let me answer the question this way. I think that whatever we do still has to be fair and reasonable, still subject to judicial review and the rules of natural justice, so I think the answer to your question is the government still has to act reasonably when it acts, and that hasn't changed.”

The reporter asked, “Except for that doesn't answer my question, because what I wanted to know is, are you going to deem essential a certain group of public servants from the outset, or do you have this rolling power to change who you deem essential at any time you want?”

The minister responded, “I've already given you a fair and reasonable answer to that question.”

The CBC asked, “I'm sorry. Maybe I misunderstood it, but can you just clarify?”

The minister responded, “No. Next question.”

The reporter asked, “Sorry? You can't clarify your answer to that?”

The minister responded, “I've already given you a good answer. Thank you."

The reporter asked, “I'm sorry. I wasn't satisfied with that answer. I'm just—”

The minister broke in, “I'm sorry about that, but I'm giving you the answer that is the fair and reasonable answer.”

Finally, the last question was, “Okay. Well, let's just try a yes or no, then. Will you set the group of people who will be deemed essential from the outset?”

The minister responded, “I am waiting for this legislation to pass, and then details will come forward.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her speech, in which it was perfectly clear to anyone listening that the NDP is on the side of the public sector unions when it comes to negotiations. I did not hear anything that said the New Democrats would stick up for the taxpayers who are paying the salaries of all of the people who are in the public sector unions.

Clearly there is a negotiation that will have to occur. The member has the audacity to say that the NDP is a government-in-waiting; well, it would be interesting to see if the NDP government-in-waiting would give away the store to the public sector unions. Can the member clarify whose side she would be on when sitting down with public sector unions and negotiating?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich having a member from the Conservative caucus, whose colleagues in the Senate are currently wasting public dollars at record speeds, lecturing me about accountability to taxpayers.

I will make no apologies for standing up for workers in the federal civil service. He differentiates between those workers and taxpayers as if to suggest that federal public servants do not pay their taxes. Is he kidding me?

I will make absolutely no apologies for standing up for decent-paying, family-sustaining jobs in this country, be they in the public or the private sector. Collective bargaining rights are fundamental human rights that every member in the House ought to support.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada has the strongest job growth among the G7 countries in the world.

Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years. It is significantly lower than that of the United States, a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. In my riding, unemployment rates are well below 5%, 4%. There is virtually no unemployment.

Meanwhile, we have created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full time, and our government continues to make new opportunities for Canadians to find employment.

While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. Canada still remains on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015-16. The deficit has been reduced significantly, and we are well on track to bringing it to balance.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada's growth will be among the strongest in the G7 in the years ahead. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7.

All Canadians want this to continue. They want us to continue to make progress with respect to the economy, thus increasing jobs and prosperity for them and their children.

However, our government has been very clear that we will not raise taxes on Canadians to balance the budget. I know the earlier speaker said that we cannot cut our way to prosperity, but we certainly cannot tax our way to prosperity. That is a fundamental difference between this particular government and the opposition.

Our government has an economic plan that makes sense. As we have repeatedly said, Canada's economy is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. We have been and will continue to be impacted by the ongoing turbulence in the United States and Europe, some of our most important trading partners.

We are moving forward and focusing on the economy, all the while keeping taxes low, which means more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That in turn helps keep our economy strong.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax costs—the corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property taxes, and wage-based taxes—are more than 40% lower than those in the United States. This is what makes us competitive and makes our economy prosper. It continues to grow, and it grows jobs.

In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth, and job creation. It is an environment that ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Let me share some of the highlights of our tax relief initiatives.

Our government has implemented broad-based tax reductions that support investment and growth and is delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job-creating businesses over 2008-09 and the following five fiscal years.

We have reduced the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15% in 2012 from 21% in 2007 in order to spur investment and productivity. Can members imagine? It went from 21% to 15%.

The federal capital tax was eliminated in 2006, and the corporate surtax was eliminated in 2008 for all corporations. This translates into jobs and an expanded economy.

Even more, we reduced the small business tax rate to 11% in 2008 from 12% in 2007, and subsequently the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000 in 2009.

Canada's system of international taxation was strengthened in order to better support cross-border trade and investment and to improve fairness.

All these actions are part of a policy framework that increases the productive capacity of our economy as well as Canadian living standards. Lower general corporate income tax rates and other tax changes have increased the expected rate of return on investment and reduced the cost of capital, giving businesses strong incentives to invest and hire in Canada. This will in turn increase Canada's productive capacity and raise living standards.

This bill is great news for Canadians. Unlike the NDP, which insists on higher taxes, economic action plan 2013 is focused on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, thus ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the future.

However, the job does not end there. Today, Bill C-4 will implement key measures from economic action plan 2013, as well as certain previously announced tax measures, to help create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Our government's low-tax plan is helping to guide the Canadian economy along the path of sustainable economic growth. Bill C-4 builds on our successes and maintains our government's focus on the economy. While we believe in the benefits of lower taxes, our government fully understands that sustaining an effective tax system also rests on the foundation of tax fairness. Today I will discuss some of the key measures we are implementing to do everything possible to ensure that Canadians have a fair tax system.

That is why economic action plan 2013 is committed to closing tax loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. While Canadians work hard and pay their taxes, there are some who choose not to, and we must stop that practice. We must take initiatives to close those loopholes and ensure that the system is fair.

Chartered Accountants of Canada had this to say about economic action plan 2013:

The budget looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

They continued with the strong backing of our initiatives and said:

We support efforts to maintain the integrity of the tax base....

This is high praise. I am proud of these measures, and I will elaborate on some of them.

Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's efforts to return to balanced budgets, responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared-tax basis, and helps Canadians have confidence that the tax system is fair.

Ensuring that everyone pays his or her fair share also helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save, and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system.

Today's legislation takes additional steps in support of this objective, extending the normal assessment period by three years for a taxpayer who has failed to report income from a specified foreign property on his or her annual income tax return and has failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement known as T1135.

It introduces stiff administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale, and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

Our systems, with the Internet, computers, and software, have made it possible for people to try to avoid tax. It is almost hard to believe that we would need such specific legislation, but let me read some portions of it.

What we now know as an electronic cash register, or a “device that keep a register or supporting documents through the means of an electronic device or computer system designed to record transaction data or any other electronic point-of-sale system” should be in place. However, here is a definition of electronic suppression of sales devices:

(a) a software program that falsifies the records of electronic cash registers, including transaction data and transaction reports; or (b) a hidden programing option, whether preinstalled or installed at a later time, embedded in the operating system of an electronic cash register or hardwired into the electronic cash register that (i) may be used to create a virtual second till, or (ii) may eliminate or manipulate transaction records, which may or may not be preserved in digital formats, in order to represent...

or misrepresent the actual point-of-transaction sale.

This legislation prohibits anyone who knowingly, or under circumstances attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default, to participate, or consent or acquiesce in the use of an electronic suppression of sales device or similar device on pain of penalty. It also talks about possession of those devices and those who make them. There are stiff penalties to ensure these types of devices are not used. That is just one example of closing tax loopholes to ensure revenues are not lost.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. The problem we have on this side is the government refuses to look at the budget as a framework for dealing with the finances of the country. It continually throws in other matters. Therefore, we now have this very obscure process where we cannot get from the government what its direction is in any given way. It throws in other things.

My question is around the fact that the budget would undermine health and safety in the country, particularly in this city and region. Is the member aware that just a couple of years ago we had a horrific accident here? Peter Kennedy, a loyal public servant, died because of lax health and safety provisions. This budget would further undermine those provisions. Is he aware of that? Does he support weakening health and safety provisions? This precinct does not actually have health and safety provisions to start with and he should know that. Is he capable of responding to his constituents to say that he is voting for a weakening of health and safety provisions?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly there is not a weakening of health and safety provisions. I do not know where the member gets that from. I was involved in human resources and labour. We certainly have invested millions of dollars with respect to health and safety of employees. It is certainly an important factor and something we take very seriously.

Not only that, but with respect to health transfers to the provinces, we have increased those transfers each and every year to record levels, far in excess of what the previous Liberal government did. In fact, what it did was reduce the amount of money transferred to try to balance its budget on the backs of ordinary hard-working Canadians. We have said we will not do that. We will invest in those areas that are important. We will ensure that we reduce taxes and stimulate the economy so there is a good generation of income so we can look after things such as the member mentioned.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have travelled through my own riding in Guelph, I have talked to a lot of youth. As we know, there are 224,000 less jobs available to youth now than there were before the recession. They are concerned. We have an unemployment rate for youth at about 17%. That is almost twice the national average for adults. What is worse is that rate is actually more than 25% when we consider the underemployed and those who are not even looking for jobs anymore. They are desperate and they find nothing in this budget that gives them any promise whatsoever.

What does the member opposite have to say about those statistics and what possible hope our youth have if they are to rejoin our employment force?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is of course an important factor and one that we take very seriously. If the member would do his research, he would find that Canada has one of the lowest unemployment rates compared to other countries in the world. Given that, we have said that we want to address that particularly and directly. We have taken initiatives to design programs to ensure that those who are underprivileged and those who are in positions where they do not have the education they need, or the job skills. We have invested funds to be sure that they are able to be part of the economy. We specifically targeted aboriginal youth.

We have created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% full-time, nearly 85% in the private sector, since the global recession in July of 2009. We have the strongest job creating record in the G7. I would ask the member to do some analysis and have a look at where we are today compared to other countries. Compared to the previous Liberal government, we are doing very well. However, as always, more can be done.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the amendment.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that mouthful of an introduction this morning. It is still a title I am trying to get used to. It is a little rough around the edges.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this particular piece of legislation this morning because of its importance to our country.

It is time for us to take a look at the last five years of our country's economy. If we rewind to this time in 2008, there was a lot of angst in the global community around the global finance system, economic growth, and the prospect of countries not being able to pay some of their debts. It was a time of great uncertainty. We saw a lot of uncertainty with our major trading partner, the United States.

I was not in the House at that time, but working out in the field, we looked at the situation as professionals and wondered if a deal was going to go through. What would it mean for our staff? Were we going to be able to achieve our targets? Were we going to be able to do what our business wanted to do? Those were questions many Canadians were asking. They were wondering if they would have a job at the end of that time.

When I look at what our government has accomplished since then through our successive economic action plans, including the implementation act that we are talking about today, it is amazing where Canada is at. Our job creation record of one million net new jobs since the time when we marked the beginning of the economic recovery in 2009 puts our country at the top among the G7 countries. We certainly have an excellent track record among organizations such as the International Monetary Fund. I believe they have called our country one of the best places to do business. Those are facts that show that Canada is really coming into its own in terms of being an economic powerhouse on the world stage.

Certainly the execution of an agreement in principle around the Canada-European trade agreement is very positive for Canada's long-term economic growth prospects. I was speaking with an importer and a distributor in Winnipeg on Friday; they are actually looking at increasing the number of their retail stores in Canada because they see that this trade agreement positions them so well to be able to bring in new products.

It is not just about economic growth, it is about the impact on consumers, and overall it is our government's economic plans that have really positioned Canada to be talking about where we go next. How do we grow above and beyond the success that we have seen? That is what this particular bill seeks to do: it seeks to accelerate Canada's economic growth prospects.

Some of the items that I think are very positive and that I hope my colleagues will support include extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which we believe will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers; increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding; and expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. I talked to a bunch of stakeholders in Calgary about a month and a half ago about this particular piece of information, and they were very excited about it. Another positive item is freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

If I have some time toward the end of my speech, I would like to continue going through some of the other provisions in this act that will allow Canada's economy to continue to grow and prosper; however, at this moment I would like to talk about my department and how we are trying to grow Canada's economy, specifically in the west.

As the House knows, there are regional development agencies in each part of the country. I represent western economic diversification. It has a very dynamic group of staff and individuals who are committed to seeing Canada's western economy, which is certainly a powerhouse for the rest of the country, grow, diversify, and prosper in new ways. One of the key ways we can do that is through getting innovation to market and encouraging an innovative ecosystem and culture.

I have worked in the innovative sector, research administration, and intellectual property management in western Canada for over ten years, so it has been a great pleasure to be part of this portfolio. One of the things that I heard from my stakeholder consultations over the summer was that oftentimes, when small and medium-sized enterprises try to take a product or new process to market, there is actually a capital gap in the product development life cycle.

For example, for people running a small company that has a new device or tool that they think is going to be able to expand their business, create new jobs, and create opportunities for highly qualified personnel, taking that from concept to actually scaling it up, testing it, and looking at the ways that it can be manufactured is the particular piece of work that oftentimes the people running small and medium-sized enterprises cannot find funding for in terms of venture capital or traditional lenders, and often, although we have an excellent track record in funding basic research through our tri-councils, it is that particular gap in the product development life cycle that we sometimes see entrepreneurs struggle with.

As a result, on Friday, again in direct alignment with our government's economic action plan priorities and as part of our economic action plan, I announced the western innovation initiative, or WINN for short. This is something I am very excited about for western Canadian entrepreneurs, because it will actually fill that gap to a certain extent.

One of the key things about this particular program is that it is geared toward small and medium-sized enterprises, and we are certainly hoping to see many people apply for it when the new round of funding opens up on November 8. We hope to see several new products advance to market from this initiative.

Some of the details of the program, as outlined on WED's website, include being eligible to apply for up to $3.5 million in a repayable contribution. We are looking at projects that we hope can get to market within three years and will therefore be able to pay back this loan so that future generations of entrepreneurs can also benefit from the same fund while respecting taxpayers' dollars.

While it is a small component, it speaks to the larger economic agenda that this government has consistently had, which is to grow Canada's economy and seek growth and prosperity for all Canadians. If entrepreneurs listening out there today in western Canada fall under those criteria of being a small or medium-sized enterprise that has been in operation for a year or more and has fewer than 500 employees and may be facing that funding gap, I hope they will apply in this first round and be considered for this new pool of funding. It is a great thing.

Some of the other components of economic action plan 2013 include closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasions. Some of the important components of this part of the legislation include introducing new monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale, and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; closing tax loopholes related to character conversion transactions, synthetic dispositions, leveraged life insurance arrangements, and other schemes, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share; and extending in certain circumstances the period during which the Canada Revenue Agency can reassess a taxpayer who fails to report income from foreign property. Some of these components sound quite technical, but they are actually positive in that we would make the tax system more robust and ensure that people who are contributing in Canada's very prosperous economy are paying their fair share, which we think is very positive.

There are some other very positive components, including measures for post-secondary students. This act would provide for the modernization of the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery. That is a really positive thing. I remember having to go and stand in those lines, and this change would be really great for some of our post-secondary students.

I certainly hope that my colleagues opposite will have a look through this act and realize that there are provisions in it that would be really good for this country and for the long-term economic health of Canada. We can all rise today and be proud of where our country is in terms of economic growth and in terms of our prospects for being a world leader internationally, not just now but for decades to come. I certainly hope that colleagues will support this bill, because many good common-sense measures that would support the average Canadian are included in it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we start into questions and comments, I would just say that we have only five minutes in this period, so members who go on for more than about a minute, either in their question or in response, will be cut off in order to give more time for other hon. members to participate.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the government has also cut back services. It has closed my immigration office to the public. It has closed the consular services in Detroit. It is, unbelievably, closing our veteran's office. It has also removed our postal services to London.

I would like to ask the hon. member a question with regard to the assertion that the government has created a million jobs. If it has created a million jobs, could she tell me in what sectors? What percentage is in the auto sector, the agriculture sector or the health science fields? The Conservatives talk about a million jobs created. In what sectors have they been created and what are the percentages?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of sectors across the economy, my colleague, I believe, mentioned the manufacturing sector. I would ask him to check his leader's economic thought policy around the manufacturing sector when he talked about Dutch disease. We have a booming energy sector in the west that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the next 25 years, I would hope, across various sectors in the Canadian economy. He said that the manufacturing sector shrunk because of the energy sector, which has been proven false by, I believe, Statistics Canada and many other think tank groups. The New Democrats need to get their economic policy in line before they start looking at ours.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue about which I believe many Canadians are concerned. Time and time again we hear it is a very important issue. Many, including myself, would say it is in the top three and possibly the number one issue, and that is health care.

The government has brought in budget after budget, but it tends to want to ignore the importance of the issue of renewing the health care accord. The accord is going to expire in 2014. The reason we have the funding we have today is because of the health care agreement. That is what has allowed us to get that record level of health care services, dollars and resources to our provinces so Canadians can feel comfortable in knowing they have a health care system from coast to coast to coast. When is the government going to deliver on a renewed health care accord?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am shocked that my colleague brought this up, given that it was his party that slashed and burned funding to the provinces during its tenure in government.

Our government's philosophy to managing the finances of our country is pragmatic and it is the same as any Canadian family would undertake. When a Canadian family looks at its chequebook, it says that if it needs to balance, there are two ways to do that, either by bringing in more revenue or spending less. Any business that asks this questions knows that those two components can be balanced. It can deliver good, effective service, but also ensure that it happens in a context that is respectful of the taxpayer dollars.

I am just shocked that my colleague would bring this up, given the Liberals' record on health care transfers to the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, all the members opposite talk about is spending and never address the issue of how our country and our economy can create the wealth for which we can have all these great social services that our government is funding.

Could the minister tell us why it is important to have a climate for economic growth and what our budget is doing to ensure that economic growth continues?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hard-working colleague on his moose, which his constituents will appreciate.

Our government has consistently stated that one of our key goals is to get back to balance. As our Minister of Finance has stated, we are well on track to do that. If we contrast that with the economic policy of my colleagues opposite, their shadow budget did not even include numbers. The shocker is that numbers are important when it comes to a budget. Then my colleague opposite from the third party, his only policy to date has basically been up in smoke.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, whom I also like to count as friend, for her promotion. She is now within Privy Council.

I would be happy to support some of the parts of Bill C-4, such as the software that allows for fraud at point of sale. We should deal with that. However, would she not agree with me that it makes it very difficult for members of the opposition, who read such 300-plus page bills carefully, to vote for them when they are omnibus in nature and include many portions that I cannot possibly support, such as weakening the Canada Labour Code?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her congratulations. I look forward to working with her.

Every once in a while, as parliamentarians, we have to sit back and look where we are in our country. Certainly, we have passed a great deal of legislation in the House. However, when we look at some of our international partners and some of the legislative gridlock they face, we see what that means for their businesses. Our government sees clear action, tangible results and investment for business growth. This is a very positive thing, as is this legislation, and I certainly hope she will support it.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a pleasure, but I want to stand and speak to the budget. After travelling throughout Random—Burin—St. George's for an extended season, thanks to the Prime Minister who chose to prorogue the House of Commons so we were not back here to deal with some of the issues raised in the budget, I learned from my constituents a lot of the issues they were dealing with and why they were having those problems. A lot of it points to the lack of leadership, I am told, by the Conservative government.

The reality is that my constituents continue to tell me that unless the leadership is there on issues, policies and programs that are controlled or maintained by the federal government and unless the federal government is more cognizant of issues of people who particularly live in rural communities, they will never get out of the bind in which they find themselves. When I met with them, as I do every weekend, but particularly over the extended period this summer, they asked me to bring forward their concerns to see if it were possible for the government to get its head out of the sand, start listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and recognize that some people were having difficult times and finding it hard to make ends meet. They asked me to bring forward their concerns, hoping the government would listen and would take their concerns into account.

My constituents are certainly not at all impressed when they look at the budget bill that has so much in it that it is hard for parliamentarians to decipher it and take the time needed to go through it bill by bill by bill. How can the government expect Canadians to do so, particularly those who live in rural communities, some of whom do not even have access to the Internet, some of whom have no way of finding out what is in the budget bill unless their members of Parliament convey and explain to them what it contains? At the same time, it is hard for members of Parliament to get the message across because there is so much in the budget.

Again, we see the Conservative government put forward a budget that does not take into account the concerns of Canadians, no matter where they live in our country. The budget implementation act and surrounding debate is further evidence that the government just does not get it. Rather than congratulating itself on mediocrity, the government should focus its efforts on ensuring families in Random—Burin—St. George's and the rest of Canada do not continue to struggle.

The fact that Canada's fiscal situation is better than that of Spain or Greece does not change the reality for those in my riding who are without jobs through no fault of their own, or those with adult children who have moved back home because there are no employment opportunities for them or they are underemployed and cannot afford to live independently.

At events throughout my riding, constituents have told me they are tired of being ignored by the Conservative government. They expect better, and so they should. Bill C-4, sadly, is just more of the same omnibus legislation that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come to expect, but not accept from Conservatives out of touch with the real needs of people who try desperately to make ends meet, but find themselves falling behind because of the measures being enacted by the Conservative government.

At a time when the Bank of Canada is cutting its growth and inflation estimates across the board and warning “the risk of exacerbating already elevated household imbalances”, the government introduces legislation and uses rhetoric showing it is completely ambivalent to the fact that Canada's economic growth is rapidly slowing. After 18 consecutive months cautioning investors that the bank would soon be raising the interest rate from 1%, the Bank of Canada has been forced to drop the rate hike talk altogether to try to stimulate investment or risk compounding the weak economic outlook caused by the Conservative government.

The Bank of Canada even pushed back its projected target for Canada's economy to return to full production six months later than it had recently forecast. In fact, the Bank of Canada now predicts the economy will return to full production at the same time Canadians will return to power the Liberal government in 2015.

At a crucial point in Canada's economic future, the Conservative government has once again failed to put forward a budget implementation act to grow the economy and help create jobs.

For years, the Liberals have called on the government to freeze its scheduled employment insurance premium hikes. Finally, the Conservatives are reversing their ill-timed tax hikes on Canadian jobs, which would have made it more expensive for employers to hire those in need of work. While I am relieved the government has decided to heed the advice of the Liberals and freeze EI premiums for the next three years, after years of steadily increasing the costs workers and employers must pay into the program, freezing EI premiums for the next three years will not make up for the billions of dollars in increases the Conservatives forced on employees and employers to pay during this fragile economy.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to address the problems with employment insurance, which they created, they would have used Bill C-4 to reverse the punishing changes they made to the EI program last year. EI is still inaccessible to thousands of Canadians who need it, even though they paid into the program. Although this budget implementation act contains a number of provisions that were not in the initial budget document, such as many of the technical tax measures in part 1 of this act, it is telling the Conservatives to use Bill C-4 to take action to make EI more accessible to those who need the support.

Furthermore, the Conservative government has completely ignored the need to address the factors driving high unemployment and underemployment, as well as the need for improving skills training and education. The only time this budget addresses skills is when it changes the name of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to the Department of Employment and Social Development. This is a sign that the government is no longer interested in skills training.

There are still too many jobs without skilled Canadians to fill them and trying to push programs on provinces and employers without consultation will simply not result in the skills training needed. Canadians need a government committed to helping create jobs for Canadians, because it is a partnership. We do not expect the government to create all the jobs. We expect it to make it possible and create an environment where jobs can be created. They also need a government whose priority is to ensure Canadians receive the training they need to fill existing vacant jobs.

Not surprisingly, as I alluded to previously, this omnibus budget implementation act contains many changes that have nothing to do with budget 2013. It is a sad state of affairs when the Minister of Finance cannot even answer questions on his own legislation, instead opting to refer questions to other ministers because the government has squeezed so many disparate bills into Bill C-4, including major public service labour changes and modifications to the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

While the Minister of Finance claims this is, “the mechanics of government”, the truth is it is easier for the Conservatives to restrict debate and avoid scrutiny if they lump dozens of bills together, which has unfortunately become the hallmark of the government. When legislation is combined in this way to avoid transparency, mistakes are bound to happen. For example, this bill would fix an error in the last budget where the government mistakingly included a disincentive to fishermen working non-fishing jobs in the off season by discarding fishing income for the calculation of EI benefits for those who worked 421 hours or more in a non-fishing job.

As many members of the House prepare to attend Remembrance Day events in their ridings, we cannot allow the government's continued attack on veterans to go without proper scrutiny. Bill C-4 would cut the number of members sitting on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 29 to 25. What is worse, we know that under the Conservatives, only slightly more than 50% of board positions are presently filled. This board is tasked to “provide veterans and other applicants with an independent avenue of appeal for disability decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada”. From time to time, far too many veterans know first hand that Veterans Affairs Canada makes mistakes it has to review.

That will continue as long as the government refuses to acknowledge the fact that services are being cut to the most vulnerable in our country, and it does not matter what part of the country we live in, but particularly to those in our rural communities. While services and programs are being cut, Canadians are being made to suffer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide some additional comment on the manner in which the government has brought budget bills, implementation bills, before the House, where it has introduced numerous pieces of legislation that should not be a part of the budget bill. Ultimately, I would argue, that the government is bringing in other legislation through the back door of a budget bill. This is the wrong way to bring in legislation, because it denies the opportunity to have a good, thorough debate on what should be individual pieces of legislation.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that has been raised throughout my riding, particularly when I go to an event and people are asking me what is in the budget. I do not have the kind of time it would take to explain to them what is in this particular budget and still have time to spend talking about other issues.

The reality is that these omnibus budgets have become the hallmark of this particular government. It has to change, because no parliamentarian has time to review every aspect of the budget. When the Conservatives lump changes to labour and changes that deal with the appointment of Supreme Court judges into a budget bill, it raises questions about what exactly the government is about. However, people know what the government is about. It is about hiding so that we cannot possibly know the ins and outs of what is in the budget because it is so large.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent to the speech that my hon. colleague from Newfoundland just presented. She spent quite a bit of time talking about EI premiums. There is always a discussion among Canadians as to whether it was actually $57 billion or $58 billion that the previous Liberal government took out of the EI fund when it was in power.

I wonder if she could clarify that number. Was it $58 billion or $57 billion? I am confused.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question and the bit of humour that he injected into it.

The reality is that for people who are on EI, who need to access the EI program, it is a program that they pay into as does the employer. It does not matter what government stripe is in power, this money is the money paid in by both parties, one who may need to avail themselves of it and the other who makes it possible for them to avail themselves of it. I do not care what political stripe is in power. We need to recognize the importance of this program. There are people who lose jobs through no fault of their own. They want to work. They need the support. It is not a handout, it is a hand up at a time when they need it. It is their money and their money alone.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, New Democrats, are strong supporters of a well-funded and effective EI system that can deliver quickly the benefits that employees and employers have paid into. My friend opposite is quite right that the money that is paid into the EI system is money that has been deducted from employees' cheques and is paid for by employers. It is the money of employees and employers.

The hon. member just said that is the case, that this is the money of employees and employers. Why did the Liberal government, 10 years ago or so, take over $50 billion of employees' and employers' money and transfer that into general revenue?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that question is one that the official opposition wants to hang its hat on.

The reality is that it was done with approval at the time. Was it right? The Auditor General at the time said it was the right thing to do. Does it mean it should happen again? We never know what the circumstances will be, but when people need to avail themselves of the employment insurance program, they should be able to do it. However, under the Liberal government, I do not think people were not able to avail themselves of it.

Today, because of decisions by the Conservative government, people are having difficulty availing themselves of the EI program. The decisions the Conservatives are making are having devastating impacts with respect to certain components of the EI legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-4.

I will be focusing my comments on the proposed amendments within Bill C-4 that apply to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This is in large part because of the misinformation and rhetoric that we hear from the opposition on the proposed amendments, which are of truly epic proportions.

Let me clear, the intent of these changes is to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing. I believe it is important to look at some of these proposed changes in greater detail in order to see what is actually being proposed.

It is true that Bill C-4 includes measures to modernize and streamline the collective bargaining process and the public service recourse system. I would like to take a moment to explain why these reforms are important for Canadians and for our public service. I will begin with the proposed amendment to extend the current four-month notice period up to 12 months. I am certain most would agree that providing more time would increase the odds that a new agreement could be reached prior to the expiry of an existing collective agreement.

Bill C-4 also proposes that the employer have the exclusive right to designate essential services. I would also like to speak to the importance of this amendment. Ultimately, the public service does not exist for the benefit of big public sector union bosses and their opposition political friends. The role of the public sector is to serve the taxpaying public, Canadians. By extension, a democratically elected government represents the interests of taxpayers and as such should have the right to identify what Canadians consider to be essential services.

This is an important point when one considers that an opposition member currently receiving money from unions is quoted as saying essentially that he could not be a bigger friend to them. I submit that particular member has all but conceded who he is looking out for, and it is certainly not the taxpayer. Likewise, the leader of the third party is also reported as receiving significant amounts of union money in speaking fees while sitting as a member of Parliament. Again, I point out that when it comes to the interest of taxpayers and public sector unions, only our government represents Canadians fairly and that is reflected in this piece of legislation.

Canadians know that it is the responsibility of government to maintain public safety and protect the interests of Canadians. It is part of what Canadians elect a government to do. For this reason, I submit it is entirely fair and reasonable that it is the democratically elected government on behalf of Canadians that should determine essential programs and services within the federal government.

I would also like to speak to the arbitration provision that exists within Bill C-4 for essential services employees. Arbitration would be the resolution mechanism in cases where a bargaining unit has 80% or more of the positions designated as essential or if both parties mutually consent to binding arbitration. Given that essential employees are not able to participate in strike activity, if no agreement could be reached, arbitration offers a meaningful dispute resolution solution while minimizing disruptions that could compromise the health and safety of Canadians.

Another proposed amendment I would like to highlight would require arbitration boards and public interest commissions to give greater consideration to the government's recruitment needs and fiscal circumstances. These amendments would ensure that the value of all salaries, benefits and other compensation, not solely wages, is considered when determining fair compensation. It also includes provisions that the public interest commissions and arbitration boards set out reasons, rationales, for making awards and recommendations. I believe that most here in this place would agree that this is common sense. Canadian taxpayers deserve to know the reasons behind decisions dealing with large amounts of tax dollars and this proposal would make that happen.

I would also like to point out another amendment that requires separate agencies to seek approval from the President of the Treasury Board before consenting to binding arbitration. This is an important amendment for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers who expect public sector compensation to be fair and reasonable. For the protection of the taxpayers, it is imperative that the President of the Treasury Board have the ability to review any terms and conditions that could have a significant impact on public sector compensation. I believe that a democratically elected government should not be powerless when it comes to the spending of tax dollars on public sector wages and benefits, and that is one of the many reasons why I support the bill.

Another amendment is the elimination of the compensation analysis and research function of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. This service has been negated by the fact that the bargaining agents consistently do their own research. As such, this amendment proposes the elimination of a rarely used service that will result in savings to the taxpayer.

I would also like to share some of the proposals that I believe will be of benefit to the public service. I believe all members of the House will agree that employees expect and deserve to be treated fairly. When conflicts occur, it is important to all sides that a timely and effective process be in place to deal with issues of concern. Although many of our current recourse mechanisms meet these objectives, over the course of time a number of additional processes and procedures have arisen. This has resulted in a complex patchwork of systems that at times is legalistic, is often cumbersome and is costly.

Bill C-4 proposes an amendment designed to simplify this process. The amendment proposes that the allegations of employment-related discrimination should be addressed through the grievance process. This amendment eliminates the potential for duplicate proceedings and related expenses, which can further delay workplace dispute resolution. This is a benefit for all workers.

I would also like to be clear on another point. All third-party rights to issue remedies to the public servant who complains of alleged discrimination will remain intact. Public service employees, as citizens, would still be able to file a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint on matters other than workplace disputes. Bill C-4 would also require bargaining agents and the employer to share the expenses of grievance adjudication, with the exception of grievances related to discrimination. Sharing these costs is a standard practice in virtually all workplaces in Canada. I would ask why the federal government would be any different.

Another point I would like to raise is that Bill C-4 would require employees to obtain bargaining agent support before filing a grievance, except for grievances related to discrimination. I believe this is an important consideration as the union is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit and has both the expertise and experience in this regard.

Bill C-4 also proposes a revised staffing complaint process. Currently, to be appointed to a position within the public service a person must be found qualified. If a candidate is deemed unqualified for a position, that person could challenge the appointment of another candidate through a complaint, clearly creating a potentially adversarial process. Bill C-4 would amend this process so that a candidate could only challenge the determination of his or her own qualifications and not those of another candidate deemed qualified for the position. This creates a much fairer, more efficient and less adversarial process.

The final proposal I will raise today is the consolidation of the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal into a public service labour relations and employment board. Clearly this proposal reduces the overlap and duplication of bureaucracy to help avoid a lengthier and more costly process.

While there has certainly been a significant amount of rhetoric and alarmist language on the proposed changes I have spoken about, it is clear that on closer inspection these amendments are certainly responsible and reasonable. Bill C-4 will help to ensure the public service is affordable, modern and high-performing in a manner that respects the taxpayer and our public service.

I encourage all members of this House to support this piece of legislation.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak today on economic action plan 2013 act No. 2.

I believe that the results on which our country is now coasting, economic results that are the toast of the world over, relate to an approach to government and an approach to business for which this Conservative government is becoming renowned. It goes back to what a mentor once taught me many years ago when I was running a business in a very competitive environment in Taiwan. The lesson I learned was “may the niche be with you”. That means asking whether we can focus on something that is our calling, something that will lead us to success.

That is what I believe this government and this Minister of Finance have done, through more than seven successive, successful budgets. Again in this budget implementation bill, we see the same hallmarks of success.

Let us delve for a minute into what those successful results have meant for Canadians. What we have seen is the best economic results in the world. We have seen Canada's performance exceed that of all other G7 nations. We have seen over a million new jobs created since the recession began in July 2009. It is by far the best job creation record in the G7. Unemployment rates are below those of the United States; it is the first time in three decades that we have witnessed such an amazing, strong performance.

The International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have both said that Canada is likely to have the strongest growth in the years ahead. Our debt to GDP ratio is by far the best in the G7. In 2012 it was 34.6%. Germany was a distant second at 52%.

For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada as having the best banking system in the world. This would amaze the clients I dealt with in Asia when I practised law in that part of the world: Canada now has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Canadians are facing the lowest tax burden in some 50 years.

Those are the hallmarks of success and the kinds of things we see implicit in this budget implementation bill. I say to people in government everywhere that if people could only follow the lead of this Conservative government's “may the niche be with you” focus on what is the priority for those it is governing, then we would see success everywhere.

Politics is renowned to be local, and I would like to just delve into some of the examples of these successful hallmarks as they have been manifested in the riding I have the honour to represent.

The first example is in the shipbuilding world. The hon. Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced, this month, a contract to Seaspan to build 10 additional large non-combat ships for our coast guard, in the Vancouver shipyards. This is a contract worth $3.3 billion. It is a blockbuster. It is going to create thousands of jobs, including many in the riding I represent.

That is just the beginning of the story. It is a story I would like to speak on for hours, not the few minutes that are allotted to me.

This Conservative government has seen a shipbuilding business, which was being written off as a sunset industry, become a sunrise industry in our great country. In addition to those thousands of high-paying jobs, we see economic development throughout the country. Industry analysts are saying that in total the national shipbuilding strategy is going to mean some 50,000 jobs across Canada and over $2 billion in annual economic benefit over the next 30 years. It is some sunrise industry.

This is one great example of “may the niche be with you”, how a focus on economic development and job creation is putting Canadians in good stead as we compete to create a truly international centre of excellence for shipbuilding in Vancouver.

A second example of how this government's laser-beam focus on the economy and jobs is creating success is in the pulp and paper world.

In the riding I represent, Howe Sound Pulp and Paper is one of the largest employers in one of the most important sectors in British Columbia. In 2010 a sizable amount of money was invested, not just in upgrading an important mill but in what was called the pulp and paper green transformation program, an excellent example of ensuring that the environment is the economy, a doctrine I am trying to cultivate both in the riding and throughout the country, a doctrine that suggests that our resources and our economy are not at odds with one another but instead are intertwined, something our Conservative government grasps and continues to endorse. We have seen this specific investment in the Sunshine Coast part of the riding I represent increase productivity in an environmentally friendly manner. “May the niche be with you”. We see that again being demonstrated in the pulp and paper industry.

More and more we are seeing that, in the world of the arts, this is an important economic driver. We have seen continued support by this government for the arts, in past budgets and directly or indirectly through the encouragement of this budget implementation act.

People are thronging to the riding I represent to attend festivals just like the two for which we announced funding in the last month, the Sechelt Arts Festival and the Sechelt written arts festival. These are two examples where our government, through a wise use of taxpayers dollars, is seeing those dollars leveraged over and over again by people in the arts who are in and of themselves demonstrating an international prowess that makes us the toast of the world in the arts while also creating economic development and jobs.

Let me move from shipbuilding through the arts to fisheries, another area where our government is investing and showing that when “the niche is with you” we can succeed.

In the last budget we saw two great strides forward for fisheries, and these came as a result of legislators representing British Columbians and other Canadians, who said we need to reward the amazing efforts of our volunteers who are improving fisheries habitat around the country. This is not just for the fisheries. This is for jobs and growth.

The recreational fisheries conservation partnership program was created, a great program that is seeding super projects around the country. Two of those projects were funded in the riding I represent, projects that will enhance fisheries habitat, that will encourage volunteers and will lead directly and indirectly to jobs and economic growth. I am speaking of the Evans Creek rewatering project and the Tiampo coho restoration project submitted by the Squamish Watershed Society. Kudos to the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable and Pacific Salmon Foundation, which collaborated to make those a success. In the last budget, we saw enhanced support for the Pacific Salmon Foundation, one of the best volunteer organizations in the country.

These are all examples of how the Government of Canada has continued to support and build up successful industries, not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada. The niche is with this Conservative government. As a result of the government focusing on jobs and growth, both in the budget implementation act and in all of its actions, Canadians are benefiting and we continue to be the toast of the world.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my area we are witnessing a return of investment in the auto industry. The government did not want to do that at first, and it was brought kicking and screaming to the table. However, there has been a rebound of some degree. The reality is that our auto industry has not picked up like that of the United States and other countries where the industry is growing. Our industry is recovering but not to the same degree as the American industry.

Does my colleague have any comments with respect to the auto industry and what we could do to enhance it? Why is the Canadian situation different from that of the rest of the world?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think that is the case for any industry we might discuss. Our unemployment rate is lower than that of our G7 competitors and considerably lower than the U.S. rate. This is the first time in 30 years that we can say that Canada is doing better than the United States. I believe that there has been an upswing in all industries, including the auto industry. Things are not perfect by any means. We have a lot of work to do, but this is really a great success. We have to congratulate our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister for their leadership in this area.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by my colleague opposite. I found his phrase “may the niche be with you” rather intriguing. I do not know why, but it reminds me of Star Wars movies and makes me think about the fact that time allocation has been brought to bear on this debate and that this mammoth bill is more than 300 pages long. I do not know why, but I thought of the Phantom Menace.

Then, fast forward to 2015 and a new hope came to mind.

However, out of curiosity, what does “may the niche be with you” mean exactly?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

We have to focus on our priorities. In a world where there are many challenges, we have to focus on certain priorities. First of all we have to identify our priorities. Our government consulted Canadians extensively. I conducted consultations with many ministers who came to my riding. We heard about Canadians' priorities. More and more we see that Canadians want us, their government, to help them find jobs and sources of income. That is why we are seeing success across the country.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.

We know that one-quarter of the measures in this budget affect the public service and conditions for workers. However, the President of the Treasury Board was very clear: he wants to pass the bill first, and then he will share the details.

Does my colleague think that is democratic? The President of the Treasury Board is forcing us to pass his bill before he reveals any details. Does my colleague think that is truly democratic?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Every time she speaks in the House, her French is clear enough that even an anglophone can understand. I thank her for that.

Her question has to do with how democratic this process is. We need a bill like the one we are debating today to implement the budget. We will examine many more bills in the House. We will have many opportunities to discuss them. I know. I have a lot of confidence in our democracy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. My speech will focus primarily on division 19 of part 3, clauses 471 and 472, which have to do with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. It feels strange to say in the same sentence that I will talk about two clauses regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the budget implementation bill. Something does not seem right there.

We opposed the last three budget implementation bills, and we will oppose Bill C-4 because of both its content and the method the government has used. Bill C-4 includes a wide range of complex measures, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This is what bothers me the most, and I think it deserves to be studied carefully. The bill is so broad and we have so little time to examine it.

I repeat: we are faced with a time allocation motion. Not only has the government decided to group a number of unrelated items that have nothing to do with either the economy or the budget measures, but it is also preventing the members of the House from making their views known and looking at those major considerations properly. I am not the only one saying so.

Columnist Andrew Coyne said that this type of mammoth bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeated in the House. As a result, there is no way of knowing how the lawmakers would vote on those bills. We have no idea at all whether they are for or against each of the pieces of legislation grouped under this bill. All we know is whether they voted for or against the omnibus bill as a whole.

There is no common thread among the various measures, no overarching principle. It is a sort of compulsory buffet. It is alarming to see that the government wants to force Parliament to approve its legislative agenda in one go, including division 19 of part 3, which consists of clauses 471 and 472 dealing with appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian Press journalist and lawyer Stéphanie Marin gave a very good factual account of the situation that triggered the addition of clauses 471 and 472 to Bill C-4 in relation to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We must fully grasp what is happening. This is not just a technicality, as I thought I heard from the Conservative benches, but rather a real fundamental problem. Clauses 471 and 472 were added after the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The day the Prime Minister appointed Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, he had the appointment document in his left hand and a legal opinion in his right hand from the Honourable Ian Binnie, a former Supreme Court justice. The government had seen fit to ask him whether someone from the Federal Court of Appeal could be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada to take one of the three seats allocated to Quebec in order to protect Canada's bijural nature.

I cannot tell you enough how much I respect the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. My respect for that institution knows no bounds. That being said, the Conservative government has managed to politicize this institution, which it should not be. Politics should have nothing to do with the Supreme Court so that it can make decisions as the highest court without any interference, without any lingering questions about the people on the bench. That is how it was up until recently.

I mean no disrespect to Justice Marc Nadon, whose career as a lawyer and a judge has been quite remarkable in many respects. Nonetheless, the real question here has to do with the meaning of section 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

Consider this: the government shows up with an appointment and a legal opinion. I could read the tons of comments that have been made on this. Eminent constitutional lawyers who know an awful lot more than I do have written about this.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read Purposive Interpretation, Quebec, and the Supreme Court Act by Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen from the University of Ottawa. You will see that this is not a technical matter. We do not usually see this type of thing in budget implementation legislation.

These are fundamental issues that go to the heart of what our federation is. Ian Binnie told the government that the decision is in order, but many others, like the Government of Quebec, say that this decision does not meet the criteria set out in section 6.

There must be enough doubt in this respect for the federal government, through its Minister of Justice, to think it was a good idea to make what we call a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I must confess that I am very pleased that the government has broken its silence after too many weeks, and decided to move quickly.

Indeed, it is important to understand that Quebec, which has three seats in the Supreme Court of Canada, currently has only two judges sitting on that court, for the simple reason that Justice Marc Nadon, in his wisdom, has opted to sit on the sidelines for now.

The government could easily have avoided all this drama if it had chosen to make 100% sure that it was making a good decision, not in terms of the person selected, but rather with respect to sections 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, which will be amending sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act—apparently to explain, after the fact, what these sections really mean according to the government of the day.

This is extremely worrying, especially when we consider that it is being done without consultation. I am not making this up. The finance people held a briefing on Bill C-4. When we asked about division 19, specifically sections 471 and 472, they told us that, in their opinion, this would apply retroactively if the bill were passed.

However, the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is very clear. The questions before the Supreme Court are the following:

1. Can a person who was, at any time, an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada as a member of the Supreme Court from Quebec pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act?

2. Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2?

Thus, two questions have been referred to the Supreme Court, yet this is going to pass here before we even get an answer. It makes no sense.

Last week, I moved a motion and hoped to receive unanimous consent to at least remove those two clauses from Bill C-4, since they have absolutely nothing to do with budget implementation. Unfortunately, my motion was rejected by the members opposite.

We are in a real quagmire, caused entirely by this government and this Prime Minister, who ignores all of the recommendations and suggestions we make, many of them for his own good. He refuses to listen to anything on this.

I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, given the time allocation motion, we are out of time. In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will not even have the opportunity to study this issue thoroughly with constitutional experts to respond to this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate our hon. colleague on her speech. As usual, she provided us with some very relevant explanations regarding the issue she raised from Bill C-4, that is, the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

She also talked about how this government tends to deny not just reality but also the democratic process. Bringing forward yet another time allocation motion is definitely not meant to encourage a more thorough debate on everything included in Bill C-4, which, I would remind the House, is yet another omnibus bill.

Getting back to the question she raised, I wonder if our colleague could elaborate on the impact that such a regulation will have on the decisions before the court.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because there is a huge impact.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, the bench that is called upon to hear a wide range of major cases should be comprised of nine justices. Take, for example, the reference—the approach taken by the Conservative government—involving the Senate. The question is whether we can modify the composition of the Senate and what type of constitutional amendment it would require.

There are only eight justices on the bench, and one justice from Quebec is missing. We know that, like it or not, the whole constitutional issue and a balanced federation are extremely important elements. Nobody reads sections 5 and 6 for fun. Nobody is denigrating the Federal Court judges, who have tremendous value, and who have a legitimate and rightful place in the Supreme Court in accordance with section 5, although I am not sure that is the case under section 6.

This is a major issue that is not going to be resolved in the coming weeks. It could take as long as a year or more. What a pity. This could have all been avoided.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She has incredible legal experience and she is very generously sharing it today.

Let us look at the facts. My colleague's speech was 10 minutes long, but probably could have lasted an hour, and it touched on only two clauses of a bill that amends 70 different laws.

As the citizenship and immigration critic, that makes me angry. Elements of this bill could also be studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, and we would certainly do well to hear from experts on the various elements of this bill.

What types of experts could talk to us about the clauses she discussed today? How would it be beneficial to hear from people with this type of expertise, and what are the potential consequences of not listening to these experts when studying the bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a huge impact.

We would like to hear from constitutional experts. We have to look at the interpretation of section 6, and I will take the time to read it because people are talking about this issue without necessarily talking about the situation specifically.

According to section 6:

At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.

It all depends on the interpretation of section 6, and not section 5, which states that any person who has at least ten years standing at the bar of a province may be appointed to the Supreme Court. Section 6 is a little more specific.

As for the impact of whether or not a person has been a judge for a certain period of time, these are valid and important questions that reflect on the credibility of the institution, and not the person appointed.

That being said, we need more than just the cursory study that we will be forced to do at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as referred by the Standing Committee on Finance. I am sorry, but the finance committee is not our boss. We will probably not be able to amend anything nor even have the time to meet with constitutional experts from Quebec or the rest of Canada who could enlighten us on this matter.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and speak in this august chamber about Bill C-4, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, our second implementation bill from the government. I appreciate very much the opportunity to rise and talk about how important the bill is, not only for my constituents in the great riding of Wetaskiwin but for my province of Alberta and the country as a whole.

Canada is a great nation. It is built by the hard-working families of our communities. They are paving the pathway to prosperity for future generations with their hard work.

Since 2006, which was the year I was first elected, our government has invested in families at unprecedented levels. In fact, I ran for the nomination for this party because of the lack of interest that previous parties and governments seemed to have when it came to treating families fairly, particularly with the tax system. Now more families than ever before are benefiting from the measures that we put in place since 2006.

I will cite some examples. In my riding of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, trades play a large role in generating jobs for our communities. It does not matter whether one lives in or around Blackfalds, Rocky Mountain House, Millet, or any of the places in between: the tradespeople's tools deduction is working to put a little money back into the pockets of these hard-working families, right where it belongs.

This is not all we have done to improve the lot of families right across Canada to help them get ahead and make ends meet. Since 2006, the typical family of four can now realize approximately, on average, $3,200 in tax savings in any given year. Conservatives have done this by cutting the lowest personal tax rate and increasing the tax exemption amount. That means there are fewer Canadians paying taxes than ever before when it comes to personal income tax. Conservatives have reduced the GST, a tax that everyone pays, from 7% to 6% to 5%, and we have introduced numerous tax changes and savings measures to help families keep their hard-earned money.

I will go through a couple of examples, because I know the families in my constituency certainly appreciate this. There is the children's fitness tax credit. My kids play hockey, school sports, baseball, and soccer, and this has been a great opportunity for us to realize some of the savings because families incur a cost for these activities. It is wonderful to see so many kids out there participating in activities, keeping fit and so on.

There is the children's arts tax credit. Again I can speak for my own family, whether it is my boys in guitar lessons or my daughter playing cello or piano. These are the kinds of things that allow us to keep a little extra of our income to make sure we can pay for the lessons and the instruments in our particular case. It does not matter whether it is music or any of the other types of arts, such as dance or whatever the case may be; these are great initiatives.

There is the child tax credit. Before the Conservatives became the governing party, there was not even a tax credit for having kids. Everyone knows the cost of raising children is very high, and just keeping money in the hands of parents, who know how to spend it best, through a child tax credit, is a no-brainer.

There is also the family caregiver tax credit, which allows family members to look after their sick or elderly family members, and the first-time homebuyer tax credit, which reduces the barrier to make it a little easier for young families to get into their first home.

There is the registered disability savings plans, allowing families to save for their loved ones who are going to be struggling for the rest of their lives with the disabilities that they may have.

The volunteer firefighters' tax credit honours those men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to defend our property and our lives. They spend money out of their own pockets to make sure they are well equipped. The least the government can do is to offer something back through a tax credit to these brave men and women who are our volunteer firefighters. I should note that every fire department in the constituency of Wetaskiwin is a volunteer fire department.

There is the working income tax benefit. Absolutely, if someone is going to work, they should realize a savings as a result. This is going to break down that wall to make it more feasible for people to work. We should not have to have a choice in the tax system on whether it is more lucrative not to work than to work. This is a no-brainer as well.

We also have the textbook tax credit. A number of people in my constituency face the same issues I did when I went to university. I grew up in a rural community; there were no post-secondary institutions near me, so I had to move in order to get a post-secondary education. At no point in time did any previous government ever give me the opportunity to claim textbooks, which are a huge expense. Now we have that textbook tax credit, allowing students and families to keep more of that money and allowing them to invest more resources into their children's education.

On eliminating the marriage penalty for single-income families, I cannot believe that previous governments did not even value a stay-at-home parent. If a family made the choice to have one person stay at home to raise children in their formative years, the person who was not making an income, whoever that happened to be, would get less of a personal exemption amount at tax time. Well, we ended that penalty and treated stay-at-home parents equally in terms of tax. This is a step in the right direction, and someday I hope we can get to a point in this country where we actually see income splitting for families. That is something I will certainly be supporting.

There is also the tax-free savings account. As I go through my riding and talk with people, they say that this investment vehicle has revolutionized the investment and savings industry and allows Canadians more flexibility and freedom. This is an absolutely fantastic tool that I know will help empower people across the country to save for their retirement and plan for their future.

Time and time again, whether it is these measures or any other common sense measure that Canadians ask us to bring forward, at every opportunity when we have had a chance to stand in this place and vote in favour of these measures, it has only been Conservative members of Parliament who have stood up and voted in favour of these budgets. Every other time that I have been here, opposition members over there have been against all of the measures that I just talked about. If Canadians want to know who has their best interests at heart, they have to look no further than here on the Conservative side of the House to make sure that they have the resources they need to raise their families.

Speaking of some of the changes that we need to make in the budget here for those hard-working families who pay their taxes and play by the rules, there are some rules in budget 2013 that I would like to highlight.

Budget 2013 would restore fairness to the tax system by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. When everybody pays their fair share of taxes, we all pay less. We are making changes that would improve the integrity of the tax system and close some of the loopholes that currently exist; strengthen compliance and clarification of the language so that there is less confusion, both for the person filing taxes and for those who audit and oversee the tax system; and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

As I said, closing loopholes and clarifying the tax rules would ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share. This would allow hard-working Canadians to keep more, because they would not be offsetting what other people hide or get away with.

Alberta, like the rest of Canada, was not immune to the effects of the global economic crisis. Yes, Canada is leading the G7 in job creation, and Alberta has a robust economy, but that does not mean all of our communities and all of our residents are thriving. Every once in a while we have to extend a hand to those who need a hand up and make sure that no one gets left behind. That is precisely why our government is investing over $1.25 billion in affordable housing initiatives.

In August, I had the pleasure of announcing on behalf of the Minister of State (Social Development) $600,000 in funding for Shkola Suites in Calmar, Alberta. This is a great initiative. It allows those families an opportunity to be close to a school for their kids and gives them a bit of a break on their housing costs so that they can get back on their feet and get re-established. This is an interim housing measure for those families who just need a little bit of help to get going again, because sometimes life throws a curve ball, and that can happen in Alberta just as much as it can happen anywhere else. Thanks go to Nancy Lang and the folks at the Leduc Foundation, who are doing a great job making sure that nobody gets left behind in those communities.

In order to continue helping Canadian communities and families, the budget would invest nearly $600 million in Alberta and across Canada to address homelessness. Coupled with our affordable housing strategy, I know that the budget would greatly help those people get back on their feet.

Speaking of communities, Alberta and every region of Canada has communities that are facing challenges when it comes to infrastructure. I hear this constantly. I represent a large geographic area of 26 municipalities and counties, and every one of them tells me the same story: they want long-term predictable funding, which is what we did through the gas tax transfer in previous budgets.

Now, going forward with the announcements in budget 2013 and with the implementation coming up in 2014, some $32 billion will be flowing to these communities in stable, predictable funding. When we couple that with $14 billion over the same time frame for major infrastructure and with the P3 partnerships, Canada will be well poised to address the infrastructure problems that it has, which would enable our communities to flourish and thrive going forward.

I want to talk a little about agriculture.

First of all, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade for the excellent work they did with the comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

Agriculture is a backbone in my constituency, as are all of the resource sectors that are there. I know that with the changes that will be coming as a result of the budget implementation and these trade agreements, central Alberta will be well poised to thrive well into the future.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke a lot about tax credits. About ten days ago, I held an information meeting in my riding on tax credits for persons with disabilities. Many people who attended did not know about these credits or that they could apply for them any time of the year.

I would like to know how the member plans on informing people about all the credits announced. Will he count on NDP members to inform the public?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking me a question about what the government is going to do with regard to disseminating information. I guess I would have to tell her to stay tuned as the information presents itself.

What I would encourage her to do is vote in favour of the budget so that the information can get out there and the programs can be delivered to those folks, whether they are disabled, people who need investment for skills and jobs training, or people who need employment insurance. Whatever the case might be, if the hon. member wants the program to be delivered to her constituents, the sooner we pass the budget, the sooner these programs will be delivered.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that ultimately the middle class has not fared well under the Conservative government. In fact, I would like to focus some attention on working people who find themselves in a position of being laid off. The government has really failed to step up to the plate and come up with a creative, positive program that is going to enable those unemployed individuals. They might be in their 40s or 50s, and they do not feel that the government is on side with them in allowing them to gain additional skill sets so that they can get back into the workforce at a reasonable wage, something that they might have been receiving prior to being laid off.

The Conservatives had one program, under which they did not negotiate with the provinces. My question to the member is this: to what degree does he feel that the government has negotiated in good faith with provinces to try to create a better working environment so that people can get back into employment?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada does a lot of good things. I think what the member is specifically referring to is the Canada job grant, which was announced in the last budget. While he cites this as a specific example, what he has failed to mention is creating opportunities for apprentices, the various tax incentives that we have for employers, and the hiring tax credit for businesses to make sure that they have some $225 million in their pockets. We have extended that tax credit to make sure that Canadians can get a job or keep their jobs.

We have the lowest unemployment rate among our peer countries. We have had a lower unemployment rate for some years now than our friends south of the border. That is a complete role reversal that our country is not used to.

I am not sure what the hon. member is complaining about. There is more investment going into training and development, and we have created one million net new jobs since the end of the recession. I think he needs to rethink his thoughts.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, this summer I had the opportunity to host a round table with my colleague in his riding with several stakeholders from his community, specifically to talk about economic growth opportunities in his community. We heard several different themes emerge.

I wonder if he would like to take this opportunity to talk about how this particular piece of legislation would help address some of the economic growth concerns that he is hearing from his constituents?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and congratulate her on her recent appointment into cabinet. She is doing a great job, not only in looking after all of the interests of western Canada but particularly in coming to my riding and having a round table.

I had folks come from Red Deer, Sylvan Lake, Breton, Wetaskiwin, Leduc, Lacombe, and Ponoka. They are all business leaders or involved in the education system or involved in some way through agriculture or whatever sector. Broad interests were represented. They all came together and had an opportunity to express not only how well the government is currently doing and the trajectory it needs to stay on but also some of the concerns they had when it came to labour and making sure that Alberta has the labour force and the skilled tradespeople that it needs, right from low-skilled jobs up to highly skilled trained professionals, to ensure that we are able to meet the needs of the future.

I know that the minister, through western diversification, will be doing a great job as an enabler to bridge those gaps and continue to help our economy and our communities grow and thrive.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to rise in the House and represent the great people of Timmins—James Bay. I am rising today to speak on the government's budget implementation bill, another bill that fails the average Canadians of this country.

I speak with a heavy heart, as just this past Friday, I was in discussions with the residents of Resolute about the shutdown of the historic No.1 paper machine of Abitibi, in Iroquois Falls. The situation facing that community is an example of what happens in an economy based on resource development and of the need for understanding transition.

The Iroquois Falls paper mill is historic in this country. Abitibi, which was the largest paper company in the world, got its start on the shores of the Abitibi River, in northern Ontario, over 100 years ago, when it realized that there was an enormous opportunity for utilizing the hydro power on the Abitibi River. It also realized that there was an incredible amount of wood product nearby, so a deal was set up. This is the important thing. My hon. colleagues on the other side have this belief in the mystical powers of capital, that capital is something that comes down from heaven and creates. What we saw in Abitibi—

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You earn it, Charlie.

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

The heretics over there are going off the deep end again, which happens when we question their false god of capital.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It is called hard work.

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

What we saw in the case of Abitibi was that a company saw an opportunity, but what really drove the agenda was that a province understood that a plan was needed for development to create a region and to build what was building in northern Ontario at that time.

At that time, there was an agreement with Abitibi, a young company. It would have access to the forest and the province would give it access to the power of the dams. That is what made Abitibi the economic powerhouse known around the world. It was the agreement with the province. The same deals were struck then in Quebec and in the Maritimes that these were the resources of the people of the province, but they would work with the company to share the resources to build a base.

In the case of Abitibi, the communities of Ansonville and Iroquois Falls built up around it. Generations and generations of people worked in that mill. There were times when over 1,000 people were working in the mill. Thousands of people were working out in the bush, cutting the wood and bringing it in.

The sense of spirit and community in Iroquois Falls has always been very strong. There was the building of the arena, the most beautiful arena of its kind in the north. The Abitibi Eskimos, the junior hockey team, has been able to sustain itself in a community like Iroquois Falls.

However, over the years, we have seen continuing pressure on the paper industry. We have seen the decline of the forest industry across northern Canada. We are hoping that the markets are beginning to rebound and that we might begin to see the return of some of these once-mighty forestry communities. However, in the case of the No.1 paper machine, which is 100 years old, the market has changed. This is a recognition that we are in a new economy. What was once the big papermaking money machine operation at Iroquois Falls is no more.

We have to take that into account, and nobody understands that better than people who live in a resource economy. When we look at these issues, we need to have a long-term plan. Unfortunately, we have seen the absolute failure, at the provincial level, of the Liberal government, and at the federal level, of the Conservative government. The Liberals provincially had such a short-term vision of the north that they thought they would just sell off the dams to private interests, make some quick bucks, and pay off their badly managed debts. Here were people who were ringing up $1 billion on gas plants through a dodgy deal to save a few Liberal MPPs while at the same time they were trying to have a fire sale of some of the provinces best resources, which were the mills on the Abitibi River. That certainly affected the bottom line of the Abitibi company.

Again, it was the lack of understanding of how to build a region. We saw the provincial Liberals cut train services to northern Ontario. “We'll save a few more bucks. We'll just keep writing off anybody who lives north of Highway 17. They don't really belong in Ontario anyway”. It was a lack of understanding that to build an economy, there has to be investment. There has to be the infrastructure.

At the federal level, we see the problem, particularly in this bill, of no vision for the pension crisis in this country. There is no response to the fact that more and more people are falling through the cracks when it comes to EI.

There is a failure of the government to work on adequate infrastructure investments in communities. As the population ages in northern communities that were once able to count on the tax dollars from single employers, like a paper mill or a mine, more and more of that cost is being downloaded onto the backs of ordinary Canadian citizens.

My colleagues in the House always talk about this fiction that the average taxpayer pays so much less in taxes. Time and again, whatever they have lost at the federal level they have gained in costs at the municipal level. That is the reality. If we ask citizens about their municipal taxes, they ask why it is that they are paying such enormous taxes. Unfortunately, more and more of the costs have been downloaded to the provinces and the municipalities without their partnership. We certainly see that in Iroquois Falls where there are roads and bridges that are going out, and there is no money to replace them. We see that in decaying infrastructure and a lack of investment.

Iroquois Falls was also ground zero for the pension crisis in this country, because when the company was facing bankruptcy, it was the Abitibi workers who were facing the insolvency of their pension plan, just as the Nortel workers did.

If we ask Canadians, the issue of the need for an overhaul of Canada's pension plan is paramount. My father-in-law, who worked in the oil patch, paid into a pension for life and retired with a pension he was able to live on, but that is less and less available now.

I regularly meet people in their late-60s who come up to me at Tim Hortons and tell me that they have paid into the Canada Pension Plan their whole lives and cannot afford to live in their homes anymore. Men who are 68 and 70 tell me that they are going back to work underground in the gold mines, because they cannot pay the cost of living. When the municipal tax rates were reassessed in Timmins, again the costs were downloaded onto senior citizens. I see people in their late-60s going to work at Walmart and in the mines. They are trying to find work, because the pension system has failed them.

The New Democrats have tried to work with the government on a coherent pension plan. The CPP at one time was the best pension plan in the world. It is a system that works. However, the government attacked senior citizens and said that they had to work an extra two years.

Right now, the Conservatives are over in the Senate with their buddies saying that Pamela Wallin is being hard done by and they have to work out a deal for her. They have to get a deal for Patrick Brazeau. They had to get the Prime Minister's chief of staff to cut Mike Duffy a secret cheque, because he is one of them.

What about all the senior citizens who are being told, “Too bad, so sad, the cupboard is bare. Work an extra two years. It won't kill you. Just get back to work and stop complaining”? It shows complete disrespect for the people who built this country.

We know that at least 5.8 million Canadians do not have the ability to retire on their pensions. That is a serious issue. It is standing before us. We have debated this time and again. The government has said not to worry about that and to tell them that there are pooled savings, as though if RRSPs worked, they would not need them. They would prefer to tell the senior citizens of this country to work an few extra years. To add to the gall, the Conservatives did not have the guts to tell senior citizens to their faces. The Prime Minister had to go off to Davos to tell the world's millionaires that he was putting the screws to Canadian senior citizens.

In Iroquois Falls, where we are seeing the shutdown of the No.1 paper machine, we are seeing the loss of at least 70 jobs. We are seeing people who are in transition, who paid into EI, who do not have enough to retire on. They will be in for a shock when they call Service Canada, the operation in the community that is supposed to help them. They are being told that they are not allowed to talk to a real person anymore. They have to go online.

The government also got rid of the EI appeals board. Now there are a couple of Conservative hacks running that. What we have now is more and more denials for people with legitimate claims.

The Conservatives on the back bench always say that there are lots of jobs in Alberta, so what is the problem? The problem is that they are not looking at a national economy.

When we have a community like Iroquois Falls that is in transition, we need to ensure that the people who work there are able to receive EI and are able to receive retraining, and fundamentally, that everyone who pays into the system is able to retire with dignity. Once again, the government has ignored that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we will be asked to do is vote on this bill in which we find numerous pieces of legislation brought in through the back door that should have been stand-alone pieces of legislation. Because they have been incorporated into the budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are limiting debate on a wide variety of issues that we should have been afforded the opportunity to debate and vote on as separate issues.

Would the member like to comment on the importance of budget implementation bills being there to allow the government to implement the budget, not to have the add-ons? The government, more than any other government, whether provincial or federal, has gone out of its way to bring all sorts of things in through the back door through budget implementation bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing from the government an act of contempt for the basic workings of democracy. Democracy is not about the Conservatives' partisan spin versus ours; it is about accountability. What more important place to talk about the issue of accountability than in the spending of taxpayers' dollars?

What the government has done with the budget implementation bill and the estimates is stuff all manner of ideological issues into the footnotes of a massive bill. They demand that Parliament pass it, refuse to allow proper debate, and refuse to allow the committees the proper time to study it. This is an incredibly large and complex issue, but we are seeing all the little poison pills that favour the Conservatives' ideological, strange people in their ranks. They are using a budget implementation bill to do this.

I was talking the other day with my colleagues at the provincial level. For the estimates for, say, agriculture, the MPPs might have the deputy minister before them for 13 hours to discuss the implementation of the estimates. This is what happens at the provincial level. Yet at the federal level, we see debate shut off. We see the Conservatives using budgets to force ideological agendas to attack people's rights and to attack all manner of things. Then when they cannot find--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's description of what happened at Iroquois Falls. I am deeply sympathetic to that, having worked in an Abitibi mill myself, in a previous life, that is now closed. I think he is quite right to describe the pain those resource workers feel when an operation like that is shut down.

Having said that, I detected in his speech some sympathy for the resource industries in Canada, and thank goodness for that. However, how does he square this particular circle: his evident sympathy for the natural resource industries, which quite frankly are the basis of our entire economy, and his party's warm embrace of these environmental activists and radicals who want to shut down the natural resource industries?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a grandfather who died in the mines and another who had his back broken underground.

We live in resource communities. I have never met a person in a resource community who said, “Let's poison our rivers to get a few quick jobs”. I have never met anybody in northern Ontario who said, “Let's pull the Ring of Fire out as fast as we can and ship it to China without value added”. I have never heard anybody in Timmins say, “Let's push the bitumen through as fast as we can, and if it blows out on the Mattagami or any other river, well too bad, so sad”.

I do not know what world my colleague lives in, but the people I live with in resource-based communities believe that development has to be sustainable, and it has to be something that is there for future generations.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the statements made by Michael Harris on iPolitics.ca, who wrote that “apart from pitching a free-trade deal with Antarctica, the PM has nothing to offer on the economy besides glowing self-appraisals, bad commercials on the public dime, and discount-rate foreign workers inflating his dismal job creation numbers.”

For all he bragged about being a champion of the economy, things certainly are not going well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have such great respect for my hon. colleague's work.

We have a prime minister who is an economist. My father was an economist. He went back to school in his forties, because he had never finished high school and then he became an economist. My father thought numbers mattered.

However, he also told me “Son, they can say anything they want with numbers. Don't ever believe them”.

What we see with the government is it just makes up numbers. What it is saying is that permanent jobs are part time and what we are seeing are thousands of temporary foreign workers coming in, being given the jobs and then being deported.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill today, our second budget implementation bill.

Although it is quite technical in parts, in fact, it is part of the process of governance that is taking Canada and our government to a brilliant future, a future where governments provide excellent services at reasonable costs and do not continually take more from people's paycheques than they can afford, especially to pay for programs that are inefficient or unnecessary and for which costs cannot be controlled.

There are over 40 million people worldwide who would do almost anything to immigrate to Canada. Why is that? In many cases it is because life is not easy in many parts of the world. In many countries, even basics like food and shelter are hard to maintain, especially where there are wars in Syria today where millions of people have been displaced. It is very hard to get a basic or advanced education in many countries because it is unaffordable. Many countries are governed by totalitarian leaders, such as North Korea, Iran, or Cuba, countries where a word criticizing the government or even the wrong official would result in men coming in the middle of the night to take people away, sometimes never to be seen again.

However, even in the freer countries, such as South Africa, the Philippines and India, people literally line up to fill out forms to come to Canada. Why? Because Canada is one of the few countries in the world in which people, especially young people, have a virtually unlimited potential in career, quality of life and wealth. They are fleeing governments that do not protect or nurture free enterprise, equality of opportunity, responsible spending and fairness in taxation, all of which this budget bill supports.

Canada sits on the cusp of a new day. Although we know the economic recovery in the U.S. has been slow at 2.5% growth and our U.S. friends buy 70% of the goods produced in Canada, the U.S. economy is still the largest in the world.

Last week, the Prime Minister went to Brussels to sign CETA, the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. When this deal kicks in, 98% of the tariffs on Canadian goods in Europe will disappear overnight.

Canadian entrepreneurs who already have access to the largest market in North America with U.S. and Mexico, with 400 million people, will have free access to the world's largest market: 28 countries in Europe, with 500 million people.

One out of five jobs in Canada is created from trade now, even with our tariffs. We are a trading nation, but the future will be far more exciting if we stay on track.

Canada has what the world needs, such as copper, nickel, uranium, gold, phosphorus, lumber, grains, potash, seafood and dairy products and we manufacture and sell high-tech goods with the best.

In my riding of Oakville, Ford of Canada is partnering with our government, the province of Ontario and Unifor to develop a state-of-the-art auto manufacturing facility where it will assemble up to 10 different cars on one platform, lasting 10 years.

It already sells thousands of Ford Edges in Canada and Brazil. However, this line, using $71.6 million out of the auto innovation fund and a $700 million investment from Ford, will make cars with ecoboost engines, diesel engines and hybrids, all on the same platform. This partnership will guarantee 3,000 jobs in Oakville for the next 10 years. That is the power of free trade.

Our dairy farmers, those who make butter and cheese, our fishers, our excellent wineries and our manufacturers will all have access to a new market of over 500 million people. That is not just goods that can be sold without tariffs. This is a comprehensive agreement. It includes services, banking, insurance and government procurement. It is the largest trade deal in Canada's history.

Our government, under the leadership of a prime minister, who is an accomplished and excellent expert economist, is assembling an economic structure for Canada that would be unmatched worldwide. I am quite serious about that. All the business writers talk about Canada's growth and all its manufacturing and all its successes. However, in China's west, there are 600 million people living on less than $20.00 a week. The command economy is not working for the majority of the people in China.

Because Canada has a free economy, wealth and opportunity are spread right across our country, even to the Far North. Canada's environment minister, who is a First Nation Canadian from the Far North in Nunavut, is chairing the Arctic Council in the Far North for the next two years, dealing with issues such as the environment and resource development.

Most people do not know there are more natural resources in Canada's territories within the Arctic Circle than in the rest of Canada, which is already rich with resources. Our commitment as a government is that these resources will be developed in the interest of the people of the north.

Each budget bill is one more step toward the goal of an excelled economic structure and will be the envy of the world. Here are the elements.

First, we already talked about trade. Fair trade and new markets are the most important way to grow an economy, without massive new spending programs the opposition parties would like to introduce. The trade agreement with the European Union could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, another $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. Put another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy, which is of course great news.

Second, taxes must not be punitive on people or business. They must be competitive to attract new business and jobs. Our government has lowered the GST from 7% to 5%, cut corporate tax rates from 21% to 15%, and cut taxes over 160 times now in other ways, saving the average Canada family $3,200 a year and helping businesses succeed.

Taxes must also be fair and paid by all. This bill introduces measures to combat tax cheats by cracking down on Canada's black market and the use of electronic suppression of sales software. This software hurts Canadian businesses that play by the rules in favour of those that refuse to comply with Canada's tax laws. When these businesses cheat, we all lose.

Taxes must be kept under control. Three levels of government increasing taxes year after year drives business and opportunity out of the country. That is self-defeating. We will not increase taxes.

Third, balanced budgets should be the law under normal circumstances. Borrowing billions and creating government debt should be done only in a recession or when that money is invested for a real financial return. Borrowing money to pay out in entitlement programs or for government operations is a sure way to end up in trouble. Europe's mistakes should be a lesson to all. Too many countries are crippled with overwhelming debt due to years of excessive borrowing. In Greece there is a 27% unemployment rate. In Cyprus bank accounts have been confiscated. Italy has a debt to GDP ratio of 130%. Portugal's unemployment rate is 16%. It is no surprise that these nations are not prospering.

In government, if it is that important, tax to pay for it. If it does not have the nerve to tax to pay for spending schemes, that is a good sign that the scheme is a bad idea.

Our government will introduce a balanced budget bill as described in our throne speech. Canada's federal budget will be balanced in 2015: fair taxes shared by all, lower taxes, balanced budgets and innovation. We have invested more than $9 billion to date to support science and technology and innovative companies in the last seven years. Programs like the industrial research assistance program, the clean energy fund and now more with FedDev Ontario, these investments help create jobs and make Canada more competitive worldwide.

When we have a country as wealthy and large as Canada, there will always be those who wish they could take a piece of it. We have been very lucky in Canada. We have not had fighting on our soil since 1812. However, we are partners in the Norad security with the world's largest military power. Our armed forces must be vigilant and do their share. They guard the world's second largest country in extreme weather conditions. They must be equipped with the best equipment to do that important job. Our government has ensured they do. We have committed in the throne speech to continue that stewardship. We will not break trust with those who guard our nation.

Fair taxes shared by all, low taxes, balanced budgets, innovation, national security, these are our priorities as indicated in the bill for Canada's future. Canada's economic structure also includes safe communities. Our government has put in place legislation that holds criminals to account by ensuring sentences match the crimes, such as mandatory minimum sentences for serious, violent and repeat offenders, in order to get violent criminals off the streets so they cannot reoffend.

We have also introduced protection for individuals, to get lead out of children's toys, to stop companies selling flavoured cigars aimed at children and to introduce new regulations for plain language drug labels so Canadians and their doctors will know the true risks of serious adverse drug reactions when they are taking their drugs.

Our government has done all of this and created the structure I described, prioritizing stability, prudent fiscal management and careful stewardship of our economy. That is why we are light years ahead of most of Europe economically and ahead of the other G8 countries in so many ways.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House next resumes debate, the hon. member for Oakville will have five minutes remaining in questions and answers should he wish to take that up.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadians will have a real government in 2015.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's concluding remarks. They were in regard to what real people want to see.

There has been a serious void in attention given to Canada's middle class. What we have seen, and it has been highlighted by the leader of the Liberal Party on numerous occasions, is that the middle class is not getting its fair share of the wealth Canada has been able to produce. It has been neglected by the government.

One example is the unemployed today. To what degree is the government coming up with creative programming in co-operation with the different stakeholders, such as the provinces, in developing skill sets and in encouraging individuals to become re-engaged or re-employed at a level at which they will get a salary based on their salary when they were laid off just months prior?

To what degree does she believe the Government of Canada has been negligent in not working with our provinces to ensure that we have first-class training opportunities and programs that would allow our middle class, in particular, to stay employed at quality jobs for quality pay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to talk about the middle class and what they are doing to defend the middle class. However, members of our caucus represent Canadians well. I am a single mother, and I know what it is like to work two jobs and pay for day care and juggle it all.

The government is not doing enough to help families get out of poverty. We talk about the middle class, but consider the people under the middle class. We need to help people get out of poverty. We need to make sure that they have good jobs and that when they retire, they have une retraite assez décente.

I recently read an article from the Wellesley Institute about the children's fitness tax credit. It is great. It is a tax credit. However, the article says that it only helps families with incomes over $200,000 a year.

Make that tax credit reimbursable.

That would make life more affordable for families who are truly in need. This is a concrete measure that the government could include in the budget.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who works so hard and does such a great job of representing all Canadians, including the middle class. I was very pleased to hear her talk about that.

I will stay more or less on the same topic. Michael Harris, a journalist who writes on iPolitics.ca, stated the following: “The PM and his government are not good managers. The nauseating repetition of the claim that the Tories know what they’re doing with the country’s finances will not make it so.”

Similarly, the fact that the Liberals keep repeating the words “middle class” in every sentence that comes out of their mouths will not make them the great defenders of the middle class. No one will forget that when they had majority governments, they did nothing to advance the interests of the middle class.

Going back to the Conservatives, Michael Harris also stated the following: “They’ve pissed away more money than Madonna on a shopping spree—a billion on the G8-20 meetings that put a dent in the world’s Perrier supply and little else. They just plain lost $3.2 billion and the guy in charge over at Treasury Board is still there.... They are such good fiscal managers that we now have the highest deficit in our history.”

Well, that is what we see here day after day. What are his comments on this—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and congratulate her for the speech she made earlier. I always love listening to the hon. member for Gatineau, because I always learn something.

This omnibus bill contains many elements. They should be separated so that we can study them in depth. We know that we cannot trust the government of the day because, once more, the things it is foisting on us are full of mistakes. Nor has it learned a thing. My son makes mistakes but he understands that he must not make them again. He learns from his mistakes. The Conservatives do not.

According to Statistics Canada, there are 6.5 unemployed people for every job vacancy in this country. Are the Conservatives going to fix that? I see nothing to that effect in this omnibus bill. The number of unemployed people has increased by more than 270,000 under the Conservative government. Well done!

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to speak to economic action plan 2013. It will not surprise you, but I stand in support of this legislation, as it really is a continuation of what our government has done to bring prosperity, hope, and opportunity to Canadians of all ages, from coast to coast.

It is a privilege to stand and commend our Minister of Finance, who has brought forward another plan, a continuation of a plan, to continue to see jobs created across this country.

I might need to remind our opposition colleagues, who like to lead folks to different conclusions, that since the depths of the recession, we have seen over one million net new jobs created in this country. That is great news, especially for those people in the middle class, who work hard to pay the bills and make ends meet. We are seeing the lowest unemployment rates in some eight years, which is just great news, and that number continues to drop, month after month.

Having come from the province of Alberta, and representing the province of Alberta, the number one issue small businesses, industry, and employers have is trying to find folks to fill job vacancies. The number one issue that seems to be holding back growth and opportunity in the province of Alberta is finding a skilled workforce.

That is why I am so excited about what is included in the plan we are debating today. It has so many different initiatives within it to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity. Specifically, I am very excited about the Canada job grant, which is one of the things Canada would do to reduce the major issue of not having enough folks to fill the job vacancies in our communities.

We have a number of industries that continue to struggle to find skilled workers in the areas of agriculture, forestry, pulp and paper, and natural gas and oil. What are most desperately needed are those folks who can fill the skilled jobs. This budget responds to that through the Canada job grant program, which would being initiated through this budget implementation bill. Not only are employers excited about this but so are young people who are trying to find the training necessary for the high-paying jobs of today.

I have been speaking with many educational institutions, specifically one in my constituency, Grande Prairie Regional College. It is very keen to begin the process of continuing to work with our government and with the provincial government to put highly trained people into the workforce to fill these job vacancies. GPRC is not only excited about what we are doing on the Canada job grant initiative but also about what we are doing in terms of some of the contributions for the development of new technologies and research.

GPRC last week was named the third most important research institution, at a college level, in the province and the 14th in the country. This is great news, considering the fact that three or four years ago it was at about the bottom of the heap. Since then, we have seen significant contributions from the federal government for initiatives within GPRC through CRI and a number of other initiatives it has undertaken to link up with federal funds to build things such as the National Bee Diagnostic Centre, which is now located in Beaverlodge.

Our government was proud to fund the construction of the original facility, and we were very keen in the last number of months to announce that we will have ongoing support for that initiative for the next five years. This really is exciting not only for the folks who live in the Peace River region but also throughout the country. When I recently toured this facility, which just celebrated its one-year anniversary, I learned that one of the major groups of folks using the research capacity of that facility are people who come from Ontario. We are seeing that this really is a trans-Canadian initiative and I am very proud that our government funded it and that it is located in my community.

The budget is very multi-faceted. One of the things that I am very keenly aware of is the necessity to engage our first nation people in training for the jobs of today. I have served in the past as chair of the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee and it has been a real privilege to serve in that capacity. One of the major issues that is recognized across partisan lines is the underemployment or unemployment within first nation communities, specifically the youth of these communities. I am very excited about the continued initiatives put forward in this budget to continue to support education opportunities for folks who live within first nation communities, and to link those folks who live within close proximity of some of the new industrial developments and resource developments with the training necessary to get those jobs.

In my community, folks who live on reserve in some cases are just miles away from the some of the highest-paid jobs in the country. The only thing that seems to be standing between the opportunities and the underemployed or unemployed young people on these reserves is training. With training they might be able to get those high-paying jobs in the industry and in the resource sector in very close proximity so they can continue to live within their communities and will not need to move to a large urban centre. They can get the training and work in a community that is close to home. This is great news. Our government is responding to needs and challenges that many first nation folks are facing by putting more money into training and working with local institutions to provide support to ensure that young people get the training that is necessary to support their families and create opportunities in the regions in which they live.

One of the other major challenges we have faced over the last number of years as a growing community and region that has continued to see development is the ability for municipal and provincial governments to keep up with the essential infrastructure necessary to keep local industries moving and prospering. I am very excited that the finance minister has continued to allocate money to essential infrastructure from coast to coast, and Alberta is going to be one of the big benefactors of this program, as every province will be.

Specifically, my province and the region in which I live are in desperate need of some of this essential infrastructure so that prosperity can continue to be developed. Things such as water systems, sewer systems, roads and bridges are all essential in order for there to be prosperity in local communities. It is something that we are very excited about and I commend the government for continuing to recognize the needs of regions across this country to continue to build the infrastructure necessary for long-term prosperity in all communities.

As I go through this action plan, I can say that from the beginning to the end there are nuggets and important initiatives within this piece of legislation that are good news for Canadians, good news for Albertans, and definitely good news for folks who live in Peace Country.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question that I have also put to a number of his colleagues.

On the weekend, the President of the Treasury Board said in an interview that we had to vote for the budget before he would give us the details of the bill. Does the hon. member feel that this is democratic, that it provides the opposition and members of Parliament with information? According to the President of the Treasury Board, we have to pass the budget first and then later we can talk about it and find out about the details in it.

If the NDP were in government and the hon. member were in the opposition, what would he have said if the President of the Treasury Board had told him to vote for his bill before getting any information about it? Is that democratic?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that many of her colleagues on that side of the House have read the documents, so I am hopeful that she will catch up with them, read the document and see the details that are necessary to vote on it.

This is an interesting tweak on what has been the practice of the NDP. Often NDP members have decided that they will oppose the budget even before having it presented in the House, so this is an interesting change. What I continue to hear is that NDP members are unable to see the document or be able to determine if it is going to be a plan that would lead to prosperity, hope and opportunity in this country.

If the hon. member does not want to read the document, that is fine. She can take my word or take the word of economists across the world who have said that Canada has had a plan and that the plan is working, creating opportunity, hope and prosperity. She can even ask some of her colleagues who are currently snickering at her. They will tell her that she probably should support the budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that no other minister of finance in the history of our great nation has been manipulated into bringing in as much legislation as this particular minister has. Over the last series of budget implementation bills, the Minister of Finance has had more than half of his cabinet colleagues come forward saying, “Me too, Mr. Minister of Finance, I want my bill brought through on your budget bill”.

It is absolutely mind-blowing in terms of the number of pages that the current Minister of Finance has brought in over the last couple of years, since this Reform Conservative government. How does this member justify his Minister of Finance bringing in legislation that should in fact have been broken down into numerous pieces of legislation?

Most of the stuff that is in here has nothing to do with the actual budget implementation and what we have seen in the last couple of years. Does the member not believe that more legislation should have been brought forward as opposed to trying to bring everything in through the back door of budget legislation?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have to take my word for it, but he can take the word of the economists or other folks who have declared that our Minister of Finance is the best finance minister in history.

We as Canadians have really the privilege to be served by one of the greatest finance ministers. For him to lead us through what has been a very difficult time over the last number of years to a place of prosperity that has outstripped any other of the industrialized world is really a credit to him.

I can say that when this Minister of Finance brings a piece of legislation to the House the members opposite should take it seriously, reflect on it and recognize that Canadians support what this finance minister has done and continue to support what this finance minister is doing.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to thank the people of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. I want the community to know that I loved being in the constituency office almost every day this summer. I want the people to know that I loved being at their beautiful celebrations during the week and on weekends, sometimes attending 10 events on a weekend. I want to thank them for coming to our annual community barbecue. There were 1,200 of us and it was a wonderful party because we shared and met new friends.

From my daily work in our constituency office this summer I know that people need jobs, and I have worked hard to get them jobs. In fact, I obtained funding for a completing the circle program, a $500,000 jobs program in our community in remembrance of Loyan Gilao, a young Somali Canadian man, a York University student with a bright future, who was shot and killed in 2005. Eight years later we still do not know Loyan's killer. We now have 50 deaths of young Somali Canadian men.

In 2012, six of 33 Toronto shooting victims were Somali Canadian men. Our community is asking that the government investigate these deaths through the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, develop federal-provincial job programs, particularly with the RCMP, and examine witness protection.

There was not a day this summer that I did not have a student, a graduate, a parent or even a grandparent come asking for help to find a job. They came and continued to come because we do help them find jobs. I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into job programs. We follow up with them to make sure their jobs searches are going in the right direction, and while they search, we help them with food and clothing and whatever other supports they might need.

At critical times I have personally bought medicine. We had a lady looking for help who 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. How many more stories like hers are there?

I had a university graduate who came in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. I have numerous disappointed graduate students, international doctors and teachers who could not find work. I had grandparents who came on behalf of their grandchildren, the first in the family to graduate 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 educations. Now they have educations and they still do not have jobs.

It was particularly hard to hear from service providers that federal funding was being cut from job and training programs in our Etobicoke North community. My community depends on these job programs. We cannot afford to have them shut down. That is why I contacted the minister's office, and I hope that this will be rectified.

What I was looking for first and foremost in the budget was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have 308 pages with 472 separate clauses amending more than 50 different pieces of legislation. Yet again, another anti-democratic omnibus bill meant to limit debate and ram through as much unrelated legislation as the government can get through Parliament.

The legislation fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class and those seeking to enter it. It does little to help the economy create jobs. In fact, the so-called job creation measures in the bill are just a continuation of the status quo, which simply is not good enough. Moreover, it does little to help young Canadians find jobs at a time of persistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. The reality is that there are still 224,000 fewer jobs for our youth than before the recession.

As the critic for Status of Women for our party, I was disappointed to see virtually nothing for women. In response to the throne speech, one of my young constituents simply asked, “Do women and girls even register with this government?”

Her question prompted me to think about what a throne speech and a budget bill might have looked like if it actually addressed the challenges Canadian women face. Perhaps such a throne speech would have recognized, in silent prayer and reflection, the 600 murdered and missing aboriginal women—mothers, aunts, cousins, and sisters stolen from our communities and taken from Canada—and made a commitment to an inquiry with real recommendations to end the violence.

Perhaps Bill C-4 would have begun to address the remaining inequalities women face and would have begun to build brighter futures for our families, our communities, and our country. After almost 100 years of women's advocacy, this would mean eliminating the gender wage gap at last. Its eradication would be an economic imperative, as the wage gap hurts our families and hurts our economy. In fact, the Royal Bank of Canada has shown that the lost income potential of women in Canada because of the wage gap is a staggering $126 billion a year.

A healthy and robust Canadian economy needs women's contributions, and it is government's job to remove the obstacles that appear at all stages of women's lives that keep them from realizing their full potential.

A lack of child care, an enormous issue in my riding of Etobicoke North, holds women back. It is one of our country's great unsolved issues. It is time to fix Canada's broken child care promises and fix a system that is failing Canadians.

By the end of this fiscal year, the government will have spent about $17.5 billion on the universal child care benefit. Has the benefit helped more parents stay at home with their children, affected the severe shortage of child care, or made child care more affordable? Astoundingly, the government cannot answer these questions.

Our government should ensure that when each of our daughters leaves college, university, or a trades school, she will make the same wage as the young man sitting next to her. This would mean that she would have the same opportunity to buy a home, raise a family, and save for retirement. She would have enough money to leave an unhealthy relationship if she needed to, without being trapped and dependent upon a partner who hurts her, as often happened in past generations.

Where is the promise and sustainable funding to develop the national strategy to end violence against women and girls, violence that forces 100,000 women and children from their homes into shelters each year, carries an incalculable human toll, and costs Canadian society billions? Where is the apology to our aboriginal peoples for the loss of their children, Canada's children, and an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women with the promise to listen, nation to nation, and together develop real recommendations that we would implement together to end the violence?

The news that the Minister of Health plans to make ending family violence a major theme of her tenure is welcome. The Canadian Medical Association president wants to ensure that resources are put in place, and that the minister's efforts turn into a national strategy.

For the people of Etobicoke North and for women across Canada, Bill C-4 offers very little. My constituents need better and deserve better.

The government needs to recognize that pay equity, child care, and ending violence against women are key economic issues, and it must become a champion for women.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member addresses an important issue, which is child care.

I do not have children of my own, unless my cats are counted. That said, I have many colleagues and friends who value choice in how they approach child care. If they choose find care out of the home, they have a choice in where to go to find it; if they choose to stay at home and raise their children, they have the choice to do that, and that choice is equally valued. There is choice in how things are provided, and the state is not telling them how to undertake a fundamental freedom, which is how to raise one's children. That is where we differ ideologically.

I was wondering how the member can argue for state-run child care when choice in parenting is a fundamental Canadian freedom that builds our society. Our universal child care benefit speaks to that, speaks to the heart of Canadian parents.

If the member wants to talk about income splitting or other measures, let us talk about that. However, let us not take choice out of the equation.

I would like the member to explain how state-run child care allows for choice.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is this: does the universal child care benefit actually provide a choice? Has the benefit helped more parents stay at home? The government cannot answer that. Has it affected the severe shortage of child care? The government cannot answer that. Has it made child care more available? The government cannot answer that. The government cannot answer those fundamental questions.

Had that $17.5 billion actually gone to child care, we would have had 700,000 additional child care spaces in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the presentation by my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North highlighted the fact that we have not seen much focus on the concerns of women in this country. After hearing the Speech from the Throne, a Conservative friend of mine made the same point: that there was not much there in relation to the concerns that women experience in this country.

I want to mention a specific concern that I was hoping to see in the Speech from the Throne. I know there are many Conservatives who are in favour of this change. It would be of assistance to the police in not only searching for those who have brought harm to murdered and missing aboriginal women but also in searching for missing children across Canada. I am speaking of a database of the DNA of missing persons for routine cross-referencing to crime scenes.

It is an important idea that has been endorsed by Senate committees and supported by various Conservatives. We still have not seen it. It is called Lindsey's law. Judy Peterson, who is one of my constituents, has been championing this effort since her daughter Lindsey went missing 20 years ago on August 2.

I would like my friend's comments.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first offer my profound apologies to my hon. colleague's family for the loss of her daughter. We are talking about the murder of a child. I cannot imagine the horror of that. We need better databases and anything we can do to provide information to improve databases.

I do want to pick up on pay equity and women in the economy. Canadians should remember that in budget 2009 the Conservatives attacked the rights of Canadian women by undermining pay equity. In 2010, it voted down the Liberal private member's bill to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force. The gap in income between men and women in Canada is 19%. According to the Conference Board of Canada, Canada ties with the United States for the 11th spot of 17 countries and earns a C grade. With the challenges of the current financial climate, it has never been more important to take full advantage of the skills and talents of all people, regardless of their gender.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the second budget implementation act. This act builds on many important measures that are part of the 2013 economic action plan and puts them into practice for Canadians. Today I would like to highlight several of these measures that I feel would benefit constituents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and indeed Canadians across the country.

To begin, it should be noted that the Canadian economy has been recognized globally as a leader through the current global economic recession. In fact, Canada has had the strongest job creation record in the G7. Furthermore, both the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are projecting that Canada will have among the strongest growths in the G7 in the years to come. Finally, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world, and a great part of that can be attributed to the great finance minister that we have in this country.

These global accolades are a strong indication of the economic success that this country has seen. This government knows to spend when spending is necessary and it knows to save when saving is possible. In fact, leading up to the recession, this government took almost $40 billion in surpluses and paid down the national debt. That is nothing to sneeze at. I was very pleased to see that budget 2013 and this implementation act continue this proven, successful Conservative tradition.

One principle that is very important to me is keeping taxes low for hard-working people and allowing workers to keep their hard-earned money, yet still providing necessary services. Since 2006, we have done just that. We have cut taxes over 150 times, resulting in the overall tax burden being reduced to its lowest level in 50 years. This is translated into the average Canadian family saving approximately $3,200 each year.

Expanding further, this budget will introduce more measures to save money for the average Canadian. This will be achieved by the freezing of employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of workers and job creators. Therefore, Canadians will be saving money through tax breaks and other incentives while still benefiting from federal stimulus initiatives.

The new long-term infrastructure plan is a fantastic measure in the 2013 economic action plan. It will support economic growth and development in Canada.

The livelihoods of Canadians depend on a network of highways and roads, water and waste water infrastructure, transit systems, and recreational and cultural facilities. I and many of my colleagues on all sides of the House have spent time in municipal politics; in my case, it was almost 13 years. At this level of government, one of the main challenges that all of us had was addressing the needs of local infrastructure. That is why I am pleased to see that this budget addresses the need to support this network of infrastructure. Instead of a patchwork program, we have dedicated $32.2 billion over 10 years. The community improvement fund will support construction of, or improvements to, local roads, public transit, recreational facilities, and other important infrastructure, as well as provide a consistent and steady source of funding for local municipalities across the country. It is long overdue and well anticipated.

Along with supporting the development of infrastructure, economic action plan 2013 also contains measures to support a knowledgeable and healthy workforce. For example, the Canada job grant will provide $15,000 or more per person through federal, provincial, territorial, and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. This program is expected to reach approximately 130,000 Canadians at eligible institutions each year.

Furthermore, I was pleased to see that this budget would reduce barriers to apprenticeship accreditation by working with the provinces and territories to standardize requirements for apprentices in the skilled trades across Canada. This is very welcome news in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, as many students and young workers obtain the skills they need for future employment through apprenticeship programs with local businesses that also benefit from the skills of these young workers. In fact, one of my own sons apprenticed with a local business and achieved his red seal in carpentry. That example of a great program happens all over the country every day.

Representing a riding that is surrounded by water on three sides puts the protection of our waterways, local fisheries and environment among the top priorities for me. That is why I was happy to see that budget 2013 contained measures to support these initiatives.

The first of these would be the recreational fisheries conservation protection program. This program would support local groups and sportsmen associations on local conservation projects. In fact, I was very pleased recently to welcome the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to my riding to announce funding for a couple of local groups which had been approved for funding through this program. Remember that this program was just announced in the recent budget. To actually get some money flowing two to three months after that, if anyone knows how the government works, was a phenomenal thing to get through. It just does not usually happen that quickly, so kudos to the minister on that. It is a great program.

Along with this program, I was also pleased to see that the budget set aside $4 million to monitor and enforce ballast water regulation. This would help to protect our Great Lakes and other waterways from invasive species, such as Asian carp.

With Remembrance Day right around the corner, we should all take some time to recognize the strides that have been taken to better the lives of our honourable veterans. Specifically, this budget would enhance the funeral and burial program by simplifying it and by more than doubling the current funeral services reimbursement rate from $3,600 to just over $7,300. This program means a great deal to the families and friends of veterans who have passed away. These amendments certainly come as welcome news. These changes go along with other initiatives that have been implemented to support our veterans, such as the helmets to hardhats program and more.

Finally, I would like to conclude by saying that the current global economic recession is just that. The impacts of this recession have been felt all over the world. Global co-operation will be required to fix the problem and create a strong and stable international economic system. That is why the new and historic free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union is an outstanding accomplishment that we should certainly celebrate. Canadian companies will now benefit from free access to one of the world's largest consumer bases, which will create much more economic activity in Canada. Approximately 500 million people in agriculture, small business and all the other aspects of the Canadian economy have an opportunity here. That is what it is. Trade just does not happen overnight, but we have the opportunity to now make it happen. Having a very large and rural agricultural riding, my constituents will benefit from this.

This agreement has the potential to boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually and will increase bilateral trade by 20%. In other terms, this will add $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income and will also result in 80,000 new Canadian jobs. With statistics like these, it is very easy to see why this agreement is something to be celebrated. I look forward to taking questions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, serving on the committees with my colleague has always been a pleasure. I would like to ask, though, a question regarding the auto industry. In Ontario and across the country, it is significantly important. One of his colleagues earlier today in the House referred to it as a “niche industry” and that it is not significant or important.

First, what does he feel about that? Is it the case that it is a niche industry? Second, with regard to the auto sector right now, what strategies or plans are there in the government to get a battery procurement facility for automobile production?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to his question about the auto industry, it is fair to say that in any industry, whether it is agriculture or the auto industry, there are components of those industries that can attract niche markets.

I am not aware of the comments that he referred to, but from some of the figures I have seen, in the last year 17,000 cars from Canada went to the European Union. Under this agreement, that could rise to somewhere between 100,000 and 120,000 cars. If that is not significant, then I do not know what is.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed is that the government time and time again likes to repeat the things it believes are really sellable. One of the things the Conservatives always talk about is economic action plan 2013, as if it is actually good. They have spent literally millions of tax dollars promoting that plan.

I have heard a couple of members in a row talk about the best Minister of Finance ever. There is an obligation to tell the full truth inside the chamber. We need to recognize that Minister of Finance inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a budget multi-billion dollar deficit. He inherited a trade surplus and turned that into a multi-billion dollar trade deficit. An argument could be made that he might be the worst Minister of Finance.

Given the whole scandal involving the Prime Minister's Office, does the member not believe there is any merit to telling the full truth in what is actually taking place?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really good to hear an opposition member, particularly a Liberal, stand and recognize the great Minister of Finance we have in our country. It is one thing for one of his colleagues like myself, who obviously already knows that he is a great finance minister, to say it, but to hear that member say it is fantastic.

I talked about the $40 billion that we used to pay down the deficit. If the Liberal Party of Canada would pay back the $40 million that went out of this place in paper bags, we could add that to it.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is from a rural riding. We have talked about jobs, growth and economic prosperity in the budget. Could he talk a bit about what that means in his riding? When Canadians have more money in their pockets, they change their spending habits on agricultural products, for instance.

Could the member talk about what this budget would mean to the people who live in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora has been in my riding and I think she would agree that it is a pretty special place. She represents a great riding as well and does a great job of that.

My people are no different than hers. They are average, hard-working Canadians. Any time we give honest, hard-working Canadians extra money in their pockets, we know what they will do. Their kids will benefit from it. Seniors will benefit from it. As I said in my speech, $3,200 is nothing to sneeze at. It is significant. That $3,200 is a lot of money which allows Canadians to do those little extras that they might not have been able to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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 Kingston and the Islands, Science and Technology.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newton—North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying what a delightful weekend I had in my riding of Newton—North Delta. It was so wonderful to have our leader in the riding and meet with so many of my constituents and the press and hear their concerns expressed. As members know, it is always very rewarding to be back home working with constituents.

I also want to acknowledge the amazing work done by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, on this file.

I rise today to oppose what is before the House, both the process and the content, and I will tackle the process aspect first.

Here we go again. I have been an elected member of Parliament since May 2011 and it has been quite an eye-opener to see how our parliamentary democracy works, or does not work. One key area is the number of times parliamentarians are denied fulsome debate on issues.

Once again, we have hundreds and hundreds of pages on a budget with not only budget issues, which should be in a budget document, but there is so much other stuff buried in there.

Once again, what does the government have against transparency and accountability? Do Conservatives have a hard time with members of Parliament debating legitimate issues that should be debated here? Why is it that time and time again they feel they have to bury stuff in the budget and then ask for these votes wholesale, yea or nay?

Once again, as a parliamentarian, I find it quite outrageous and not only that, there is time allocation as well. Not only has the government put forward a huge bill that has far more than the budget in it, but it also moves to limit debate. These are all major concerns.

The other issue I want to get to is on the content.

We have seen some of the advertising already that this budget would fix our economy. Let me tell members that nobody in my riding believes it will fix the economy. No matter how many glossy advertisements or TV advertisements that go on, people know what they are struggling with in their daily lives, day in and day out.

Let us focus on youth unemployment. As one of the richest countries in the world, richest in resources, we are failing our youth, and this budget does nothing to address the high level, double-digit youth unemployment across the country. We must not take this lightly. Imagine how debilitating it is for our youth when they go to university, take up post-secondary education and even go on to further studies, but they cannot find jobs. This budget fails our youth quite miserably.

The job action grant, as we know, has not been a great hit with any of the provinces or territories. In fact, I have not heard one provincial leader stand and acclaim it, embrace it and say that it is the best thing since sliced bread or even that it is an okay thing. Every one of them have criticized the shortcomings in the job action grant. Once again, where are the investments that will lead to job growth?

We have also heard that this budget would fix or could do things to the unemployment rate. This is not a budget issue, but it is right in the budget where the minister would have control and the final say over setting the rates for EI contributions, which once again opens the door for abuse by both Conservatives and Liberals by taking money that employers and workers pay into it for the rainy days when they do not have jobs.

We have seen $57 billion stolen out of the EI pot and put into general revenues. I say the word “stolen” because that money was paid for by Canadians and employers for a rainy day when they did not have a job.

We have seen a lower number people on employment insurance, not because people are more needy or unemployed but because the system has become so cumbersome. The cuts in Service Canada and the bureaucracy around applications, getting a phone call, being online for hours and hours is just not working.

I was pleased recently with the change to address the fishermen issue. I am hoping the government will wake up tomorrow morning and fix the rest of the problems it has created for unemployed Canadians and make it easier for them. Surely this is the time when we should be investing in skills training and skills development. For people who lose jobs in one area there should be an intensive investment in order to make sure that we help people to get into the jobs that are around. We know there is not a shortage of jobs.

Also in the budget we see that the government is going to extend the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses. It is laudable, but the New Democrats have gone even further by proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that will not cut into EI funds and will help businesses hire and train young people. These are the kinds of initiatives we need and we put these forward. Maybe the Conservatives will pick them up as they have picked up some of our other ideas and it will help Canadians and that is a good thing.

We are going to spend close to half a million dollars, according to the department, to change the name from Human Resources and Social Development to Employment and Social Development. I am wondering about the wisdom during these very difficult times of spending half a million dollars on changing stationery and letterhead and all else that it takes, when people are really hurting.

Let me say once again that in my riding I have a very diverse riding in Newton—North Delta, which is part of Surrey and also crosses into the Delta municipality. Some of my constituents are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They do not find that things are getting better. They are having to work longer hours just to make ends meet. They tell me their lives have become like a gerbil in a cage, where they are running all the time just so they do not fall flat and their children do not go hungry. I live in a riding where we have a homelessness problem, so affordable housing is an issue. We have very high usage of our food bank. I am seeing nothing in the budget to address that.

The government is allergic to day care, yet there is sound evidence and the Canadian Payroll Association survey found that 40% of employed Canadians are spending all of, or more than, their net pay, and 45% of those polled are putting only 5% or less of their pay into savings. We know that the debt load is growing for Canadians and there is nothing in the budget to address that.

I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 125 to 158, 176 to 203, 277, 278 and 294 to 470, related to public sector employee relations and sweeping changes to workplace health and safety regulations, be removed from Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-9; that Bill C-9 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that Bill C-4 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-4 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am moving this motion in order to make more sense out of this budget.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that very impassioned speech.

I want to touch upon the democratic aspects of this piece of legislation. There have been a number of omnibus bills, which some of us refer to as ominous bills, and what we see in this particular piece of legislation in part is to correct a mistake made in previous omnibus bills. The member has very rightly attempted to move a motion dividing out a piece of the legislation. I wonder if she could comment specifically on the lack of democratic process, where members of Parliament are not given adequate amounts of time to fully debate complex pieces of legislation and to avoid the kinds of mistakes that we saw with, for example, the credit union tax.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her thoughtful question. It is a question that all of us are rethinking over and over again about parliamentary democracy and the role of parliamentarians in parliamentary democracy.

It is with a great deal of sadness, even when I visit students in high schools, that I have to share with them that as parliamentarians, we are sent here to debate all issues, speak on them and give our input. However, with the movement of time allocation and omnibus, or ominous, bills, as we have seen over and over again, that kind of debate does not take place in the House. For example, moving time allocation on 300 pages when buried into the bill are items that have nothing to do with the budget, obviously these are things the government does not want the public to know about and does not want opposition members to comment on. It bundles things together and then rams things through because it has a majority. This is a gross abuse of a majority government and undermines parliamentary democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, both the member and I at one time were immigration critics for our respective parties, and in the last couple of days government representatives have stood in their places and talked about processing claims, the backlogs, and so forth. The member would be aware of the fact that in one of the last budget implementation bills the government deleted tens of thousands of files of individuals who were abroad and had gone through the proper process to be able to immigrate to Canada. Unfortunately, the way in which the government dealt with the backlog, at least in good part, was just to hit the delete button.

Given the member's past on immigration matters, I wonder if she would like to express some of her thoughts on that particular issue.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member of Parliament is very vociferous in the House and does an amazing job representing his riding.

The question he asks is really about how the world views Canada and its policies. How can we hit the delete button on people who have put their lives on hold, who actually applied in good faith following the rules we as Canadians made? They did not make the rules, by the way; we made the rules. They followed our rules and we told them to join the line and their turn would come, so they joined the line. Then the minister woke up one morning and said that the files of anyone who applied before 2008 were gone and they had to reapply. I have talked about that issue many times in the House. That is grossly unfair to those people.

We all want responsive and coherent immigration policies and systems. That is how Canada was built. However, we have to look at how we treat people as well.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which would build upon our budget introduced last March.

What ought to be the motivation of the government when we construct a budget? What ought the government consider?

Consider this. Canada is a land that stretches 5,187 kilometres, from Cape Spear, Newfoundland, to Mount Saint Elias in the Yukon Territory, and 4,627 kilometres, from Cape Columbia on Ellesmere Island, to Pelee Island in Lake Erie. It encompasses 9,984,670 square kilometres. This land is blessed with enormous wealth in natural resources: lakes, trees, minerals and rivers. However, these attributes are worthless without the human investment to turn them into value.

Canada is blessed with those resources and we have human talent that has come to this country from every corner of the globe. It is a little strange to find corners on a globe, I must say. From Germany to Japan, from Ireland to Iran, from China to Chile, and from England to Ecuador, the people of Canada and the people who have come to Canada are the ones the government must consider when we prepare a budget, a budget that would help people in Nunavut and New Westminster, in Halifax and Hamilton, in Moncton and Montreal, and yes, in Newmarket—Aurora as well.

How would we help? We would help by ensuring that these great individuals who make up the best of this land have opportunities. That is what Bill C-4 is about, creating opportunities. Canadians know how to work and they work hard. They work to provide for their families. They want jobs, they want growth, and they want prosperity for Canada. That is what the budget implementation bill is about.

Since 2006, our government has been putting in place the foundation for that prosperity. We began by paying $40 billion off the debt, and I was glad to hear my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talk about that a bit earlier. When the financial pillars of the global economy were shaken in 2008, and other economies teetered precariously, Canada was resilient. In those dark days, our government acted with determination and decision. We ensured, through shovel-ready projects, that Canadians stayed working through investments in our community infrastructure.

Newmarket and Aurora both saw benefits in the rehabilitation of community centres, the beautiful Riverwalk Commons in downtown Newmarket, sports facilities, and heritage structures. Now, as we look to a brighter future, the foundation in place, it is time to build upon what we have already put in place. The global economy is still fragile. Many countries still have economies that are on life support, but not Canada. Our government has taken the steps to grow our economy. How?

First, give people back their own money and they will spend some of it. Canadians, being prudent, will also save some of it for a rainy day. We gave them back their money. We cut the GST. We raised the personal tax deduction. We implemented tax credits for kids' sports and arts, for transit, and for apprenticeships. We also created the tax-free savings account, and we gave seniors pension income splitting.

Shall I go on? The list is enormous, but wait, we have other measures to grow the economy.

We named this budget a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We know that the job creators are those businesses such as the ones that belong to the Newmarket and Aurora chambers of commerce: manufacturers such as Axiom and Canada Plastic, restaurants like Al Casale's and Cachet, and the UPS Store that Faizy owns in the 404 Plaza at Leslie Street and the 404. These are the businesses that are the job creators.

As Jerry Moran said about the American economy, “...innovation and entrepreneurship is the opportunity and best opportunity we have to grow the economy”.

We need to free these job creators to do what they do best, because Faizy has a dream. He came from Iran for opportunities, and better opportunities for his kids. Faizy works, and he works hard. What did he do? After he bought the UPS franchise, he created two new jobs. We are helping Faizy keep those employees by reducing EI payroll taxes. Faizy has also invested in training for these folks. That costs him money. He wants to keep these employees working. He has also invested in equipment: printers, photocopiers. These are high capital costs for a small business, but we are helping Faizy with that as well by addressing capital cost writeoffs. We helped Faizy return to profitability more quickly.

Is that all we have done? Not for a minute. Our government continues to provide the best economic policies for Canadians to promote jobs, growth and economic prosperity. How is our government doing that? Bill C-4 will implement other tax measures that will be helpful for many other Canadian small businesses and their owners.

For instance, the lifetime capital gains exemption will be increased to $800,000, and for 2014 and subsequent years, the lifetime capital gains tax exemption will be indexed for inflation.

However, it is not only businesses that our government's tax measures will be helping. Our government is also introducing an income tax measure that will help Canadians in the event of making an honest mistake in the event of over-contributing to a registered pension plan. Bill C-4 streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund the contribution made to an RRSP when such a mistake is made. These tax measures and others will be greatly beneficial for all Canadians.

Our government is looking out for the best interests of Canadians. These income tax measures are being implemented to encourage Canadians and Canadian businesses, not to spurn their growth.

However, this is not all we are doing. Encouraging economic growth is an important part of our government's mandate, and following in this tradition, our Prime Minister recently signed an agreement in principle for a new trade agreement with the European Union. I know this is not a topic of the Bill C-4 discussion; however, the Canada-EU comprehensive, economic and trade agreement will bring many benefits to Canadian citizens and businesses. New opportunities for investment, business and the ability to consume new products will appear with the opening of the vast European market.

Key sectors of interest to Canadian investors, such as the aerospace, energy and business services industries, will benefit greatly from this agreement. My riding of Newmarket—Aurora, which is home to many companies that operate within these sectors, will see first-hand the benefits of this agreement. I look forward to the hon. Minister of International Trade introducing this new trade agreement in the House of Commons.

However, to stay on topic, I return to Bill C-4. The measures in Bill C-4 will ensure that the goals of jobs, growth and economic prosperity will continue to be met.

I strongly urge all my colleagues to support the passage of the bill so that Canadians can start reaping the benefits.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said “growth and prosperity”. That is not what I read in The Economist, the authoritative magazine that wrote about the Canadian economy. It said that consumption is starting to falter and growth is projected to reach only 1.6% this year. It adds that the government is desperately looking for other sources of growth, but does not seem able to find any. The Toronto Star ran an article along the same lines, in which David Olive said the same thing in a different way.

Budget equals choice. The Conservatives are happy to spend millions of dollars on advertising for the economic action plan while telling Canadians that they have to tighten their belts because there is no money for essential services, employment insurance, old age security and so on.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question for our side of the House.

It was not us, although I am sure that we all would do the same thing, who voted this Minister of Finance as the best finance minister. It was the G7 countries that voted our Minister of Finance as the best finance minister in the world. We have a stellar record. We are going to stick with the record we have.

The Minister of Finance told us during question period that he just had a meeting this morning with many economists from across this country. They have said that we have the record to follow. They have endorsed the policies we are following. We are going to stick with that record.

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

Mr. Speaker, after that long string of self-congratulatory comments about their finances, I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question.

After the first two years the Conservatives were government, by 2008, after inheriting two years of massive surpluses from the previous Liberal administration, they started building up a debt, which today has added $160 billion to our national debt.

From 2008 to 2013, five years, that works out to a little over $30 billion per year that the government has added to the national debt. That is equivalent to $1,000 for every man, woman and child every year since 2008. Of course by the time that $1,000 gets repaid, it will be a lot more than that because it is part of a huge debt with a lot of interest.

I wonder if that has been communicated to the Canadian public.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that the Liberal government only paid off the debt on the backs of the provinces. I saw what happened in Ontario when we had $25 billion cut out of health care and education.

It was my kids who suffered in schools without textbooks. It was my kids who suffered because health care was not available to them.

We are going to stick with the record we have of working hard for creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for this country. That is our record. That is the record of this Minister of Finance. We are sticking to it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my Liberal colleague did not choose to mention the $52 billion in EI premiums that is somehow missing and in the general revenues, and nobody knows where it is, or the $40 million from the sponsorship scandal; we still have no idea where it is.

My question is for my colleague. I thank her for the address on the economy. All of us host pre-budget consultation round tables in our ridings. Over and over again, we hear about the importance and the significance of the accelerated capital cost allowance, which not only is being extended but is also extending now to the clean energy sector.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on some of the businesses in her riding that are really benefiting from this accelerated capital cost allowance, which allows businesses to invest in cutting-edge equipment that keeps them competitive on the global market.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just visited a company in my riding that is part of the aerospace industry; it has indeed invested in the last couple of years in new equipment.

It has told me that without the ability to do that, it would never have been able to stay competitive, and it is very grateful to our government for doing that.

I will just read a quick comment from a constituent of mine, who says, “This country is filled with some of the most talented, skilled and innovative people on the planet, and I believe we should solely focus on developing our existing population with the knowledge to fill jobs that are in demand”.

We are going to focus on that.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, as my colleagues have done. As hon. members know, Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and currently amends 70 pieces of legislation.

Logic would suggest that we should be given time to properly consider the bill. I am wondering whether this government would agree to sign a 50-page contract immediately or within a few hours. Logically, the government should automatically say no because it would want time to examine the contract before signing it.

Nevertheless, that is what the government is asking us to do today. The Conservatives have introduced a 300-page bill that amends 70 laws and, at the same time, it is telling us that we have no choice but to pass it immediately. However, only 24 hours passed between the time the government introduced the bill and the time we started debating it in the House.

I would also like to remind hon. members that some information was provided in committee in only one language, making it impossible to properly discuss and debate the bill in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

That is very little time to debate a 300-page bill that addresses sometimes complex subjects that have no relation to each other.

What is more, 48 hours after we saw the content of this massive bill, the government was already imposing a gag order in order to ram the bill through. It is unacceptable for the government of a country like Canada to pass most of its laws in this manner.

The use of a time allocation motion should be limited to emergency situations. I am certain that no one on this side of the House would be opposed to debating a bill if there were an emergency situation and that no one would be opposed to amending it as needed before passing it.

The Conservatives introduce a huge number of bills in the House. The government deliberately delayed the work of the House by a month by proroguing Parliament, yet the government is now telling us that it is urgent that we pass Bill C-4. One has to wonder whether it is logical for the government to prevent the House from returning on the scheduled date, doing its work and examining the bill, only to tell us a month later that it is urgent that we pass the bill. It does not make any sense.

Canadians are perceptive. They know full well that the government is using the gag order to prevent us and all the stakeholders affected by these changes from having enough time to examine the impact of Bill C-4.

As a parliamentarian and a Canadian, I could never support this Conservative attempt to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament and Canadians. Obviously, we will vote against this bill in its current form. We will oppose this bill in principle because we are not being given the time to do the job we were elected to do. We must represent the people. We will also vote against the bill because of its content.

The previous three budget implementation bills taught us that we need to be wary of this government. In the previous bills, the Conservatives took aim at environmental assessments and protections for most of Canada's lakes and rivers. Those bills also resulted in $36 billion in cuts to health care transfers and increased the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Bill C-4 is not that different from the other three budget implementation bills in that it is setting society back. It sets out significant changes to the Canadian work environment. Now, the minister will have the bulk of the powers once granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code. It is a legislative step backwards for health and safety.

Bill C-4 also takes aim at an employee's ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. At the very least, Canadians should be able to maintain their right to work in a healthy and safe environment. However, as we can see, the Conservatives do not seem to share that opinion.

In reading Bill C-4, we can also see that the government is not going to abandon its war on the public service anytime soon. It has become its pattern to go after the hundreds of thousands of people who provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled.

This time, the government is torpedoing the Public Service Staff Relations Act by eliminating the arbitration process as a method of settling disputes. It is also making changes to give the minister the discretionary ability to determine which services are essential. This measure could ultimately be used by the minister to completely remove certain workers' right to bargain, a right that is recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The all-out war being waged by this government against the people who work in the public service has caused a great deal of damage in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that 17,000 of the 19,200 job cuts planned in the public service will occur in the Gatineau-Ottawa region.

These cuts are resulting in a major slowdown in economic activity. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada has indicated that the economic forecast for our region, which is the fifth-largest in Canada, has been revised down by about 50%. In other words, the cuts are hurting the affected regions economically.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the measures in budget 2012-13 will cost 67,000 jobs. According to Statistics Canada, there are currently 6.5 unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy in Canada. That is a very poor record for a government that claims to be such a good economic manager. We would have expected the government to use Bill C-4 to fix this situation, but it is doing nothing. Instead of attacking workers, this government should focus on creating good new jobs, but it is not doing that.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have been going on and on about the fact that the cupboard is bare and more cuts are needed. The nation's finances should be managed responsibly, but it is important to set priorities.

Since 2006, the government has spent $1 billion on organizing the G8 and G20 summits, $500 million on advertising and $1.3 billion a year on tax breaks for its friends in the oil industry.

I would also like to point out that this government did everything it could to bill taxpayers $40 billion for fighter jets. I can see why Canadians are shocked when they hear that there is no money and the Conservatives cannot give them a helping hand to make ends meet. This government continues to cut services that Canadians are entitled to while giving billions of dollars to companies that already make billions in profits.

It cannot be said often enough that public services primarily serve middle-class families. They are the ones who use them the most. I can also understand why Canadians are outraged when they learn that over 400 veterans among those with the most severe disabilities are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

This is all a matter of priorities, and obviously, the Conservatives' priorities are quite different from those of all other Canadians. The Conservatives have clearly picked sides by using Bill C-4 to attack workers' rights, rather than reducing inequality and creating good jobs.

The government can be sure of one thing: every time it tries to attack labour rights and proposes measures that increase inequality, it will have to deal with the NDP.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

The government says that the cupboard is bare. This poses a problem for me. If the cupboard is bare and the Conservatives have created a million jobs, the government should collect taxes.

This bill changes labour relations in the public service by eliminating binding arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in the public service.

In her opinion, why is the government doing this?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question about arbitration in the public service.

As I mentioned, it is a right recognized by the charter, and accredited unions and groups had the right to choose arbitration. What we are seeing now is a potential increase in conflicts between the employer and employees.

The reality is that all public services have been cut by this government. As members, we are seeing more and more lineups, needs and people in our offices who want their files dealt with as quickly as possible. Because of government cuts, files are not being processed and this has resulted in long delays, whether for family reunification or assistance for people from other countries who want to immigrate to Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the shortcomings of the government has been in dealing with any form of national housing strategy.

It does not matter where one is in Canada. From coast to coast to coast, there is a need to deal with housing shortages for a wide spectrum of individuals. We could talk about housing revitalization programs. We used to have some great ones, such as the residential rehabilitation assistance program. There is the concept of infill homes and housing co-ops.

There just does not seem to be any genuine, tangible interest by the Conservative government in looking at ways to make affordable housing a reality in Canada.

I wonder if the member could comment on why it is important for the national government to put a higher priority on ensuring that Canadians are in a better position to own homes and fix their homes into the future.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my colleague for his question on affordable housing and government programs.

As I mentioned in my presentation, the government has set its priorities, which are not necessarily those of families, which have certain needs. To secure the future of our young children and grandchildren, there are pressing needs to be met. However, the government is refusing to put in place affordable housing programs. We deplore that.

We are well aware that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, is experiencing challenges because of the government's positions. That is another area where negotiations and discussions should take place in order to help municipalities and the provinces create affordable housing so that people have decent living conditions and children have enough to eat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment briefly on her impression of the importance of the $1000 EI credit that is going to help small and medium-size employers create more jobs. In my area, most of the jobs created are created by small and medium-size employers that employ between 10 and 50 people. The hiring credit in my area is a very important part of the budget, of Bill C-4. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the importance of that in her area.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like that question. That is precisely what we want: to divide Bill C-4 and pull out the measures that could help people.

The government puts 70 measures in a 300-page bill and tells us that we have to accept all or nothing. That is what it is forcing us to do. We cannot support the majority of the items in Bill C-4. We could support others, but if we want to work on dealing with the economic situation for all Canadians, we need to have discussions. This will not happen if the government keeps holding in camera meetings and gagging members when we are talking about a bill.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of my constituents from Selkirk—Interlake about how important the building Canada fund is to our municipalities and about the importance of our economic action plan to our farmers, commercial fishers, and small businesses throughout the riding.

This fall, as I do every year, I went on a tour. My riding is bigger than Nova Scotia. It is 56,000 square kilometres. I went out in September and drove over 6,000 kilometres. I visited more than 55 communities, multiple times, to see how things were going, to talk to people on the street, to visit people in the coffee shops, to meet with my municipal leaders, and to meet with businesses and tour their operations. It was to just get a good feel for how things were going.

I can tell the House that the one thing my municipal leaders were telling me was that they are excited about the new building Canada plan. They really believe that the $53 billion commitment we would make over the next ten years would greatly benefit them.

The one thing they are extremely excited about is the community improvement fund. There would be over $32 billion available to them to invest in their public community places, roads, and recreational facilities.

They really appreciate that first of all, we have made the gas tax fund a permanent fixture in ongoing transfers from the federal government to municipalities. They appreciate that we doubled the gas tax fund a couple of years ago. Now we would untie it so that they could actually use it for whatever they see as being important to them rather than just for green infrastructure or things that help with mass transit. These do not really work well in rural municipalities, because we do not have buses in most of my communities. We do not have a rapid transit system in any of them. Actually having the gas tax fund untied so that they could use it on roads and public places, such as halls and recreational facilities, skating rinks, or the curling rink is important to small, rural communities. It is important, because that is where people gather, meet, have fun, get healthy, and see their kids or grandkids participate in sports. It is important to have those community focal points invested in through the gas tax fund, and now through the building Canada fund, because of the changes we would make to the community improvement fund.

There would be over $14 billion in the building Canada fund to be used on provincial, national, and regionally significant investments. We know that this could be anything from investing in port facilities to help with our trade to ensuring that we have expanded highways and artery systems to move our truck transports and commuter transports to make our roads safer. I know that it is also extremely important to my communities.

We would also see the ongoing investment of $6 billion for the continued existence of the infrastructure programs we already have in place with the provinces, municipalities, and territories for 2014-15 and beyond.

These are big, significant improvements for those municipalities or major projects that want to look at private-public partnerships. The P3 fund is also there for them. We have renewed that at $1.25 billion.

Of course, the riding of Selkirk—Interlake is a large, agricultural riding with grain farming, ranching, and a lot of mixed operations. The measures in the budget really do speak to their ability to continue to grow and prosper and take advantage of marketplaces, as we just saw with the new comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Europe. The European Union is a huge market that is now available to my farmers, ranchers, grain farmers, and beef and cattle operations. They are all really excited about that trade deal.

One thing in this budget they are excited about and that really would help the next generation enter farming is the doubling of the restricted farm loss income tax rule. For more than 20 years, it has been $8,750 per person who works part-time. They can claim that amount of their off-farm income as a restricted farm loss. That actually works to their benefit. We would double that to $17,500. That would really help with those new entrants who still have off-farm jobs. In reality, if we look at it, about two-thirds of farmers today have off-farm employment.

This is a really good measure to help out younger farmers and to help those who rely on off-farm income take some of those earnings and use them against any of their farm losses. It is a really positive measure that people in my riding are talking about.

The other thing they appreciate is our changes to the lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only have we increased it to $800,000 per person, but we have indexed it to inflation so it will not erode. We will not have to continually increase the lifetime capital gains exemption for those farmers who are exiting the industry or making sales. This exemption will be in place against any of their lifetime capital gains.

This is important not just to our farmers, but to our commercial fishers and our small businesses. It helps with the intergenerational transfer of those operations, whether it is the ma and pa store, or a family farm operation, or a family commercial fishing operation. It helps with those transfers to the next generation.

We often talk about those farmers who live pretty much cash poor and asset rich. They are sitting on a lot of land or sitting on a lot of capital assets, but they often do not realize their true economic net worth, because they have had some difficult times in the marketplace. If they have had good times, like they are having this year in both the cattle industry and the grain industry, they invest back into the farm, buy more land, more equipment and machinery and pay off debt. The only time they really get to cash out is when they transfer their farm operations to the next generation. This really comes into play for a farm operation, whether it is a family operation, a partnership with other families, or a corporation. Even corporate farms in my area are still family farms. They have just been incorporated because that is the best way to go forward from the standpoint of a tax basis.

The other big announcement is our continued support for Genome Canada of $165 million. The biggest benefits that have been generated in both western and eastern Canadian agriculture have been through animal and plant breeding. Those increases in productivity, the ability to reduce the need for more input into our farm operations because of better plant and animal breeding really does pay off dividends and puts money into the pockets of our farmers. The cattle industry, the hog industry and the grain and oilseeds business are really excited about that.

A lot of people are often shocked to learn that Selkirk—Interlake in Manitoba, out in the Prairies, has a huge commercial fishery. It too will benefit from things that will happen through the budget. I talked already about increasing the lifetime capital gains tax exemption and indexing it to inflation, but our fisheries overall, from both the commercial and recreational standpoint, is so important, like at Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba.

This budget contains a $10 million conservation fund to help enhance the fishery and to help protect wildlife habitat to ensure that those highly-valued fish species that people want to catch, whether it is walleye, northern pike or even mullet, are protected and that it will not just protect the habitat, but enhance tourism and opportunity and work toward the overall fishery from both a commercial and recreational standpoint. The focus really is on recreational fishing and all the tourism dollars and the enjoyment that people get out of fishing.

The streets in my community are completely loaded with small business enterprises. This budget really speaks to them. The main reason we have seen one million net new jobs is because of our small businesses first and foremost. They represent 98% of all businesses in Canada. Over two-thirds of Canadians work in small and medium-sized enterprises, and they make up a large portion of my riding from a business standpoint. The lifetime capital gains exemption works for them.

The budget also contains a hiring credit for small business of $225 million for one year. This will help them increase employment and job opportunities in our riding. We are extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses. The costs associated with creating those jobs will be offset as a result of this budget.

We are excited about what is happening and how it is impacting my riding of Selkirk—Interlake.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Since the Conservatives got a majority in 2011, environmental regulations have been deteriorating and we have been seeing some problems with science in particular. For example, the government has eliminated some scientist jobs and has prevented scientists from speaking.

My question is about a provision in Bill C-4. Why continue in the same vein? My colleague represents an agricultural riding and he has young girls. I know he has a very lovely family. Why is the government eliminating jobs at the country's most prestigious research centre, the National Research Council of Canada? Why is it attacking science? Why is it eliminating nearly half of all scientist jobs?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the compliment to my family. We have had a chance to work together on a number of issues and I do appreciate her comment.

On the issue of environmental permits, we as a government have reduce the redundancy and duplication of services between different jurisdictions. That has saved money for municipalities, provinces and businesses, including agricultural operations, on having to go through the exact same process at the municipal, provincial and federal levels to get permits. It is not about reducing the need for science, because science is still the determining factor on the environmental permit. Rather, we just do not need every level of government rubber-stamping the exact same process.

We are trying to make it simpler, easier and reduce red tape, not just for businesses but for the farmers, fishers, municipalities and provinces that are trying to do the right thing and ultimately still putting the environment first.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to go to my friend's riding of Selkirk—Interlake. It is a great spot. We visited just after the major floods that I believe happened about four years ago. I know a lot of the talk around that time concerned global warming and was that what was to be expected going forward.

The concern I have, which is not dissimilar to the last question, has to do with science and the science sector. We see this outcry from scientists over the last number of months, and really the last couple of years, stating that science has been devastated. We have heard that from Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure the government is taking money from all other sources and, like a shell game, moving it around.

What is my colleague's take on the outcry from the science community? Are we to pay no attention to what it has been saying? It is adamant that the government has turned its back on science. I would like his comments on that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament I chaired the environment committee. I am proud of the work that we do through Environment Canada. A lot of people do not realize that Environment Canada is the fifth largest research organization in the world. The four larger ones are in the United States. However, the largest in Canada is Environment Canada. Its scientists are still undertaking significant research, publishing peer review papers and out there speaking.

Whether it is Environment Canada, or Agriculture Canada or Health Canada, those scientists are out there making their presentations and talking to the media. We may hear from a few sour grapes from time to time because some scientists have not been able to get out there and say what they want. However, that is because they are not talking about their science. Rather, they are talking about other issues. If they go through the proper steps and processes, they can get out there and speak about their research. We see that all the time. There are thousands of documents published annually, hundreds of speeches given by our scientists and that has not changed one iota.

The overall science need has not been reduced. It has been refocused. We want to ensure that we address the concerns brought forward by Canadians. That is where we are focusing our work.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank you for giving me the floor today. Having the chance to speak to the budget implementation bill is very important.

Again, the federal government is using a so-called budget bill that is being described as “mammoth” to push its regressive ideology and pass controversial measures that have never been discussed in public before.

Before we can even debate the substance of the bill or consult people and interest groups, the government imposes a gag order. This is generally recognized as a practice to be used as an exception. The government is once again limiting review of budget Bill C-4.

This bill and the measures it contains are far too important to pass hastily without any real debate or a true impact study that would inevitably take place.

This bill is more than 300 pages long and affects more or less 70 statutes. It would have been important, even essential, for us to take our time and split the bill to do it justice and make proposals to amend it and make general changes, which would have allowed us to work on it properly.

The Conservatives claim that the bill focuses on the economy, but that is far from true. Bill C-4 will, once again, affect a host of different areas, and some of the changes that will result from the bill will have an adverse effect on Quebec, the regions, businesses and workers.

I have some examples. Bill C-4 would eliminate the federal tax credit on labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, which, back home, are commonly referred to as workers' funds. They are very common in Quebec and they play an important role. For instance, there is the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the CSN's Fondaction.

These funds are quite prevalent in Quebec. Traditionally, they served as significant development tools in our communities and helped create and maintain tens of thousands of jobs, strengthen communities and breathe life into the economy where regular instruments, such as bank loans, were not as appropriate and could not play the important role that these workers' funds could play as development tools.

In my riding alone, I found real-life examples of cases where, at some point in time, these funds were crucial to a company's development. I can list some businesses that used them and benefited from that money when they needed it. Those companies include BSL Wood Products, Projexco, Meridien Maritime, Richard Poirier & Frères Électrique, La Pourvoirie de la seigneurie du lac Métis, Les Distributions Arnaud, and the list goes on and on. Those funds useful to those companies because they gave them access to venture capital at an important point in their development.

Here is another example. In the bill that has been introduced, which once again penalizes Quebec, there is talk of Supreme Court justices. The federal government has picked a fight with the Government of Quebec by appointing a Supreme Court justice who was not on the list submitted by the Government of Quebec and does not meet the criteria set out in legislation.

The Supreme Court has to include three justices from Quebec, and with good reason. Civil law is quite different from Canadian law, and the justices who sit on the highest court must be able to rely on sufficient expertise to be able to rule on significant, complex civil law issues. In addition, in many of the existing legal cases—between Ottawa and Quebec, for example—it is only natural that Quebec should be able to rely on three justices who are attuned to the province's unique characteristics.

Justice Nadon decided to step aside temporarily because his appointment is being challenged. That was the right thing to do, except that the federal government has decided to refer Justice Nadon's case to the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court will be both judge and judged in this case. That is absurd. There should have been an independent review to clarify this unthinkable situation.

Not wanting to be defeated in this dispute, the federal government is trying to use Bill C-4, which is before us today, to amend the Supreme Court Act to make Justice Nadon's appointment legal—after the fact, of course.

For the Bloc Québécois, the changes in Bill C-4 that have to do with the period of time during which an appointee had to be a member of the Barreau du Québec are nothing short of an admission of the shortcomings that tarnished the entire procedure to appoint Justice Nadon.

I would point out that that appointment was unfortunately approved by the Conservatives, but also by the Liberals and the NDP, who included Justice Nadon on their list of the three top candidates.

Rather than changing the legislation to try to save face, the federal government should just face facts: it must appoint judges to the Supreme Court who really represent Quebec, from the list submitted by the Government of Quebec. There is no other option.

This is not the first time Quebec has been aggrieved in a situation relating to the role of the Supreme Court. Hon. members may recall, for example, the allegations made by historian Frédéric Bastien, who revealed that the Supreme Court had overstepped the bounds of proper behaviour.

Bill C-4 also includes a measure to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. We saw this coming. There is nothing really surprising about this government and its way of doing things.

This was clear with the employment insurance reform, for example, and all the measures meant to restrict access to that system, even though it is essential in some regions and for all workers who, at some point in their lives, face a situation where work is not available in their field, whether because of the seasonal nature of their work or because of an economic downturn.

It has become very clear that the Conservative government, like the Liberals before them, has no problem using employment insurance for political ends and, above all, taking any surpluses in the EI fund and using them for other purposes or adding them to its regular budget if it so chooses.

What was the purpose of that board? The best way to explain it is to look at how it was described when it was created. The definition is especially clear:

The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) was created as a Crown Corporation in 2008 to ensure that EI premiums are used exclusively for the EI program. This followed extensive public discussion on the need to improve the transparency and independence of EI financing.

Now, however, we must point out coincidence of sorts between the abolition of the board and the government's express desire to get its hands on the money. It has done so on many occasions in order to divert income from premiums to general government revenue, rather than return the money to workers when they need it.

As we read that description, we can better understand the Conservatives' desire to abolish a body that was opposed to their getting their hands on the money and pilfering the surplus as they are doing at the moment.

This year alone, $2 billion will be taken out of the employment insurance fund in order to pay down the deficit or indulge Conservative whims such as military procurement, gifts for the Queen, and celebration of conflicts, debates or battles two centuries old, such as the war of 1812.

The bill also includes major changes to labour legislation. In recent labour disputes, such as at Air Canada and CP, we have seen that the Conservatives are allergic to any kind of pressure from employees. The mere possibility of strikes worries them so much that they enact special legislation to prevent them.

Bill C-4 goes even further. Now the Conservatives are making major changes to the way in which services are deemed essential because they want to pre-empt any possibility of employees exerting pressure. From now on, the Conservatives are giving the employer the exclusive right to determine whether a service is essential and the number of positions needed to provide that service. Previously, the essential services designation was agreed upon between the union and the employer.

These are major changes because they affect the fundamental balance that must be in place between employers and employees. Even worse is the fact that Bill C-4 politicizes the workplace health and safety process. In fact, in Bill C-4, the minister appropriates the power to issue directives to employers and to make certain decisions that were once made by health and safety officers.

This is a complete travesty.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to go over my speaking time.

I found the hon. member's speech very interesting. I am particularly interested in clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, because they deal with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.

I would quickly like to correct a statement my colleague made. The proceedings of the committee, which includes members from all the recognized parties in the House, and the votes in this committee, are confidential. We had to sign confidentiality orders, so we cannot disclose how the vote was held and we certainly cannot assume that one or the other party voted in favour of the appointment of Mr. Nadon just because his name was selected.

Furthermore, there is an even more significant issue. How does my colleague explain that the government can, by means of Bill C-4, especially clauses 471 and 472, which are the subject of the second reference to the Supreme Court—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could easily avoid any ambiguity or problems, like the appointment of Justice Nadon, by simply referring to the Government of Quebec, which has its own list of eligible candidates.

In this way, I think we would avoid any imbroglio that would ensue from challenges on either side.

Unfortunately, I did not hear the second part of the hon. member's question because her microphone was off.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the question regarding the appointment process.

The other day I had the opportunity to ask a question related to what the minister responsible was saying in the province of Quebec. The question I posed to the Prime Minister was on the importance of being consistent with what we say. For example, if we are saying something to the francophone media, it should be consistent with what we would say in English to the anglophone media. There is a responsibility for the government to do just that.

I wonder if the member would like to provide some sort of comment on the consistency in what is being said in different regions of the country on important issues such as this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He put his finger right on the problem.

The Conservative government is visiting the regions of Canada and talking out of both sides of its mouth. In Quebec, it is trying to minimize the impact of Justice Nadon's appointment. The Government of Quebec, as well as all of the parties represented in the National Assembly, have made the point that the future justice will have a hard time complying with the law and making rulings with the necessary knowledge of Quebec civil law. Quebec has every right to expect this from a Supreme Court judge who will have to make important rulings.

One may wonder why there are three judges. Some cases may be made public and may involve Quebec. Take, for example, the firearms registry, which could eventually end up in this court.

The Conservatives are always saying one thing to Quebec and another to Canada, but we are not fooled. We can see this is going on. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are trying to legitimize this appointment decision in a roundabout way. However, the fact remains that Justice Nadon is not qualified to sit in Quebec.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

For the most hopeful among us, promise was in the air for a little while this past summer. There was talk of reset and of change. It seemed clear enough when this place shut down for the summer last June amid the Senate scandal that there was cause for the Conservative government members to pause and reflect on the way they conduct themselves as government.

I would, however, note that this speech and all speeches on the bill are delivered under time allocation. It is the 50th time the government has moved to limit debate in the House, so there has been no change.

A diagnosis of what is happening to Canadian politics under the current government would identify the same disease infecting all of what the Conservatives do. It is about a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and a lack of respect for the process of democratic politics.

Canadians elect us, all of us, to come here to give voice to their concerns and to pursue their wishes on their behalf. When the government will not allow those voices to be heard, what we have at the heart of all of this is a government that does not respect the people whose country this actually is.

Conservatives have become occupiers of the institutions and abusers of the practices that have been established for the collective benefit of all Canadians. We know that these institutions and practices are not perfect and never have been; I would point to the Senate down the hallway. From time to time we need to change so that our institutions and practices keep up with maturing notions of democracy and what best serves that collective benefit.

We would call it modernization, perhaps. Conservatives once called it reform, in a day when we all at least had in common, it seemed, a commitment to transparency and accountability in the institutions of government and the practices of politics.

However, reform has not come from the supposed reformers. Hope has been betrayed by the government again, and there has been more disappointment for any Canadians left whose disposition allows them to remain optimistic about the government.

For those who could not escape the suspicion that the government would not and could not change its ways—and I am among them, unfortunately—the bill we are debating today was so entirely predictable: omnibus in nature, amending 70 pieces of legislation, and burying deep in its 300-plus pages two completely new pieces of legislation. It is legislation, I might add, as with all new legislation, that is worthy in its own right of full debate in this place.

How predictable that one of these pieces of legislation has to do with a gas project. Extraction and the fire sale of Canada's natural resources is all the government knows and all it does in the form of an economic plan. How fitting, especially in light of the evidence emerging every day from the Conservative government with an obsessive-compulsive disorder to control and manipulate, that the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act would seek to eliminate the independent arm's-length bodies charged with mitigating the socio-economic impacts of the Mackenzie gas project and bring these matters directly under the control of the minister and the government.

Of course, we would not recognize a Conservative budget bill or implementation act without an attack on working people. From the elimination of useful dispute resolution processes to the undermining of health and safety provisions, attacks on workers have become the hallmark of the Conservative budget process. It is attack but never help; destroy but never build.

However, what I want to talk about today is the need to build urban economies and the need to help people who work and look for work in our cities, something Bill C-4 fails to do. I would like to point to a number of recently released studies in the hope of bringing to the attention of the government and Canadians just how far off the mark Bill C-4 is.

One such study, entitled “It's More than Poverty” and carried out by McMaster University and the United Way of Toronto, was released in February of this year. Having found that precarious employment has increased by nearly 50% over the last 20 years, so that barely 50% of people in the study are in jobs that are both permanent and full-time, the authors of this study describe precarious work as “the new normal” for many in the urban workforce.

This new normal is not a good normal. People in precarious work earn 46% less and report household income that is 34% less than those in secure jobs.

Just this month, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and the Martin Prosperity Institute, both at the University of Toronto, released a study entitled, “Untapped potential—Creating a better future for service workers”. In this study, the institutes point to the increasing precarity of work in the Toronto labour market, particularly in what they call the routine service sector of the labour market, jobs that account for almost half of Toronto's workforce.

Defining precarious work as work that is temporary, part-time and paying below the low-income cut-off, the institutes note that the number of routine service jobs that have become precarious over the last decade has increased by one-third. The point that the institutes want to make with this study of precarity is not just about the implications of these changes for those working in this sector but as the study's title suggests, the untapped potential in this sector from which we can all benefit. The point is that unstable, low-wage and low-skill positions deflate disposable income and overall prosperity. The institutes urge policy-makers, and that is us, to assess what policy tools are needed to boost job security and wages within these occupations.

There has been no such assessment coming from the other side, and there are no such tools in Bill C-4. I am thankful that at least we on this side of the House are on the job. I would point to my colleague, the member for Davenport, and his recently tabled urban workers bill, which I proudly co-sponsor, as a response to the circumstances described in these studies. It is a bill of legislative relevance to Canadians, and particularly to urban Canadians.

Finally, I would like to point the government to a recent study done by the Wellesley Institute in Toronto, called “Shadow Economies: Economic Survival Strategies Of Toronto Immigrant Communities”, also released just this month, which focuses on the economic poverty of newcomers. This study finds that only one-third of households were able to fully cover their household expenses on income through formal employment, forcing people, as both workers and consumers, into the informal economy to make ends meet.

It is in this context that the government enters with an economic plan that according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer would be responsible for 67,000 less jobs by 2017, and a GDP reduction of 0.6%.

I do not know if it is possible for anybody to draft a stronger indictment of the government as economic manager than the one it has penned for itself with this very bill, Bill C-4. It is not just irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Canadians, proving once again how remote the government is from the population and their cares and concerns, but it is actually harmful and hurtful to the people I came here to represent.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very thoughtful and measured speech. I would like to ask the member where he might see the country going in terms of innovation.

Several years ago, in a previous government led by then-minister Allan Rock, now the president of the University of Toronto, a very comprehensive Canadian strategy was put in place to pursue an innovation strategy for the country. Four or five round tables were struck, and at the time I had the privilege of chairing an environmental technologies round table, to take a closer look at where we were going. Back then, around the year 2000, in the national capital region, we were receiving 60% of all the venture capital monies in Canada. That has been cut now by over 80%. We have also lost half of our high-tech firms.

What is the member's view with respect to an innovation strategy for the country? How does he see that dovetail with manufacturing and with information technology?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question. It is a very interesting one and very relevant to my portfolio as urban affairs critic and my comments about the urban workforce and urban economies. Innovation is a social process. It is a process of sharing knowledge. There is a spatial requirement, or in fact a geography, to the process of innovation. It is a distinctly urban process. What we have coming from the government is nothing that addresses the issue of urban economies. Eighty per cent, maybe 85%, of Canadians live in cities and depend on government to do something for them about urban economies, to make them strong economies and for innovation. The $350 million tax on the labour venture funds will do nothing to enhance innovation in this country.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the innovation ecosystem across Canada from the start of product development and research, we have increased funding to the research councils for basic research and applied research. We have also had a series of measures, including tax measures, incentives in different fiscal policies to ensure that products can get to market. We also had the venture capital fund, which was announced in this particular budget. Also, through our regional development agencies, we have included targeted funds to see prototypes taken from the bench to market in repayable loans.

Which part of the innovation life cycle does he feel is not funded right now and why has he not voted for all of these measures? I am talking about a specific measure in the innovation life cycle, because all I hear is platitudes and generalities in his comments.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look to what is happening in our cities and what is actually happening to our economy and I find it so curious that the government keeps referring to its programs, its paperwork and its administration of these matters. I sat on the health committee when we did the study of innovation and health technologies in this country. Time and time again we had innovators coming to our health committee with grievances about the lack of venture capital in the country and the lack of support from the government for an innovation agenda. Those were the witnesses that the government brought to the committee to talk about these issues.

The Conservatives should think about what their programs are doing, stop wasting Canadian taxpayer money and do something about innovation and urban economies in this country.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there is a blatant lack of transparency in Bill C-4. This is yet another mammoth bill for which debate is being limited by a time allocation motion. It is not good for consumers, workers, veterans, the public service or the environment.

That being said, there is one issue that is particularly worrisome to me. I would like to ask my dear colleague, who so ardently defends his constituents, why the Conservative government would move forward with its harmful $350-million tax on labour-sponsored funds. What effect will this have on workers and the economy in general?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the attack on the labour capital venture fund is because it is associated with labour. That is the only explanation.

The government claims to be a proponent of innovation and science in the country and yet it muzzles scientists. We had a member talking about sour grapes. There are protests on the streets of our country by scientists about being muzzled. We have scientists coming to our health committee talking about a lack of support and capital funding for innovation in our country. Whatever the government thinks it is doing on innovation in this country, it is failing.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act, which of course is part of economic action plan 2013, which is very appropriately entitled jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Before I get into the details of my comments and start expanding on where I want to go, I will take this opportunity to once again thank the people of Saint John for giving me the honour and the privilege of serving them in this great House.

The reason I bring up the riding of Saint John, which I am so pleased to represent, is that a lot of my comments tonight will be focused on Saint John, and all my comments will be focused on the region of southern New Brunswick and new Brunswick as a whole. As I speak to the budget implementation act and economic action plan 2013 tonight, I want to talk about some of the things that are on the horizon for Saint John because in Saint John we are really excited about some of the prospects that are out there for the future. A lot of those prospects are centred around resource development and the opportunities that exist for Saint John because of what we have to offer.

It is no accident that Saint John is very well positioned to take advantage of some of these opportunities, and more specifically, I speak tonight about the energy east pipeline project. We are excited about the prospects of the energy east pipeline. Why, members ask? Quite frankly, we are home to Canada's largest oil refinery.

The urban oil refinery is situated right within the heart of my riding. We are home to Irving Canaport, which is a deep water terminal for importing oil, and we will soon hopefully be exporting oil through that same terminal. We are home to Canaport LNG terminal, which is Canada's only liquefied natural gas terminal. That terminal is set up for imports, but at this point in time it is undergoing a review to seek permission to become an export terminal.

These are some of the opportunities we face in Saint John, and it is specifically because of our proximity to deep water, ice-free deep water. It has given us a huge advantage and a huge opportunity with what we are talking about in this country, which is responsible resource development.

We are talking about developing a pipeline from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. It will benefit the entire country. It will benefit Saint John greatly, and we want to be well positioned in Saint John to take advantage of those opportunities as they come. We know that with the potential of these developments, there will be great opportunities when it comes to employment, and there will be other benefits beyond the pipeline when that comes our way. We are holding our breath and hoping daily that it is getting closer.

There is a lot of optimism around that. The premier of the province of New Brunswick is very actively engaged. I was actively engaged. The mayor of the city of Saint John and the officials from the port of Saint John are actively engaged in trying to impress upon officials in TransCanada with respect to the business opportunity that was there for this pipeline to be developed through eastern Canada and to Saint John, New Brunswick.

That is a great opportunity that we see sitting out there. Members are probably wondering where I am going with this. I will get back to that point in a few minutes, because economic action plan 2013 directly speaks to what we are facing in Saint John. It gives us the tools to be equipped to handle some of those opportunities that are coming our way.

There is more than just the development of this pipeline. There is more than just the changes with Canaport LNG. There are shale gas opportunities in New Brunswick. The provincial government is working very hard to ensure that we are in a position to develop those resources. We are looking at the opportunities that are there and the provincial government is doing exploration work at this time to try to determine what sort of deposit lies there. That is another opportunity.

Potash is an opportunity that we have in New Brunswick, and we are home to PotashCorp's marine terminal. That terminal ships potash worldwide, and we have tremendous opportunities there. The company's people are looking at expansion of that marine terminal because of PotashCorp's mine in Sussex. It has put down a new shaft and is looking at taking advantage of the opportunities that are there.

All these opportunities that I talk about have led to discussions within St. John about how we would best become prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 includes that very specifically, and it lays out some very important things that we need to be prepared for. There are infrastructure investments in economic action plan 2013 that are so necessary when a community is trying to develop itself and trying to move forward. The city of St. John, the port of St. John and the province of New Brunswick all have to take advantage of some of these opportunities. Therefore, we will give them the tools and the opportunities to do so with this budget.

However, it is not only through community infrastructure, when we talk about infrastructure investments. There is equipment and our people for the opportunities that are there. We have the Canada jobs grant, which will certainly turn the page on how we train people in the country and it will give employers and the private sector a voice in determining where those investments should be made. This is so important. We talk about how we move forward. Do members not think it is important that we give the people who will make the investments, drive the economy and drive the prosperity in our country a voice and a chance to say where those investments should be made? They can tell us exactly where the opportunities will be and they can tell us if we need so many tradespeople or so many accountants. They can tell us exactly where we should be spending our job training dollars. This is so important. Not only would they get to give us advice on that, but they would also get to invest in an opportunity.

I had the pleasure of visiting one of the Irving mills in Saint John just recently with the Minister of Employment and Social Development. We have two Irving pulp and paper mills, so we visited Irving paper and we sat down and had a discussion with the officials from the human resources department about their needs. We talked about some of the things they were facing as they went forward and how they only hired people with at least two years of post-secondary education. That surprised me because we tend to look at some of the jobs in some of these organizations as not being highly skilled. These people are very highly skilled and they come in the door with a minimum of two years of post-secondary education and they are trained to do the jobs they need to do. The officials at the company are prepared to make the investment in these people and their futures.

It is so important that we are able to play a role and work with them, because it is more important that the business people who are actually hiring for these jobs, and not government bureaucrats, make the decisions on where these dollars go. Going forward, we should be giving business people a say in what they are doing.

However, we would also make huge investments when it comes to tax breaks. We are investing in the extension of the hiring tax credit and of the accumulating capital costs allowance for investments in new equipment and machinery. This will give the people who are in the business and industrial side of the equation the opportunity to invest dollars at home and to provide those highly-skilled jobs that we are talking about.

This budget, the economic action plan 2013, would give us the opportunity to be prepared for the future. There is a lot of opportunity on the horizon for the people of St. John and the province of New Brunswick and by taking advantage of this program and of what is in this budget, we would be very well equipped to go forward.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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

His speech did not cover all aspects of Bill C-4, but that is quite understandable. How could one possibly talk about all of the items contained in a 300-page bill in just 10 minutes?

Today, I moved a motion and I requested the unanimous support of the House to remove sections 290 to 293 from Bill C-4 so that they can be examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which in my opinion is the most appropriate place to examine that part of the bill.

Can my colleague tell us why these sections pertaining to the permanent residency system in Canada have to be included in a budget rather than be examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. I did not cover all of the details in Bill C-4. As I said very clearly at the beginning, I was going to focus on some aspects that are very important to my region, to my riding, and I did that very specifically.

I talked about some of the opportunities that are out there. I talked about how important this budget is, what it would give us, how it would give us the tools to go forward, and how it would better prepare the people of Saint John and the people of southern New Brunswick for the opportunities that lie ahead. I am very excited about that. I look forward to the opportunity to engage people on that level and to talk more about it. These are exciting times in Saint John, New Brunswick, and we look forward to continuing to discuss these things.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is with respect to the advertising dollars that the government, over the years, has spent in promoting its so-called action plan, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is a sense of frustration when we look at the number of summer jobs that are needed for students. I recall seeing commercials last year during hockey tournaments. The equivalent amount of money spent on one 30-second commercial would have employed something like 25 youths in summer employment.

I wonder if the member believes that maybe the government might have gone too far in spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to self-promote its own budget.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's frustration. There is a lot of frustration over on the opposition benches.

However, to be quite frank, we are excited about the opportunities that we are putting forward. We are excited to tell Canadians about them, and Canadians are excited to hear about those opportunities. We make no apologies for communicating with our constituents. It is important they understand the work that their government is doing. We look forward to continuing to work with Canadians and to telling them about the great things this government is doing.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the article by conservative National Post editorialist Andrew Coyne. I will summarize the article about omnibus bills, such as Bill C-4, in just a few words: the bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention and serves to shield bills that would otherwise be defeatable in the House. It is impossible to know how legislators intended to vote. There is no common thread that runs between these different items and no overarching principle that unites them. They represent a sort of compulsory buffet. There is something alarming about the government wanting to oblige Parliament to rubber-stamp its whole legislative agenda at one go.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague across the floor feels he has been forced to do something here in this House, because none of us are forced to do anything. I stand here tonight talking about economic action plan 2013 with great enthusiasm because I see the opportunities that are there for Saint John, and I will wholeheartedly embrace the opportunity to vote in support of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to all of these exchanges and debates, we can see that, ultimately, Bill C-4 fails to respond in any way to Canadians' concerns.

Earlier, my colleague pointed out that job security and wage issues were not taken into account in this bill and that no progress has been made on those issues. Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that families and income earners are becoming more vulnerable. What tangible measures is the government proposing to address those types of problems?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, to the member's point exactly, that is what my comments were centred around: what the bill has it in that would benefit my region, my community, and my riding. I certainly look forward to embracing those opportunities, and I suggest that the hon. member might want to look at embracing them as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is interesting times. We understand and appreciate today, more so than the last number of days, why the Prime Minister was so scared for the House to resume.

Here we have the budget bill and one could easily spend a full 10 minutes just talking about some of the details in the 300 pages. The European Union trade deal was recently signed, another issue which, no doubt, would have generated a great deal of interest. We have what many are saying could be the beginning of the end of the Prime Minister taking place on the other side of this grand building, in the other house. In fact, I am getting a better appreciation for why he prorogued the session and why he felt it was necessary not to sit in September after hearing some of the presentations being made.

When a budget is presented and legislation is introduced, one thing that is really important for us to recognize is the integrity of the government. What is being questioned and called to task is the performance of the Prime Minister's Office. If we look at the whole Nigel Wright affair—

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are all here to debate this bill. Members had more opportunity than anyone in the House to complain and make points about a different subject. Will the member use his time to talk about this bill or not?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. minister of state for his intervention. Members may know that there is a responsibility to present their ideas that are relevant to the question before the House. Having said that, members have a great degree of liberty to present ideas and eventually bring them around to their relevance. Perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North is in the process of doing that. I am sure he will be bringing it back on the topic in short order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate why some members of the government would be absolutely nervous about what is taking place today. In fact, it is critically important when we talk about a budget, and this is the budget implementation bill, that Canadians have confidence in the people presenting it. The people who are presenting this budget are the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of the country.

Quite frankly, what we are witnessing is calling into question what is taking place in the Prime Minister's Office. It is casting doubt on whether we can believe the Prime Minister, whether it is this budget document or other affairs taking place inside the office. For example, one day he says that Nigel Wright resigned of his own free will. We then find out that he was released, or fired. One day it is one individual in the Prime Minister's Office who knew, and now it is a few or 13 or whatever it might be. Today we find out that it is more than just one cheque of $90,000.

It is an issue of integrity.

The people who present this budget, the Government of Canada, need to be more straightforward, honest, and truthful in what they are putting forward. In looking at this particular budget bill, we have to reflect on what is actually taking place today on Parliament Hill. A good number of Canadians are watching and are interested in finding out the truth on a wide variety of issues.

This particular budget bill is one of a number of budget bills the Minister of Finance has brought to the House. It is a bill that uses other pieces of legislation and attempts to pass them in one vote. In other words, other ministers approach the Minister of Finance saying that they have a bill and want to get it into his budget bill. The current Minister of Finance, more than any other in the history of our great nation, has used budget bills as a back door to pass government legislation that should have been introduced completely separately. He has set records. It is not something he should be proud of.

What we have witnessed is a style of government. It is a Reform Conservative-style majority government that believes it can just walk all over the House of Commons or try to intimidate the other side or the Senate. We are saying that Canadians are catching on to this behaviour. They deserve better. The Liberal Party is going to push the Government of Canada to start being more honest, with the full details, whether it is the Prime Minister's Office or the type of material being provided in the budget.

What Canadians want is to see a government that has a vision and provides hope. The Conservatives have failed to meet those basic standards.

One would think that if the government was going to prorogue the session and then introduce a throne speech, there would be something relatively visionary in it or something that would provide a bit of extra hope in some important policy areas. Why not include something nice about our first nations, the environment, or how the government is going to deal with poverty in Canada? What about talking about health care and what we are going do to ensure that health care will be there in the future? What about real, tangible job opportunities or programs that are going to make a difference? None of that was in the throne speech.

I believe that Canadians deserve better.

Ultimately, when I look at what the government has done over the past number of months, even though it spends billions and billions of dollars, it has failed to really deliver the goods to the average middle-class Canadian in any part of our country. The Conservatives need to start focusing not only on providing the full truth on a wide range of issues but on what is important to Canadians.

On a personal note, and I have raised this issue before and will continue to raise it, I believe health care is of critical importance to each and every Canadian. However, the Conservative government has totally ignored that file.

Paul Martin instituted the health care accord. It is that health care accord that has enabled the current government to crow as often as it does that they give more health care dollars than any other government. It is that health care accord that made it happen. It is Paul Martin who should be taking the credit for the amount of money we allocate to the provinces.

The Conservative government has not sat down with the provinces. It has not attempted to renegotiate a health care accord for the future. The single greatest expenditure a province has today out of general revenues is health care.

Every Canadian is concerned about the future of health care in Canada. They want to have that sense of pride in knowing that politicians truly care about health care delivery in our great nation. The government needs to do a whole lot more in providing that leadership, because there is a great void.

I have had the opportunity to talk about a housing strategy. Every region of our country needs more attention to housing. What about residential rehabilitation types of programs that could help with our older housing stock? What about enabling housing co-ops to get established? How many housing co-ops can the current government take credit for establishing since it has been in office? I can tell members that we could probably count that on one hand. I look forward to some members picking up on that point. Tell me what the government has done to improve the quality of housing stock and in enabling our middle class to become homeowners.

These are the types of issues Canadians are concerned about: jobs, the homes they live in, the poverty situation, how the government is trying to improve economic opportunity—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time allocated for the member's speech is finished.

We will go to questions and comments with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn that question back to the member who gave that speech. What about housing? What about the 250,000 people on the waiting list for affordable housing? In Toronto, one in four Canadians cannot afford the place they live in. The fact is, seniors in Toronto will actually die on the waiting list waiting for affordable housing.

It seems that most experts I have ever read blame the Liberals for killing affordable housing in this country during the 1990s as part of their massive cuts to spending and the downloading to provinces of their fiscal problems. What about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is being very selective in terms of what it is he is reading. If he really wants to be honest in what he is attempting to tell the viewers, he would recognize that housing is something that needs to be done in co-operation with the provinces and different stakeholders.

I come from Manitoba, and I can say that there are significant shortfalls. I was housing critic for a number of years, specifically when the NDP took the reins of power in Manitoba. That was a fairly dark day in many different social policy areas. I can tell the member that much.

However, the NDP could have done a whole lot better in terms of ensuring affordable, better housing. They sat on land banks and did nothing with some of them. It was not all of them. They did do some things, but they could have done a whole lot more.

As opposed to pointing the finger—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario).

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague across the way may have been selective, which is the word that was used, let me not be so selective.

Obviously the member is older than 10 years of age; I am sure he is. Perhaps he has selectively forgotten the $25 billion that Paul Martin and the Liberals cut from health care. Perhaps he has forgotten that they cut transfer payments for education and has forgotten that they cut science and technology by almost 10%.

Is this member serious? In fact, perhaps I could ask the member if he would just give the Canadian people 5¢ for every word he uses in the House of Commons. We could get the whole European continent out of debt, not just North America. Perhaps that is all I will ask the member for: 5¢ for every word he uses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the $25 billion that the member refers to was not just with respect to health—it included social services and so forth—but it is interesting, because I believe the Reform Party at the time was saying it was not enough. We have to put it into the proper perspective of the time.

If we take a look at the bundle of health care transfers, social transfers, and equalization payments from the day on which the Liberals took office back in 1993 to the day on which the Conservative Party took the reins, never have any of the provinces received the types of transfer payments that they received at the time Paul Martin left the Prime Minister's Office. That is the reality.

When the Conservatives brag and boast about health care—

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

That is nonsense. That is not true.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the truth. The Minister of Finance might not like it, but that is the reality of it. He can stand and correct—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Clearly, members are enthusiastic about the hon. member for Winnipeg North's response to the last question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the fact that we have just come through six years of deficits in a row and that after two fantastic years, 2006 and 2007, because of huge Liberal surpluses since 2008, we have added $160 billion. If we break that down, it is about $30 billion per year. That is $1,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child every year since 2008.

I wonder what my hon. colleague thinks about the fact that we are strapping the future of our generations that will follow us with such debt. It will be more than $1,000 per person—

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Do you remember something called a recession? Do you remember that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. There is too much noise in the House. I am sure that hon. members will want to know the response. We have a short time for the response.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if only I could have leave to explain in detail.

Suffice it to say what we do need is a reality check. As has been pointed out, the current Minister of Finance inherited billions of dollars of surplus. At the time before the recession he was able to make that evaporate and turn it into billions of dollars of annual deficit.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way talked about how these things were evaporating. His party saw more taxpayer dollars evaporate into the coffers of Quebec Liberal ad agency firms with $40 million still owed to taxpayers. We have to ask: where is that $40 million that the Gomery inquiry says that the Liberal Party owes to the taxpayers of our country?

As far as this budget implementation act goes, the Minister of Finance has done a tremendous job of putting together an economic program that is going to lead our country to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am from Atlantic Canada. Our region has struggled over the years with its economy, but it is starting to turn the corner for many reasons, the most important one being the economic policies put forward by our Minister of Finance and this government. A young child growing up in Atlantic Canada today can look forward to a bright and robust future.

A $25 billion shipbuilding program has been awarded to the Irving shipyards. That is equivalent to 11,000 jobs in Nova Scotia, 55,000 jobs across the country.

Our government strongly supports the west-east pipeline to Saint John. That is going to bring a whole new industry of oil exports to Atlantic Canada. Oil will be refined, value-added, in Saint John and exported to countries all around the world.

We have invested in a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill Falls project. That is a $7.2 billion project. That means jobs and skilled tradespeople will be able to return from out west and take those jobs at the Irving shipyard in Saint John and in Labrador to fill those three large projects. We are taking steps in economic action plan 2013 to ensure we have the measures in place to provide the training so young people from Atlantic Canada fill those jobs and build a future for themselves and their families.

Our Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister and this government have a visionary approach to the future, unlike what we have seen from the opposition. Our Conservative government continues to get the job done for Canadians through economic action plan 2013.

On October 22, the Minister of Finance released the Annual Report of the Government of Canada for 2013. The report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13 the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, or $7.4 billion, from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12. This was down nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10 at the pit of the largest economic recession since the Great Depression of the thirties.

Our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars has played an important part in the results we have seen in 2012-13, with direct program expenses falling by 1.2% from the prior year and by 3.8% from 2010-11. We are looking at program spending, at government spending, before we look at cutting transfer payments like the Liberal Party did in the 1990s.

I am proud that our government is focused on helping to create jobs and growth and opportunities for Canadians. I am proud our government supports hard-working families. Families and communities will be safer because of the measures we are taking in the area of justice and always putting Canadians first.

According to the Minister of Finance, our government continues its efforts to ensure that every tax dollar is spent as efficiently as possible and wasteful spending is eliminated. We are keeping Canada on track to balance the budget in 2015 without raising taxes and without cutting those very valued transfer payments to the provinces.

As reported by the OECD, Canada's total economic net debt to GDP ratio, which includes net debt of the federal, provincial and territorial governments and assets held in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, stands at 34.5% in 2012. This is by far the lowest level among the group of seven countries which the OECD expects will average a net debt of 87% in the same year, more than twice as much. All Canadians should be proud of this success.

It is our solid economic and fiscal fundamentals that have ensured Canada remains one of the few countries in the world to continuously receive the highest possible credit ratings from all major credit rating agencies.

Having said that, we are not immune to the effects of slow global growth. We must build on our record by continuing to keep taxes low here in Canada, to work to expand trade, as we announced our trade deal with the European Union last week, to keep Canada on track for a balanced budget in 2015, and to grow our relationships not only here in North America but around the world so we continue to be a trading nation that people in other countries look to with great jealousy.

We are one of the few countries in the world, and one of the only industrialized countries, that has trade deals now with both the European Union and the United States of America, over 800 million people. We have free trade deals with the two most valuable markets in the world. Canada is the country that has that deal now. This is something that all Canadians should be proud of.

Much has been said in the past months about the temporary foreign worker program. We will ensure that the only purpose of the temporary foreign worker program is to provide temporary help where clear and acute labour shortages exist and where Canadians are truly not available for those jobs. We believe that is consistent with the wishes of Canadians.

We have over a million net new jobs that have been created since July 2009; 90% are full time and over 80% are in the private sector. We are getting the job done when it comes to job creation.

Our economic action plan 2013 is going to help many people in my riding and all Canadians through a number of key measures that will strengthen our local economies. In rural areas, in Atlantic Canada, we rely on seasonal employment. Sometimes that is not enough. Training will be required to help workers get into the workforce full time, year-round. As some of these large projects come online such as I mentioned at the beginning of the speech, we will need people who are trained to take those jobs up as we transition from an economy that relies purely on seasonal employment, particularly in the summers, to one where we have full-time good employment for skilled tradespeople, year-round, in Atlantic Canada.

To that end, economic action plan 2013 will increase the skills and training to support these workers with a new $15,000 Canada job grant. This will help retrain workers so they can find high-quality, well-paying jobs, something that will be of direct benefit to my riding and all of Atlantic Canada, as well as all Canadians across the country.

As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development, I cannot stress enough the importance of training workers so that they can get into the workforce. Equally important is the strengthening of the apprenticeship program, which we put in place through economic action plan 2013. It will make it easier for apprentices to get the experience they need to get their journeyman status. With a skilled workers shortage in this country, reallocating $4 million over three years to work with the provinces and territories to increase opportunities for apprenticeships will go a long way toward filling this gap.

We are listening to the skilled tradesmen and women and reducing barriers to apprenticeship accreditation. These include examining the use of practical tests as a method of assessment for apprentices. We are also putting these apprentices to work through measures that will support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing, and infrastructure projects that are receiving federal funding.

An often forgotten segment of the workforce is the disabled. We have not forgotten them in this budget. We will introduce a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities by 2014 to better meet the employment needs of businesses and employment prospects of persons with disabilities. We will do this through the expansion of the opportunities fund. There will be an ongoing funding of $40 million per year starting in 2015-16 to provide more demand-driven solutions for people with disabilities.

Nova Scotians and all Canadians will also benefit from an allocation of $19 million over two years to promote education in high-demand fields, such as trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics. These are the programs that will lead our young people to jobs in the future. We are supporting that now so those jobs will be filled by Canadians with proper training. Students are our future workers. Our Conservative government recognizes this need, and we are fulfilling that need with steps in this budget.

We recently heard through media reports that first nations youth have only a 60% high school graduation rate in Canada. Our government recognizes that these young people need training and opportunities so they can join our larger economy. The aboriginal youth in this country are the fastest growing segment of our youth, and we need to take steps now to provide them the education and training they need to fully embrace the greatness that is this country, Canada.

Higher education is the pathway to employment, and our government is improving services for students who apply for loans and grants. The minister's authority to electronically administer or enforce the Canada student loans program is consistent with economic action plan 2013's commitment to examine new ways to transform the way the Government of Canada does business to improve service and achieve efficiencies within our programs.

This amendment would modernize the delivery of the Canada student loans program--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent budget, the Conservatives attacked labour-sponsored funds. The majority of chambers of commerce and investment organizations across Canada have said that this is very serious because these types of attacks harm investment and will create uncertainty among investors.

In budget 2013-14, the government attacks venture capital funds. This, too, will create uncertainty and will not promote investment in our country.

How can it attack labour-sponsored funds, small credit unions, co-operatives and capital funds, and then brag that it is supporting investment in Canada? Something is wrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. What our budget is doing is bringing savings and streamlining practices, which will bring them in line with other jurisdictions. We are going to reform the system so that we can better support organized labour, our chambers of commerce, and our credit unions. We need to align our system with those different jurisdictions so that we can better administer these programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I preface my question by saying that I do not expect the member to be able to answer this particular fine point, although perhaps he could get advice from the members around him.

My question is about the National Research Council. The bill would reduce the size of the council from 18 to 10. Given the large geographic diversity in this country and the large diversity of research in the natural sciences, engineering, health sciences, and social sciences, should we not have a larger council advising the president at this time of very ambitious, large-scale change at the NRC?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, just because there are more people does not mean it is a better council. We believe on this side of the House that any dollars spent should be targeted to the actual delivery of programs not to paying for bureaucracies to support those programs.

Whether the council is 18, 10, four, or three does not matter. What is important is whether the council is running effectively and whether those program dollars are being delivered the way they should be. That is what is important.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here all day, and I have been listening to the opposition members saying that we should be spending more and more and more. Then in the same breath, they complain about the deficits the government has had to incur to get us through the financial crisis. It is not even logical that they would say the same thing on two opposite sides. It is hypocritical. Does the member agree that it is hypocritical for members to say to spend more and reduce deficits at the same time?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties in the House really--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am sure members would love to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development has to say on the question.

The hon. member.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know that calls from the opposition to spend more and more is what we typically hear. That is what we typically see from NDP governments when they are in place around the country.

In answer to my colleague from Burlington, a tremendous member of Parliament, who has actually completed several long runs in my province, he understands that what we are doing, particularly in Atlantic Canada, is investing in the future. We are making sure we keep taxes low. We are bringing our deficits down and returning to a balanced budget. We are making key investments in key projects that are going to lead to jobs and growth, like the urban shipyard deal, a $25 billion deal; like Lower Muskrat Falls; like the west-east pipeline. It is targeted spending, making sure we also keep our taxes low, our deficits low and return to a balanced budget in 2015.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this particular bill, another omnibus bill coming from the Conservative Party, which contains a number of very significant issues.

One of those issues deals with an act that is really only directed toward the constituency I represent, the Northwest Territories. It is called the amendments to the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, and the bill changes the conditions of a particular fund that was set up through the work of the previous Liberal government and then through the work of the Conservative government in 2006 to deal with potential impacts from the Mackenzie gas project, a project that was put forward by Imperial Oil and, throughout the last decade, went through environment assessment.

Support of most first nations groups along the Mackenzie Valley was achieved for this 1,200-kilometre-long pipeline with a collector field in the Mackenzie Delta. The Inuvialuit of that region also supported the project. We did go through a process by which this project achieved support.

Part of that support came because of the decision by the federal government, both Liberals and Conservatives at the time, to a provide socio-economic impact fund to the communities. This fund, which was established as a trust fund of $500 million, was to be divided among the communities, the regions, the aboriginal organizations that represented the regions down the Mackenzie Valley and in the Mackenzie Delta. The Dehcho region was to receive $150 million; the Gwich’in region, $82 million; the Tulita-Deline region, $61 million; the Inuvialuit $150 million; and the Kasho Gotine-Colville region, $57 million.

These sums were to be distributed over 10 years once the project had been approved and we had seen work going forward with the project, once the companies had initiated efforts to start the project. This money was clearly identified for socio-economic impacts over 10 years, so that the sums of money were to be used for projects designed and developed by the communities.

These communities up and down the Mackenzie Valley, in the Mackenzie Delta, went through an extensive process to identify what they saw were their concerns in developing this pipeline: how it would affect their communities, how their communities could alleviate some of the impacts of such a major project, a $16 billion project, being conducted in an area where there were mostly traditional communities in very much pristine wilderness.

We had a situation where these communities had gone into a two-year planning process and came up with detailed plans of how these dollars were to be spent. The government at the time, through an act of Parliament, set up an independent corporation that would manage these funds and ensure that the corporation would only provide contributions to regional organizations in respect of a project if the project mitigated the existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories arising from the Mackenzie gas project. Quite clearly, this was designed solely for that purpose.

There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008. All of this work was accomplished and it was put in place.

That is the basic history of what has happened with it. Now, the Conservatives are talking about changing this project and the act to one where a minister, who is not designated in the act, will have the sole responsibility for issuing the funds for this rather large amount of money. We have a situation where the minister is not known. One of the significant differences in the bill is that in the previous bill, a corporation may only deal with this particular aspect when it is dealing with money, but now the new minister may designate the funds.

There is a subtle change in the way the legislation is put out, which I have some concerns about, because I represent the people who went through the two-year planning process to come up with the ideas that would be initiated. Those ideas were ones that spoke to culture, language, young people, the significant and important social impacts that the communities recognized would exist after taking on a major industrial project. It would forever change the landscape in their regions. It would forever change the economics and would put enormous social pressure on these communities.

What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate. This is a concern that I have. When we had the corporation in place, the corporation would have followed the directions that the communities had struck. It would have been an impartial body. We would have taken it away from the potential political interference that goes on with funds that are not clearly and carefully delegated to the right areas.

Did the government not learn anything from the Muskoka minister's gazebo scandal? Did it not learn anything about the importance of dealing with funds in a non-partial, careful fashion so that the precise purpose of what these funds are developed for is implemented?

We went through the process in the Northwest Territories. We established what these funds were to be used for in agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. These plans are in place. Where is the protection now for the work that people have done?

It is changing. Why is the government changing this? Where was the consultation with anyone in the Northwest Territories about this process? When did the government actually talk to people and say it wanted to take it out of the hands of an impartial corporation, which is very carefully configured to ensure that the dollars are spent in the way that the communities want, and put it into the hands of a minister who may or may decide to support projects, based on political considerations? Where was that consultation? How did that work? Where is the success of that?

What we have is a $500-million fund that has now been cut loose by the Government of Canada, by the Conservative Government of Canada, into the hands of a minister. It may or may not work in the way that is was designed to work.

This is a pattern that we can follow with the Conservative government. It started off with good intentions. It felt accountability was important when it started off. It recognized that it did not want to follow the Liberal pattern. Now it is back. What pattern is it following? It is back to the way the Liberals used to govern. It is back there now. This is just another indication. I really am sorry that this has happened.

I see that I only have five seconds left so I will take it up. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about the process for Bill C-4 is that, once again, the Conservative government is introducing an omnibus bill and then moving a damn time allocation motion. I am very concerned about this because of the impact it has on Canadian democracy, and I am wondering how we are supposed to properly debate this bill.

People across the country are telling us what they think about the environment, the country's finances and employment insurance. In all seriousness, our job in Ottawa is to share these concerns in the House of Commons in order to work together—like a big family—to find a compromise. I will admit that our family is dysfunctional.

However, we have to find solutions to help Canada move forward rather than engaging in a dialogue of the deaf in the House of Commons. I know that we will not solve this problem today on the basis of my comments alone. I would therefore like to ask a question of my NDP colleague, who represents northern Canada.

Is Bill C-4 really designed to properly represent Canadians living in the north or is our government somewhat out of touch with the realities in Quebec and northern Canada and, unfortunately, serving only the interests of party friends?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, over the past two years, my constituents have rejected omnibus bills. They understand now what they mean, and this bill is no different.

When we do something like this with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act, following this debate in the House of Commons, a committee should be empowered to bring forward all the participants in the Mackenzie gas impact fund. The people who spent two years designing what their communities were going to do with this money should be brought in front of a committee so that this could be properly aired.

The government did not do its work by going to these communities prior to this and talking to them about what was going on with the act, how the changes would take place, and ensuring them that the minister's prerogative over projects would not end up with these communities having to deal politically on every single issue.

We need to bring these communities in front of the committee now. We need to bring in representatives of the communities so that they can understand better what the government's plans are. Perhaps we could assure them that the government understands. If there are problems with it, there could be assurances given that these funds would be dealt with in a proper fashion. Those are things that government should do. However, what we see from the other side is a lack of interest in dealing with Canadians in an honest and forthright manner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult to stand up and provide comment on this when we know that many Canadians are watching what is happening in the Prime Minister's Office with the allegations of scandal, untruths and so forth. However, we will try to focus on what the PMO is actually doing here inside the House.

There has been a change in attitude in terms of how to present budget implementation bills by the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who has seen fit to change a wide variety of legislation, which should come into the House as independent pieces of legislation. He has chosen to use the back door in bringing in a lot more legislation than should be brought in. I am talking about unprecedented amounts. Within provincial and national legislators, no prime minister has brought in so much material using the back door of budget legislation.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on how individual members are denied the opportunity to provide due diligence because of the current Conservative-Reform Prime Minister's attitude in terms of bringing in this type of legislation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, perhaps he would go to my website. We did two very detailed analyses on Bill C-45 and Bill C-38, which are available on my website. They deal with how this government is changing the nature of doing business here, and talk to the long-term strategy that the Conservative government has to change the nature of Canada.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my support for the swift passage of this important and necessary legislation. We on this side of the House have been very clear. We are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and the legislation shows how committed we are to this focus.

As the Minister of Finance stated when he tabled Bill C-4, “In the face of continued global economic uncertainty, it is essential that we remain squarely focused on keeping Canada’s economy strong”.

Rest assured the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, is actively advancing this agenda. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I know the agency is playing a leading role in implementing important initiatives from economic action plan 2013. These initiatives are helping to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. We need look no further than our determination to fix an issue that matters to all Canadian taxpayers: ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes they owe. We are doing so by closing tax loopholes in order to keep taxes as low for individuals and families as possible.

Since 2006 our government has cut taxes 150 times. As a result, the average family of four now enjoys over $3,200 in extra tax savings. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is the lowest it has been in 50 years. I listened to the opposition criticism of the bill. Those members can say just about anything they want in the House because they are protected by parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say that we do not have the lowest taxes in the past 50 years. It is a fact and it is time that the opposition applaud that fact.

However, like any responsible government there is always room to do more. That is why economic action plan 2013 announced measures to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. We owe it to hard-working Canadians who fulfill their tax commitments and understand that their contributions help to fund important government programs and services for their families. It is also critical to honest businesses that find it hard to compete with businesses that cheat on their taxes. When people cheat on their taxes, everyone loses.

Among the important changes we intend to address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and fight international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. These efforts will close tax loopholes that were used by a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's effort to return to balanced budgets and responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared tax base. Equally important is the fact that our budget would give Canadians confidence that the tax system is fair, providing incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Another area with a direct impact on Canadian taxpayers is our work to root out electronic suppression of sales software. In plain language it is often referred to as zapper software. What it boils down to is making it more and more difficult for people to cheat on their taxes and operate in the underground economy. While they, the tax cheats, pocket the money, honest taxpayers end up having to shoulder a greater tax burden because of this illegal activity.

All taxpayers, particularly businesses, are required to maintain adequate books and records for tax purposes. This includes maintaining accurate electronic data files. Unfortunately, some businesses use this zapper software to hide their sales figures so they can avoid paying the GST/HST and income taxes they owe on this revenue. This software selectively deletes or modifies sales from electronic cash registers and other point-of-sale and accounting systems. This undermines the competitiveness of businesses and offers an unfair advantage to those who fail to comply with Canada's tax laws.

Economic action plan 2013 sent a strong signal that we will no longer tolerate such activity. Bill C-4 includes new monetary penalties and criminal offences to discourage the possession, use or development of electronic suppression of sales software.

Anyone who attempts to avoid paying taxes by using electronic suppression of sales tax avoidance, which leaves an unfair burden on Canadian consumers and businesses that contribute their fair share, will now pay a steep price. Businesses caught using, owning, or buying electronic suppression of sales software will face a $5,000 penalty on their first infraction. This penalty rises to $50,000 for any subsequent infraction.

Anyone who develops, manufactures, offers for sale, or sells such software will face a $10,000 penalty on the first infraction and $100,000 for any subsequent infraction.

There is no question that our overarching goal is to put more money back in the hands of Canadians through reduced taxes. Our country's tax base is essential for providing necessary benefits, programs, and services that all Canadians depend on.

When everyone pays the taxes they owe, we can invest those tax dollars to help Canadian families and communities and our country's economy. For instance, economic action plan 2013 includes tax credits for small businesses that would enable them to create jobs for unemployed Canadians. This would generate increased wealth in their communities.

Bill C-4 introduces measures that would support Canada's job creators. It would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business for an additional year. More businesses than ever would be able to take advantage of this job creation tool.

It is especially noteworthy that the hiring credit would leave eligible business owners with up to $1,000 they could put back into their businesses. Eligible employers would receive the credit when they hired new employees or increased wages. New businesses created in 2012 might also be eligible. If business owners were eligible, they could get the credit automatically when they filed their T4 information returns.

This investment yields huge dividends. Based on the success of the existing initiative, we anticipate that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure. If even 50% of those businesses used the hiring credit, this would allow them to reinvest $225 million back into the Canadian economy. Especially good news for businesses is that there would be no extra paperwork to fill out. That is because of another one of our priorities reflected in Bill C-4, our commitment to reduce red tape at every opportunity.

Business owners and their associations have told us loud and clear that they are frustrated by the amount of paperwork they have to deal with from all levels of government. We have been listening to them.

Our government recognizes that too much red tape restricts innovation, productivity, and competitiveness. We understand that when Canadian businesses succeed, all Canadians benefit. That is why we have taken repeated steps to free up Canadian business owners from paperwork so that they can focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs. I am proud to say that there are now fewer regulations, and the cost of red tape has been reduced by $20 million annually.

We continue to make progress. Now certain essential forms that simply cannot be avoided are easier to process. For instance, the CRA recently launched its new online mail service for Canadian businesses, available through My Business Account, which streamlines their interactions with the agency. Canadian small businesses can now choose to receive notices of assessment and reassessment, as well as some letters for their corporate and GST/HST accounts, electronically.

CRA uses the same high level of security that financial institutions use to protect banking information, so businesses can use the new online service with peace of mind.

Our government's record speaks for itself. We are keeping taxes low, cutting red tape, and going after tax cheats like never before. No wonder Canada leads the G7 with more than one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. With the adoption of Bill C-4, we will be able to carry on this proud tradition of progress.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a serious problem here. They think they have tabled a budget, but all we see is proof that they have an aptitude—I would even call it a talent—for transforming gold into lead.

You were supposed to create jobs, you were supposed to give us something to make our lives easier, and all we see is a budget that does not even aim to lower the number of unemployed workers, that does not even aim to build affordable housing and that does not even aim to reduce household debt. There is nothing.

I have a simple question about taxes. You talk about taxes—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order. I remind the member that he must always direct his questions to the Chair.

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

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that was a wide-ranging question on a number of issues.

It is fairly obvious that the hon. member was not listening intently to my speech. I talked very openly about reducing red tape, reducing the cost for small business, and getting more people hired in the Canadian economy, never mind the one million net new jobs we have created since the great depression.

Certainly people would be hired through the Canadian tax credit. That tax credit would benefit 560,000 businesses. If only 50% of those businesses took advantage of the tax credit, that would put $225 million into the Canadian economy. Putting $225 million into the Canadian economy is a lot of money that would stimulate a lot of jobs. That shows that the government is paying attention to what small business is saying. It shows that we are creating jobs that benefit ordinary Canadians.

The hon. member went on to talk about affordable housing. Maybe he needs to take a look at the record of this government in assisting with affordable housing across this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will quickly say that the municipal budget for the City of Kingston is going to be decreasing because of the expiry of mortgage support from the federal government for affordable housing.

My question is about a particular point my hon. colleague made, which is about penalties for software companies that write software to help people avoid paying taxes. It is very hard to enforce penalties when it is so easy for these companies to be offshore. An analogy is legislation to combat spam, which was, in fact, passed before I was elected. Not very much has come of it.

Can we really accomplish something by passing a law that punishes software companies for helping people evade taxes, when the companies are offshore, or is this just feel-good legislation?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a fair, if incorrect, point.

The reality is that we have to cut down on the software suppression material that many businesses are using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Obviously, if we are going to penalize businesses, that is one part of the equation. We set that up because some businesses, quite frankly, have this software in place and are not even aware of it. It really would be improper to punish people for using something they are not aware they are using.

However, we are serving notice. We are saying that they should recognize that this software is out there and that they should make sure that they are not culpable for using this software. The first fine is $1,000, and the second fine is $50,000.

Furthermore, it is difficult, I agree, to go after these companies if they are offshore. However, there must be a penalty for companies that create and promote this software, because ultimately, they are the problem. Yes, I recognize the difficulty of targeting offshore companies, but at the same time, there has to be a control put in place that at least allows us to go after them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest and noted that she said she studied occupational health and safety in school.

In looking at the changes to the Canada Labour Code, it is important to note that in 80% of the appeals in the last 10 years, it has been found that there was no danger. Therefore, if we are looking at changes to the Canadian Labour Code and we note that in 80% of the cases that have been brought forward there was no danger, would she not agree that we need to have a system that would allow our health and safety officers to focus on that 20% where there is true danger?

I think it is an absolutely phenomenal number and it speaks to the fact that the system, as it currently exists, is not working, so I would like to ask the member why she would not look positively at a change that would focus on the true and imminent dangers to workers' health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

As I was explaining, since the government wants to centralize everything, there will be fewer people on the ground to assess all the risks. Furthermore, the bill significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. This means that people working in dangerous conditions cannot refuse to work. That is the problem I have with this bill.

I would like to say this to my hon. colleague: when an omnibus bill containing hundreds of pages is introduced—one that we are forced to debate under a time allocation motion and one that will not even be examined by the appropriate committees—this definitely does not encourage any dialogue.

This bill may have some good things in it, and I mentioned some of them in my speech. I recognize that. I would like to vote in favour of some of the measure in the budget. However, when they are all lumped together in an omnibus bill so that we cannot examine them at the appropriate committee, I am sorry, but I cannot accept that and I cannot vote in favour of such a bill.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the theme discussed by the Parliamentary Secretary and by my colleague.

Quebec has the CSST, and matters of occupational health and safety and the right to opt out are legislated. Employees of companies under provincial jurisdiction come under the CSST in Quebec.

I would like to know if, in Quebec, everything had to be centralized in the hands of the minister in order to create a system that works. Can we have a good system that works without putting everything in the hands of the minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, for her question and the good work she does in her riding.

She asked me whether we had to leave everything in the hands of the minister. That is what I have seen the Conservatives do since I arrived in Parliament: they have tried to grab more and more power. That was the case for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

The Conservatives want to have all the power and control what is happening on the ground. That is not what the government should be doing. Instead, it should be creating laws and letting people apply them. I find this to be very dangerous.

As my colleague mentioned, Quebec has a system that works quite well. It is not the minister who decides how to manage everything and I believe that things should stay that way. We have a good system that is working, and I think it is deplorable for the Conservatives to once again try to grab more power.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to speak to the budget implementation issue.

I would like to highlight some items that are extremely important to all Canadians. Sometimes when we look at all the issues we forget the umbrella over which the budget was built.

Two and a half years ago, Canadians gave our government a mandate to create jobs, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safer. In an uncertain and unstable world, our Conservative government has led us through tough economic times.

The results are clear. With one million net new jobs added since the recession, we lead the G7 on job creation and on the strength of our balance sheet. Canada now leads the G7 in job creation, in income growth, and in keeping debt levels low. We are the leader.

Canada is now among only a few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. However, we know we need to do more. Canadians have a rare opportunity to build on our stable democracy, our sound finances, our expanding trade relationships, our strong communities, and our skilled workforce. This is Canada's moment, and it is our government's job to seize the moment for the benefit of all Canadians.

That is why the recent throne speech laid out three priorities for our government moving forward. Number one is to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians; number two is to support and protect Canadian families; number three is to put Canada first.

Our priorities are about making sure that Canada is leading the world so that Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules can get ahead. Our work will be guided by our values: the belief in low taxes, small government, a thriving private sector that creates jobs for Canadians, protecting our communities from criminals and drug pushers, and believing that Canada is the best country on earth to live in.

In our throne speech, our government committed to pursuing free trade agreements, such as the Canada-EU free trade agreement. I am proud that our government has already delivered on this promise. One in five Canadian jobs depends on exports. Our prosperity hinges on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investments. I congratulate our government for signing an agreement in principle of a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, an agreement that has the potential to create 80,000 new Canadian jobs. This is an historic win for Canada and means thousands of new jobs for Canadians and half a billion new customers for Canadian businesses.

Manitoba has much to gain from this 21st century. I am from Manitoba, and I am very proud because I know 40¢ on the dollar has been put forward from the federal government to keep Manitoba going. Now Manitoba, my province, has much to gain from this 21st century, gold-standard trade agreement. The elimination of 98% of all EU tariffs on the first day that the agreement comes into force will translate into increased profits and opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes in every part of the country. This historic agreement with the EU is a big win for workers, businesses, and families in Kildonan—St. Paul, Manitoba, and all through Canada. Throughout the province, hard-working people of Manitoba will benefit, especially in key sectors of the local economy, such as advanced manufacturing, construction services, and agriculture.

In addition to tariff elimination, CETA provides improved access to EU markets for Canadian goods and services; greater certainty, transparency, and protection for investments; and new opportunities in EU procurement markets.

An earlier joint study concluded that CETA could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade and a $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. That is the equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian household income or 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy. That is amazing.

CETA is by far Canada's most ambitious trade initiative, broader and deeper in scope than the historic North American Free Trade Agreement known as NAFTA.

Economic action plan 2013 is something else that would strengthen this record with action in all areas that drive economic prosperity.

Today I would like to highlight some of the excellent measures that would benefit the hardworking families and individuals in Kildonan—St. Paul and in the province of Manitoba.

The act would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013 as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Measures in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2 are aimed at spurring job creation and economic growth. These kinds of things include providing record transfer support for social and health services in Manitoba and a significant number of dollars to ensure that necessary programs are well funded, such as in schools and hospitals. In fact, in 2013-2014, the federal transfer support to Manitoba would be $643 million higher than it was under the former Liberal government.

We all remember that the former Liberal government slashed transfers for health care and education. I remember it well. Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services Manitoba families depend on.

For Manitoba, total major transfers would total $3.4 billion in 2013. These would include almost $1.8 billion through equalization, an increase of $191 million, or almost 12%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; $1.1 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $336 million, or almost 43%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; $443 million through the Canada social transfer, an increase of $109 million, or almost 33%, since 2005-2006 under the former Liberal government; and almost $7 million in total transfer protection. I remember this well, because I was an MLA at the time.

This is good news for Manitoba and a key assurance that our government is committed to the long-term prosperity of our province of Manitoba.

One area of the budget I would like to highlight is programs designed to help create jobs. These are very important programs. Our Conservative government would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers.

Canada's small businesses are engines for job creation that boost economic growth. They represent 48% of the total labour force in the private sector and contribute approximately 30% to Canada's GDP. The federal government recognizes the important contribution made by small businesses all across the country and the challenges they face. This temporary credit would provide up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2012 to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012. This is very good news for Canadian businesses.

Other job creator initiatives would include increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding; expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; and freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Another area of the budget implementation act I would like to highlight today is our Conservative government's efforts to control direct program spending with common sense proposals for making government more efficient and productive. This would include setting public service pay and benefits levels that are reasonable, responsible, and in the public interest.

There are so many other things, such as closing tax loopholes and the building Canada fund. The building Canada fund would provide $14 billion over ten years to support major economic infrastructure projects in Manitoba and all across Canada.

In this time of economic constraint, it is very important that people are working and that Canadians are able to live well and grow their families in prosperity, happiness, and safety. This is why Canada is a remarkable country under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, and our government.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would draw to the attention of the member that it is not permitted to use the name of a sitting member of the House.

The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about an aspect of Bill C-4 that bothers me.

Earlier, during the debate on Bill C-4, a number of Conservatives boasted that their government has cut taxes, which benefits Canadians. However, they forgot to mention that the Conservative government sometimes increases taxes. This bill contains a tax increase of $350 million. Who will pay the price? Labour-sponsored venture capital funds, also known as workers' funds.

Quebec is known for its good labour-sponsored funds. For some years, these venture capital funds have been invested in communities. These funds are used to help start up and grow businesses.

The Conservative government is appalling. I also want to talk about this government's hypocrisy, because it boasts about lowering taxes when it is to their benefit, but increases them in other sectors.

Could my Conservative colleague, whom I respect very much, tell us if the Conservatives will reverse its decision and remove this harmful $350 million tax that will kill jobs.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who does such an excellent job on the health committee. I very much respect his question. However, I want to put the focus on the umbrella part I talked about at the beginning.

In terms of helping businesses succeed and relieving tax breaks, our government has put forward a myriad of tax breaks to grow business and prosperity. There is the new manufacturing machinery and equipment tax break for businesses. There is the expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which I talked about in my speech a little earlier. As we know, small business in Quebec, or anyplace else, is the engine of the economy in any province.

There is the increasing and indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption, which is extremely important. This is very positive for business, because it increases the rewards for investing in small business by making it easier for the owners to transfer their family businesses. As we know, in Quebec, an awful lot of family businesses have grown, prospered, and become very famous for their goods.

There is also support for farmers. This is the bread basket of the world, and Quebec is the same. The current deduction limit for the restricted farm loss income tax would go from $8,750 to $17,500. That would help farmers right on the ground.

There are so many tax relief measures our government has given that far offset anything else that might have to be put in place to keep our economy balanced.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the umbrella when she talked about the things the government has been doing. I wonder if she could explain to us whether this umbrella includes the amendments to or repeals of 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages in this omnibus budget bill.

The bill would strip health and safety officers of their powers and put nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister, significantly weakening the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It would move to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It would gut Canada's most scientific research institute, the NRC. It would reduce the number of members on the veterans review board. It would makes changes to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Are these the things the umbrella is including? They are right now in this budget bill. We on this side of the House cannot figure out why they would be in a budget bill. Maybe she could explain that. Are they under the umbrella?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is always interesting, because the job of the opposition is to be in opposition. However, I have to say that in research and innovation, our government has done so much. We have invested $20 million to help small and medium-size enterprises in my province, Manitoba, and all across the country. We have strengthened research partnerships, investing $37 million in Manitoba and across Canada, and have promoted clean projects.

There is so much that has been done to help business. Yes, it is the umbrella. That is why today our country has a sound, stable economic standing, and we have an AAA credit rating. I think the management of the finances of our country has been exemplary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, introduced by Minister Flaherty on October 22, 2013.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I do not know what it is about this morning. The use of a sitting member's name is not permitted in the House. Refer to the minister as the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details of the bill and how it will benefit Canada, and specifically my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, I would like to take a moment to give this House the context in which we consider this bill.

In early 2008, Canada was faced with the worst global economic downturn since the 1930s. However, thanks to the firm and responsible regulations that were put in place, Canada did not sink as low. This alone was not enough to keep Canada from following our neighbours. Our government saw investments dwindling, an unstable, unconfident marketplace, and millions of Canadians with their jobs at risk. Our government acted with resolve and initiative to introduce the economic action plan, which provided our economy with a $60-billion stimulus, including $12 billion in stimulus and $20 billion in tax relief.

Action plan after action plan, the government has continued to responsibly steer Canada through the global recession while simultaneously pushing taxes lower and removing barriers to trade and investment in Canada.

The ultimate result is that all Canadians can take pride that through our government's responsible and disciplined leadership, Canada has the best fiscal record in the G8. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the absolute lowest. We are on the path to surplus. We hold a AAA credit rating. We have added over a million net new jobs to the economy, which has reduced unemployment lower than before the recession. Our markets remain responsibly regulated, stable, and dynamic.

However, our recovery is fragile and vulnerable to the actions of others. That is why Bill C-4 would have impact. Bill C-4 would project the government's low-tax, consumer, family-focused agenda into the future to ensure continued growth and long-term prosperity.

While Bill C-4 touches on all aspects of Canada's economy, I would like to highlight three areas of importance to my region and how Bill C-4 would help Nipissing—Timiskaming grow.

First, as we know, businesses are absolutely key to healthy communities. If the cost of business is too high, jobs will disappear. This is the plain truth, and it baffles me that the NDP and Liberals cannot comprehend it. Fundamentally, they believe that we can tax and spend ourselves out of every problem.

Nipissing—Timiskaming is home to many manufacturing companies. Aerospace and mining are major sectors for us. The accelerated capital cost allowance program introduced in Bill C-4, which would be extended for two years, would allow companies in my region to invest in new machinery and equipment, expand their operations, and stimulate growth and job creation.

Economic action plan 2013 would proactively address continued job growth and skills shortages through the Canada job grant. It is an initiative that would help workers get $15,000 toward valuable skills training. Our government understands that it is not enough to create new jobs; we have to make sure that there are skilled Canadians to fill them.

This kind of long-term, experienced thinking is exactly why, under this government, Canada has prospered while other countries continue to flounder.

I know that in my region, students and graduates of Canadore College would particularly benefit from the Canada job grant. These very same students, many of whom go into the skilled trades, would also benefit from the changes we are making to how apprenticeship accreditation works. Four million dollars over three years would be allocated to harmonize requirements among the provinces and to examine assessments.

Aerospace, in particular, would benefit. Over $1 billion would be invested in the aerospace and space sectors. Nipissing—Timiskaming has a long and proud history in airways, and I am confident that it will play a key role in our government's plan to consolidate and improve our fifth-place standing in the world. Aerospace companies and services in my community employ hundreds of people and provide them with secure, good-paying jobs. This will only grow under our government.

Second, I would like to specifically talk about small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the towns and communities in Nipissing—Timiskaming. They, in particular, would benefit from Bill C-4. Besides being able to take advantage of the Canada job grant, they would benefit from the hiring credit, which would freeze EI premiums, saving small businesses $1,000.

Small businesses, and in particular part-time farmers, would benefit from the increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would increase by $50,000 to $800,000. Farmers would also benefit from the doubling of the restricted farm loss deduction, from $8,750 to $17,500.

Overall, thanks to the low-tax plan of our government, Bill C-4 and previous Conservative budgets, small businesses are paying $28,600 less in taxes. Canadians get it and Canadians got it in May 2011 when they sent the Conservative government to Ottawa with a majority. However, I will make it clear for my colleagues who remain a little confused that we have been cutting taxes and jobs have been created, one million net new jobs. Bills like Bill C-4 have cut taxes. Unemployment now is lower than before the recession. Our responsible long-term plan is working for Canada and Canadian families. I hope, after seven years, my colleagues will begin to understand that.

I want to touch on infrastructure. A major part of the original economic action plan, investment in infrastructure, underpins this budget and Canada's success. How would this be any different given our national history? In the infant stage of nationhood, it was the building of the transcontinental railroad that united Canada and set it on the path toward economic prosperity. The building Canada plan, the single largest infrastructure investment in our nation's history, will provide an additional $53 billion over several years to make sure our infrastructure is modern, safe and capable of helping us unlock more economic potential in our communities and from our resources. We cannot expect to grow without a firm base on which to stand. Infrastructure is that base.

Nipissing—Timiskaming has greatly benefited from infrastructure projects, particularly through FedNor. In particular, the airport, roads and community assets have been invested in. The expansion of the airport and upgrading of its services continue to make our region a more attractive place for continued investment in aerospace. Coupled with our government's aerospace prerogative, there is potential for real synergy. Investment in our roads and community infrastructure continues to open up the north and adds to our quality of life.

It is unfortunate that many of our neighbours suffered greatly, and continue to suffer, because of the global economic downturn. I as a Canadian am very grateful that our recession was not as impactful. Canadians recognize that our success is no accident. Canadians recognize that our continued economic leadership of the G8 is no accident. Canadians recognize that the government is not the answer, only a part of the solution. Our country has grown weary of the tax and spend promises of the Liberals and NDP, mostly because the money is never spent on the people, although it is they who are taxed.

Last, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this government does not draft policy or budgets in a vacuum, but in a long-term, responsible and critical fashion. The effects of economic action plan 2013, Bill C-4 and future budgets, will greatly benefit from the recently announced Canada-European Union free trade agreement. The synergy is perfect. Bills like Bill C-4 help create a low-tax, investor-friendly market, while CETA removes barriers to trade and investment.

In conclusion, thanks to Bill C-4 and parallel government efforts, Canadians can continue to expect net job growth, world leadership in fiscal accountability and political stability, with an explicit focus on Canadian jobs, families and their pocketbooks. The government fully intends to seize Canada's moment for the benefit of all Canadians and I would urge my colleagues on the opposite side to support it. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that my riding shares a common border with that of my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming. When I travel by car to my riding, I regularly pass through his riding. It appears that we disagree on the Conservative budget.

When I talk to young people in his riding, they tell me that they are worried. More and more young people are unemployed. Salaries are not going up. Increasingly, they are holding down part-time jobs and the price of houses is very high. It is very hard for them to start a family. There is nothing in this budget for young people.

I would like to know if the hon. member has taken the time as well to talk to the young people in his riding and to listen closely to their concerns, or if he is only talking to the members of the business community.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague indeed frequents our riding and is always welcome there.

Yes, I talk to young people a number of times throughout the week and throughout the month. Basically, they are telling me that they want opportunities for training, and there are plenty in this budget as I mentioned.

One in particular is the Canada jobs grant. When the Canada jobs grant is fully formulated, it will provide $15,000 for young Canadians in my riding to get fully trained and obtain the skills they need to obtain and carry jobs in the future.

Another opportunity is the tremendous amount of money that the government has afforded for aerospace. We have an aerospace forum coming to the riding on November 8 and we hope to grow aerospace in our region as it is growing in Canada. We want to maintain our fifth-place standing and, in fact, want to enhance our standing.

It is my hope that we can attract investment to the North Bay region and help grow jobs in the economy, jobs for our younger people.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, at one point in an earlier debate, the Minister of Finance very eloquently said that the purpose of the budget implementation act was to implement the budget. When the budget speech was given last spring, there was a lengthy speech and there was a thick, glossy volume of some hundreds of pages, with a blue and white cover and an economic action plan title.

I wonder if the hon. member might be able to point us to the reference in the budget speech or documents to the proposed changes to the Supreme Court Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot specifically point to that reference and am not familiar with it.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member in particular for the important work he is doing, not just in Nipissing—Timiskaming but across northern Ontario. He has been a great ambassador. Indeed, he is right about aerospace and he can also talk about and celebrate the fact that North Bay is a world-class city for the mining supply and service sector.

I have been travelling across the North and this world-class theme has been ringing loud and clear. Sudbury is doing astrophysics and leading the world in natural and water sciences. These are not our traditional strengths. Thunder Bay has cyclotron early cancer detection and the world was gathered there. Kenora is becoming a world-class tourist destination.

Mayors and first nations community leaders are talking positively and enthusiastically. There is a palpable enthusiasm for northern Ontario, but I am concerned about the bad news bears across the floor.

Could the member tell us why this budget implementation act would take northern Ontario one step forward to the greatness it can and will achieve?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. This budget would provide our region, which is a rural region, with a great deal of unemployment, the opportunity to move forward and seize the moment for the 21st century.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-4. Unfortunately, this is another grab bag omnibus bill that has had its time for debate cut off, so some important issues in it will not be adequately aired. I will touch on several aspects of the bill and how they reflect some of the challenges and failures of the government.

I am going to start by pointing out that this budget implementation bill would do very little to address the key challenges being faced by middle-class Canadians as a result of rising costs and stagnant incomes. Bill C-4 would do little to create jobs.

The bill would increase taxes with respect to mining exploration. That is not very helpful. If taxes are increased on mining exploration, then much of the good work to encourage mining exploration and mining development would be undermined.

Vancouver is at the centre of the mining industry globally. Many people who live in the province of British Columbia and many people in my riding of Vancouver Quadra work in the mining industry. The British Columbia government has spent the last 10 or 12 years rebuilding that industry in our province.

In 2001, when the B.C. Liberal government was first elected, investment in mining exploration was down to about $25 million from the hundreds of millions of dollars of annual investment in the 1990s. Slowly and surely the provincial government built up the confidence of the mining industry until over $250 million a year was invested in British Columbia's mining exploration.

Our province spent so much effort in rebuilding this industry by respecting the industry and not adding to its tax burden. Did the Prime Minister consult with the British Columbia premier or the minister of energy and mines when he slapped a tax on this industry?

This is a failure by management, and it shows that the federal government does not understand that for jobs to be created and business opportunities to be provided, the business community needs to have certainty and transparency.

We have seen this kind of management failure in spades in the Conservative government in the area of military procurement. All of us would agree that the Canadian navy, air force and army need to replace billions of dollars worth of aging trucks, helicopters, ships, et cetera so our armed forces personnel have safe and effective equipment. Barely a week has past without yet another story of the Conservative government's incompetence with respect to military procurement.

I want to remind the House that the acquisition of F-35 joint strike fighters was restarted after reports by the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government knowingly misled Canadians on the program's cost. It was, in fact, keeping two sets of books. In 2010 the Prime Minister claimed the cost would be $9 billion for 65 fighters, but by 2012 the full cost was pegged at more than $46 billion.

That is just one example and there are many others, such as helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings. In some cases, these Sea Kings are 30 years older than the very pilots who are flying them, so this is a safety issue. There have only been delays and uncertainty with respect to that project.

The acquisition of new army trucks has been ongoing since 2004. That has been restarted numerous times, but nothing is expected there.

The purchase of a new fleet of search and rescue aircraft has taken more than nine years. The government is still not ready to even accept bids.

There is also the issue around the Arctic offshore patrol ships. An independent reviewer said the cost was extraordinarily high for the design phase alone, but the government just plowed ahead, ignoring that point. There were plans to replace the outdated 50-year-old Lee-Enfield .303 rifles used by our Canadian Rangers in the Arctic; that procurement project has been cancelled with no reason given. It is a very flawed procurement process, unfortunately, potentially impacting the safety of our Canadian Armed Forces, and that is a management failure on the government's part.

I want to touch on another area in the bill, the employment insurance premiums. We support this aspect of the bill and we appreciate that after years of Liberal requests, the government has stopped increasing the tax on jobs, which is increasing the EI premiums, as they have been increased over the years, costing billions of dollars to businesses. We support that aspect, but the very fact that the government has been adding taxes to businesses and small businesses is a level of fiscal incompetence, because it shows the Conservatives are not understanding the impact of these taxes on jobs.

Under the current government, that kind of incompetence has been happening in the military budget as well. Under the Canada First defence strategy, a promised cornerstone was stable increases in funding. However, almost immediately, successive budgets were quietly reduced by billions of dollars, allowing up to $8 billion in funds to lapse or stay unspent. There has been essentially no new investment in national defence under the Conservative government, with two small exceptions, and since 2011, successive major budget cuts have been sending departments scrambling to protect the essential capacity and morale required for effective national defence. This is another case of saying one thing and doing another.

Canadians and Liberals are proud of the Canadian Forces, who serve Canada on her behalf without reservation. However, to do their jobs they need to be able to depend on what they are being told, and in fact the government has decreased armed forces personnel in the navy by 11% from its strength in 2004, yet it increased the number of civilian naval employees by 30% over that period. This is managerial incompetence.

The army has fared no better under the current government. Between 2011 and 2013 its budget has been slashed by 22%, yet its headquarters received an extra half a billion dollars in budget increases. We hear one thing, but we see another happening.

Most unfortunately, in this bill we have the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a backlogged board that will see its number of members slashed so that there will be a further backlog. That ties in to the undermining of the armed forces that we have seen under the government whereby military members and their families are falling through the cracks of government bureaucracy.

As these national defence budgets that supposedly were to be increased have been slashed, the very programs that support military personnel affected by mental illness and injury have been cut. Thousands of Canadian Forces members are affected by mental health issues. They need help through the joint personnel support unit and through mental health professionals to help them get strong again and find alternatives within the armed forces where they can be successful, yet those very supports are not there.

The government must do so much better for our men and women in uniform, just as it must do much better for Canadians.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Vancouver Quadra trying to direct her comments to an area related to her new role as critic in defence and defence procurement. However, I have to take serious issue with her speech. I am incredulous that she accuses this government of undermining the Canadian Forces at a time where the Canadian Forces have grown and been properly equipped by this government, as opposed to what happened with the previous government, which balanced its budget on the backs of defence and of our provinces.

I would ask the member if she is aware of the veterans transition network, a new mental health facility or program that has been championed by the University of British Columbia in her own province. It was previously funded by the Royal Canadian Legion, and it is this government that actually helped take it to a national level so that more of our veterans with mental health issues could be addressed.

I would like her to speak to the veterans transition network program specifically.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with that program. The program struggled for years without government support. I appreciate that the government has now picked up the program and is expanding it. For many years it was supported by the Legions, which had to go out talking about their successes in speech after speech, including one at a breakfast policy event where the leaders of that program spoke to constituents in Vancouver Quadra.

However, I want to touch upon the parliamentary secretary's comments about reductions in support for the military. In the decade in which cuts were applied, a number of those years were under Conservative governments, and the cuts occurred because of the deficits that Conservatives had gotten Canadians and Canada into. It was under the Paul Martin government that funding began to be restored for the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are now closing on a decade of deceit by the current Conservative government, which does photo opportunities about supposed increases in funding with troops and equipment in the backdrop, yet has done virtually nothing and is now scrambling to figure out where to put all the hidden cuts that are in its budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few steps away from here, 600 people are gathering for the first national conference on ending homelessness.

As we know, there are 200,000 homeless people in Canada every year. There is a slow-motion crisis going on, and it is definitely a national disaster, yet in the debates, in the throne speech, and in the action plan, there is hardly any investment for building affordable housing. Also, the end of the housing agreement in 2014 will mean that hundreds of thousands of people who now have affordable housing will lose that affordable housing.

Given the homelessness crisis that is facing Canada, what should Canada's response be and what should be in this budget document?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Trinity—Spadina pointing out what a core challenge the issues of affordable housing and homelessness are for Canadians,

In 2005, under the minister responsible for housing in the Liberal government, there was a comprehensive plan that had been the product of consultation across the country to invest in solutions to that issue, but the current Conservative government has consistently cut supports for affordable housing.

It is at the core of Canadians' well-being, not just for lower-income people but also for the middle class; for young families in Vancouver who cannot afford to buy a house or rent suitable housing; for the mentally ill, whose situations are worsened when they do not have safe adequate housing; and for seniors, especially women. I thank the member for pointing out that very important issue.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to add my comments to this important debate that we are having on Bill C-4 today.

Our Conservative government, as we have said many times, is squarely focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is economic growth and prosperity. We intend to do that by creating jobs across this country.

By implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the tough recession that we have had over the last few years and throughout the recovery that is taking place.

This morning we are discussing Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013. I want to take a few minutes to outline why the opposition should support this legislation.

Our economic action plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year in conjunction with the portfolio of initiatives that we have had since 2006, with affordable measures that would create jobs, promote growth across this country, and contribute to long-term prosperity. It would further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive and innovate in the modern economy so that they can begin to create prosperity and economic growth as well.

To me, that is what matters most in this country, while the opposition continues to talk about issues that Canadians do not seem to be concerned about. Our government will put forward legislation that matters from coast to coast to coast.

Here are a few of the facts that I think are important.

Canada has created over one million net new jobs, 90% of which are full-time, with nearly 80% in the private sector. I think that is something we should be extremely proud of. Our private sector is thriving to the point that it has created nearly 800,000 jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009.

Over this period, Canada has had the strongest job creation record in the entire G7. This is in tandem with the fact that our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years and is significantly lower than that of the United States. This is a phenomenon that we have not seen in nearly three decades.

For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world, and all the major credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's—have once again affirmed our solid AAA credit rating.

The global economy remains fragile, with growth in major economies slower than expected and our major trading partners not in the enviable position that we find ourselves in. Of course, we are not immune to a global slowdown, and Bill C-4 is one way that our government continues to ensure growth in these fragile times.

Let us take a closer look at how Canada's economic action plan makes significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians, but before I go to that, I would like to note another sign of leadership: the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union.

While we are working in terms of a budget and economic action plan 2013, this government is not sitting still. We have gone around the world inking trade deals; the latest one is, of course, the agreement that we are going to be making with the European Union. This agreement alone, as members have heard, has the potential to add more than 80,000 new Canadian jobs. We expect that those jobs will be in all sectors.

I come from an agricultural area, and certainly the agriculture folks are very excited and happy about this. There will be opportunities to thrive in all sectors. There will be opportunities for them to move into new markets. We expect, as they have done so many times over the decades, that the agriculture folks will step up and take advantage of those opportunities and once again show the world-class leadership that they have shown in the past.

On this agreement, here is a little bit of what other people have to say about it.

John Manley, the president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, has said that “...the [comprehensive economic and trade agreement] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth”, which is exactly what this government is trying to do.

Unlike the opposition, we understand the importance of free trade and that the pursuit of it is beneficial for Canada and for Canadians.

Our government's trade agenda has already made us one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world. Since 2006, we have reached trade agreements with nine countries, and we are negotiating with many more. We have concluded foreign investment, promotion, and protection agreements with another 16 countries and are in active negotiations with others as well.

We are not done yet. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations. We are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic, and growing economies, such as China, India, and Japan. Those initiatives reflect our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for global economy recovery, and I might add, for the development of human rights in some of the other countries as well.

Unlike the opposition, we know that by growing international trade and creating additional export opportunities for Canadian businesses, we will improve the standard of living for all Canadians. Free and open trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian businesses need access to key export markets in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 builds on those measures through targeted actions that will help our manufacturers and businesses continue to succeed on the world stage.

We also believe in promoting job creation and keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. When disaster struck the world economy, our economic action plan navigated Canada through the worst recession in a generation while maintaining the lowest debt to GDP level in the G7. During the downturn, our economic action plan took the steps necessary to safeguard our economy and protected Canadian jobs. It made the largest and the longest federal investment in job creating infrastructure in Canadian history, and it controlled spending while maintaining growing transfers that support health care, education and retirement in those transfers to the provinces.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, we have not cut major transfers to Canadian families or other levels of government, particularly the health and social transfers, in order to balance the budget. We are also not going to engage in risky spending schemes or force a $21-billion carbon tax on Canadians or hike taxes on Canadian businesses, as the NDP has insisted is its economic strategy for this country. Instead, our government has set clear targets to bring our deficit down and to return to a balanced budget by 2015. Our government has been very clear that we are not going to raise taxes on Canadians to balance that budget and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed our economic action plan will see Canada return to surplus before the next election.

The Minister of Finance also recently reiterated our commitment to balancing the budget in 2015. Our plan is working. In the past two years we have already cut the deficit by more than half. Economic action plan 2013 will build on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings, including examining departmental spending to ensure that government operations are managed efficiently, making government operations more efficient by putting forward plans to control overall employee compensation expenses and enhancing the integrity of the tax system by closing tax loopholes.

I want to talk about public service pay and benefits. Our budget has stated that the Government of Canada's intent is to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. The Public Service Labour Relations Act will be amended to ensure that the public service is affordable and that it is modern and high performing, as taxpayers have expected. The proposed amendments will bring savings, will streamline practices and will bring them in line with other jurisdictions. We are glad to be able to sit at a bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayers where the rules are fair and balanced.

Overall, measures taken by our government since budget 2010 will result in total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion.

I would like to talk about how this will impact my province of Saskatchewan. There are a number of things in this budget that are good for us. As everyone knows, we have a very strong economy in western Canada right now, particularly in Saskatchewan. It is the fastest growing province in the country. We have been able to work with the province in moving forward this economic vision for Canadians.

It is interesting that we finally shed ourselves of the NDP heritage we had in Saskatchewan, which held us back for so long. It is interesting that even as the world was going into recession, Saskatchewan has finally really begun to bloom. We have worked to keep taxes low from our perspective. We have worked to return to a balanced budget and the government in Saskatchewan has done a good job of managing its resources as well.

Things such as the community improvement fund where we have been able to contribute to infrastructure, the building Canada fund, where we have been able to work with the provinces has actually worked very well.

I see my time is almost up, so I want to say Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs as I pointed out. At the same time we have created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and one that ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7. We continue to work. In economic action plan 2013 we are committed to helping businesses grow and succeed further. We are committed to helping Canadians get the rewards from that. We will deliver high-quality jobs to them, economic growth and prosperity for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government appears to have a strategy: neglect infrastructure in order to avoid tax increases.

If everything is going so well, can my colleague explain to me then why there are still some old DOT-111 rail cars in service transporting oil on questionable tracks and why there are old locomotives from the 1960s catching fire and crashing into towns like Lac-Mégantic and ones in Alberta on two different occasions? Would it not have been better for the Conservatives to have given the matter some thought last spring when my colleague raised a question about rail transportation?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is mixing a number of issues together.

We have had an infrastructure plan in place over the last few years. The community improvement fund has been funded through the gas tax fund, which we have made permanent, and the GST rebate. That helps municipalities across Canada with stable funding to build economic infrastructure.

I do not want to lessen what happened this summer in terms of rail safety at all, but the government is not in the business of managing or owning rail lines. We have committed to infrastructure. The infrastructure we have committed to in my riding has primarily been roads and water treatment systems. Those communities that have received help with that have been happy to have that kind of help. Those are things that one can easily say our government should be putting money into. We need a good road and infrastructure system. We certainly need water treatment plants. As we are raising the standards of water requirements across this country, it is reasonable that the government would also participate in those types of infrastructure projects.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about how helpful the economic policies of the government are to his province. I can say that is not the case across the country. I come from Prince Edward Island and when the federal government decided to downsize the civil service, it did so by 4.8% across the country, except in my province where it was double that rate.

He talked about transfer payments. The decision by the government to go with per capita transfers on the health transfer has disproportionately affected my province. My province depends on a seasonal economy. The changes to EI have devastated our economy. Does the parliamentary secretary not feel that the policies of the government should provide opportunity for all and not just for those who had the good sense to bury resources in the ground?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the specialists in downloading costs onto others because they spent their entire existence downloading costs onto the provinces and virtually destroyed the economy of provinces across this country.

We have been very generous in terms of our transfer payments. We have continued the transfer payments for health and social services at 6% and others at 3%. We have been generous and continued those commitments.

There are some other measures the member should be thanking us for, such as creating opportunities for apprentices. We are trying to get the focus back onto the trades and the importance of trades to this country because we have many people who are unemployed, many of whom do not have a trade. We are trying to encourage people to go into the trades because we need tradespeople across the country.

We have the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business people to encourage small businesses to expand their business. We know that small and medium-size businesses are the heartbeat of this country. The member seems to think that the government is. It is the NDP's position that the government has to do everything for Canadians in this country. We know that small and medium-size businesses are the job creators. As I mentioned before, nearly 80% of the jobs that have been created across this country have been created by private business. Maybe the member should turn his thinking a bit more to encouraging those folks who are running businesses to find ways to expand their business.

There are a number of other initiatives I can talk about as well, but I see that the Speaker would like me to sit down.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-4 today. We have heard a lot of good conversations and the benefits of what Bill C-4 would do for our country.

What is the importance of the bill, some may ask. Over time and particularly over this summer, I was able to visit many of the businesses, farms and constituents in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Just so that the viewers and you, Mr. Speaker, may have a handle on what Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is in terms of a constituency, it is a riding that is a little bigger than the province of Prince Edward Island. It is a very rural riding, made up of small communities. My largest urban area is made up of 14,000 people. The next largest urban area is somewhere around 12,500. It is made up of agriculture and small businesses within our towns and communities.

I travelled across the riding and met with businesses, individuals and people in agriculture with the main purpose of finding out what they thought about our budget and what we were doing for business. One of the things that they told us is that they trust our Conservative government to maintain a stable economy. That is actually the main purpose of budget 2013, and consequently, of the implementation bills that followed to support and grow our Canadian economy.

We can see how we are on track, for example, to balance the budget. It has been talked about a number of times. The annual financial report of the Government of Canada for fiscal year 2012-13 shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2013, the deficit fell by $18.9 billion. The deficit was $26.3 billion in 2011-12. The new number now, quite honestly, is more than one-quarter less than previously determined, $7.14 billion, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009 and 2010.

These are big numbers, but I can tell the House that, big numbers or not, we remain committed to continuing this downward trend in our deficit.

We can also see the economic growth in the creation of jobs. We are leading the G7 with more than one million net new jobs having been created. These jobs were not created by the government. The government prefers an environment in which businesses create these jobs. Approximately 90% of those jobs are full-time and over 80% are in the private sector.

What does that actually mean to the businesses in my riding and ridings across this great country of Canada? It means that we are creating sustainable growth. We are not just pumping money into a system that may get lost again if the global economy turns. We are creating jobs for the long-term. We are creating a stable economy. We want to stay focused. As the Minister of Finance put it:

...we are not immune from the challenges beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent.

We will not do so.

We heard the measures in economic action plan 2013 no. 2 that are aimed at providing support for job creators being talked about before. They include the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers. That is 560,000 employers. If only 50% of them tap into that hiring credit, it means a benefit to our small businesses of $225 million, should they use it.

The measures also include indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small businesses more rewarding. This is so important. It is moving from $500,000 to $750,000, but it is now indexed. That means that it is now indexed to keep up with the traffic that is in the economy.

The measures also include expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in small businesses, whether they are clean energy businesses or others.

A proposal in budget 2013, which many of the businesses in my riding are looking forward to seeing implemented, is the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. Freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years will leave approximately $660 million in the pockets of job-creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Sometimes we sort of wonder what these numbers mean. I remember the day we were talking about moving the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Quite honestly, we are the only government that said we were going to do it and have actually done it. I used to get comments about how if someone buys jeans, it is only going to mean a few cents here and a dollar or so there.

In my riding, every 1% left $18 million in the pockets of people in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. That 2% left $36 million in my rural riding of small towns and small businesses. We never want to underestimate. Sometimes when we say we are going to take these small steps, they seem small; however, they mean a great benefit to the people in our ridings.

Going back to employment insurance, we know this will put money back into the pockets of small businesses that are the cornerstone of many of our communities in rural areas. In turn, that means more money they can invest back in their business. It almost means job creation and economic prosperity for them, and then that rolls out. If it is good for them, it is good for the community; and it is obviously good for governments when they collect taxes.

These are only a few examples of what we are doing to ensure Canadians have available jobs for themselves and their children, and that benefits the Canadian economy.

We can also see our support for economic prosperity in the reduction of taxes. It is twofold, in closing the tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion. We are going to introduce new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

Other members have had that discussion today. We know there are some difficulties. It is easier to say it than to actually implement it. However, we know that if we do not implement, then we will never move down the road. That is an important part of being able to deal with that suppression part.

We will be closing tax loopholes to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. On the other hand, the period during which Canada Revenue Agency can reassess a taxpayer who fails to report income from foreign property will be longer, to ensure that when the examinations happen they are exact, accurate and are carried out in a responsible manner.

Second, we always want to respect taxpayers' dollars, but we also want to give the benefit to some of our young people; so we will be modernizing the Canada student loan program and the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery.

In the short time I have left I want to talk about CETA and the importance that agreement has, not only in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex because of the small businesses and agriculture but for the economy. We know it is going to create about $12 billion annually and a 20% increase in bilateral trade. Out of that $12 billion, agriculture is going to gain the benefit of $1.3 billion. I am glad to take questions and move on that.

Canada is a leader around the world in terms of economic growth. On this side, we plan to keep it this way.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member's speech, but no less than twice in the short time he spoke, cell phones were ringing from across the opposition benches. I know it was constituents urging those members to support this budget implementation act to create jobs and strengthen Canada's economy, but I do not want to hear good speeches like that interrupted by phone calls and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to just remind the members of the importance of putting their cell phones—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The Minister of State does raise a valid point, and I know from time to time members forget to turn off the ringers on their phones when they bring them into this place.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his participation in the debate today. He always brings forward a very good presentation. I may not always agree with everything he is saying, but he does bring forward a good presentation.

The member was talking a lot about economic growth and jobs, and I know we hear that from that side of the House all the time, and one of the interesting points was that the economy is still fragile. So with all of that being said, talking about the economy, about jobs and about a fragile economy, it makes me scratch my head and wonder why, in a budget bill, we are talking about reducing the number of members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Why, in a budget bill, are we talking about changes to the Supreme Court Act? Why are we seeing 70 pieces of legislation changing, in over 300 pages, in a budget bill? Maybe the hon. member can answer that for me, because on this side of the House we do not understand how all those issues correlate.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague and friend from Sudbury. I think it is snowing up there, and where I come from it is actually nice and warm.

In all seriousness, in terms of what some of those items are doing in our budget, as I mentioned, 95% to 98% of the businesses across Canada are small businesses. When those business owners look at how they are going to operate their businesses to be sustainable in the long term, they look at what they can do within their management system to become effective and efficient and, yes, become and stay profitable.

So when we look at a number of initiatives or issues in terms of reducing, for example, the number of members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, I believe we have to always look at how we are going to provide a service that we need to provide but also how we do it more effectively and efficiently.

I rely on those members in the veterans affairs committee. I do not know if the member was on it at one time, but I was, and it was one of the greatest benefits I had, being able to be on that committee to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I just remind all hon. members that, if they are asking or answering a question, they should pay attention to the Chair. They will get a signal when their time has expired.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague should be ashamed of his answer.

I am flabbergasted to hear the member opposite justify the reduction in the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The very purpose of that body is to review files and hear appeals from veterans who have a problem with Veterans Affairs Canada.

Some of them come to see me at my office because they have fallen between the cracks. They have a problem with the department. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board is there to help them. According to the Conservative member opposite, if salaries are cut, then Canadian businesses will be happy. What a disgrace. I am shocked that our veterans are paying the price for the Conservatives’ incompetence. Canada’s finances are being totally mismanaged. The Conservatives should slash the programs that they cannot manage properly, instead of penalizing veterans. My colleague should be ashamed of his answer. I do not even have a question for him.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of service, we need to ensure we look at what our government has done for Veterans Affairs and for our veterans across this country. Veterans are the ones we need to make sure we stand behind, and that is why we not only have implemented the charter but have made a number of changes within that charter to make sure our veterans are looked after.

We have created service centres to which they now have more access, to make sure those in need of treatment and information have access to those facilities. We want to make sure we are there for veterans in terms of their compensation. When people come back with injuries, we have extraordinary amounts that we want to help them with, so they are protected in the long-term for their life ahead of them.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about Bill C-4 and explain the opposition's interest both in its form and in its substance.

I should say that with respect to form, we have another omnibus bill that is a collection of dissimilar and disconnected measures. It is really another cat’s cradle designed to thwart democracy. We go from legislation relating to Canada’s coal reserves, to legislation about the right to opt out when it comes to the health and safety of federal employees.

We are really moving from department to department, whereas this is actually a budget bill. As a result, we might expect measures directly concerning the Minister of Finance. That is not necessarily the way this government seems to want to operate, however.

With respect to the budget bill, the Minister of Finance is dictating to the other ministers what action they should take. There is a flagrant disrespect for ministerial responsibilities. It leaves us puzzled, and shows to what extent the Conservative government is a centralizing one that intrudes in all areas in an inconsistent manner.

If I had just been appointed to cabinet, as some people were during the summer, I would like to be able myself to present the measures of concern to my department. It appears, however, that it does not bother the new ministers on the other side to have the Minister of Finance dictating measures that are under their jurisdiction.

Canadians might well wonder how many nails this bill seeks to hammer into the coffin of democracy. After the prorogation, the gift packages from the Conservative government look once again like Pandora's box.

Is it really the purpose of a budget bill to add new legislation respecting labour relations? I think not. I would not like to be the Minister of Labour and have someone tell me how to do my job.

I would now like to address the substance of the bill. The Minister of Finance should rather focus on the financial priorities of Canadians. For example, in 1980, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was 66%. According to the figures for 2011, it has now risen to over 150%. This means that every household owes $1.50 for every dollar earned. People owe more than they are earning. It makes no sense. As a result, household debt is becoming an increasingly significant factor in the finances of many Canadian families, and the government is not taking concrete action in this area.

The data on employment are also revealing. In September, job numbers increased in Quebec. We have 15,000 more jobs, but they are part-time. The number of full-time jobs is decreasing. The Conservatives say they are creating jobs, and it is true. However, they are creating jobs that are part-time and offer no security, instead of preserving good, secure full-time jobs. I believe that should be a priority for this government.

The only thing that interests the Conservatives is job creation. They do not consider job security or the fact that these are part-time jobs as opposed to full-time jobs. Anyone at home knows that a part-time job is not equivalent to a full-time job. Anyway, I know it, and I think even the five-year-old girl next door knows it.

The Conservative member for Northumberland—Quinte West referred indirectly to this increased vulnerability in the job market in the example he gave last Friday. The measures he read from his notes show that the government is not taking the necessary measures to deal appropriately with the lack of social housing in Canada. His short-term view is based on volunteer work in construction and reliance on charities, like Habitat for Humanity, to provide housing for Canadians. It is shameful that we cannot have social housing built by our own tradespeople who are looking for work.

My colleague from Chambly—Borduas pointed out that the youth employment rate is double the rate for other groups. This indicates the ineffectiveness of the action taken to date by the government to enable young people to take their rightful place in the Canadian economy.

In order to develop the Canadian economy, we expect better than replacing a strong economy and proper training with services provided through charitable organizations set up by former U.S. presidents.

The median after-tax income of a family of two or more persons was $68,000 in 2011, virtually the same as in 2010. That was the fourth consecutive year in which there was no significant change in after-tax income. Factoring in inflation, this means that Canadian families got poorer.

However, as the Canadian Press noted and Le Devoir reported on September 12, "These statistics are taken from the controversial National Household Survey…, which replaced the long form census abolished by the Conservative government in 2010. As a result, comparisons with past figures are very hard to make, since the form has been changed and is no longer mandatory."

I therefore wonder whether the Conservatives' lack of scientific rigour might not throw off their economic compass when they come up with random measures that have no sound basis. Reliable data are required in order to put economic measures in place that provide real assistance to our youth. The long form questionnaire gave us those reliable figures before it was cancelled.

As regards the soundness of our economy, more than 4.5 million union members worked across Canada in 2012. That amounts to 32% of the total labour force. In addition, their weekly payroll of $4.59 billion represented 35.6% of the total national payroll.

That is why I want to emphasize the importance of unions in Canada. The Canadian Labour Congress included comments in a study it published to illustrate the real importance of the union advantage in 30 Canadian communities and in this country as a whole. That study showed that unionized workers earn $4.97 more an hour, on average, than non-unionized workers. That means that the union advantage adds $785.8 million a week to incomes across the country. That money is spent mainly in our local communities and therefore contributes to the Canadian economy.

The Conservatives' attacks on our unions are unfortunately ongoing, and the possibility that they may strip unionized Canadians of their bargaining powers only further undermines the equal justice measures that are being used to combat the growing inequalities in our society. This is another deceitful attempt by the Conservative government to shirk its responsibilities.

It is important to note that we would not have safe workplaces if it were not for the unions. The Conservatives will disrupt the fragile health and safety balance by stripping officers of their powers. This is dangerous. Need I recall the consequences of the self-regulation of the Canadian railway industry or the deregulation of food safety at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

I also think we must reconsider a question that was raised by the member for Gatineau. She asked what a clause on judicial appointments was doing in a budget. I have no idea, and I would add my voice to the general consternation at seeing that the budget implementation bill is once again interfering in other departments' matters and amending acts that have nothing to do with finance.

The Minister of Justice has been here for several years, and he would have been able to manage that on his own. Instead, that task has been assigned to the Minister of Finance. I do not understand. This makes no sense. Unless I am mistaken, I was not even an adult when the current Minister of Justice first entered the House of Commons. He is therefore capable of managing his own files, but he is not doing so.

We have to ask ourselves some questions. What items have no place in a budget bill? There are hundreds of examples. As we can see, parliamentary oversight has no place in the process, and the department is being given free rein to centralize everything once more. The history of Conservative omnibus bills is repeating itself yet again.

Instead of reoffending, the Conservatives should learn from their mistakes. That is unfortunately not what they are doing.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all morning we have been hearing Conservative members lauding the Canada jobs grant, which amounts to a $15,000 contribution to training, $5,000 from the federal government, $5,000 from the provincial government and $5,000 from independent industry. Do members know where the government got the $300 million that it will put into this program? The government took it from the provinces and now it wants the provinces to invest money. The money was taken away from the provinces, money they were deploying in their provinces in a way they thought was appropriate and in a way that was working. Not only that, but all the provinces have said that they will not participate.

To exacerbate the problem, the government has been advertising the program as if it already exists, at a cost of $90,000 a shot on TV. The program does not exist, but it is needed to fill our jobs training gap.

Could the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue speak about this issue?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, something does not add up. The government is advertising a program that it still has not negotiated with the provinces. When we talk about education or training, unless I am mistaken—and I certainly do not think I am—we are talking about a provincial jurisdiction. There is some nice advertising announcing programs and money, when in fact there are no programs and no money. The government took money away from the provinces, although they managed those programs quite well and that was not what they wanted. They were given no leeway. They were told they had no choice and if they did not like it, that was not the government's problem.

This is not a responsible approach. When it comes to funding, it is important to sit down with the provinces and discuss the issues in order to put in place measures that will meet their needs. Here, the Conservatives are doing precisely the opposite. As usual, the Conservative government could not care less about the provinces, especially Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the training program was established in 1997. I remember clearly that it was first introduced in New Brunswick. It involved the transfer of EI Part II benefits for training in the provinces, and that was a provincial responsibility. The government agreed that this was under provincial jurisdiction and at the same time, it was an opportunity to provide training for jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. The problem with the new federal government program is that small and medium-sized businesses do not get that money.

Does my colleague agree that what the federal government has actually done is to transfer training funds to the large companies that already have money and are responsible for the training of their workforce? This does not help economic development in rural areas, as the old program did.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. My riding is predominantly made up of small and medium-sized businesses. If the money is used in that way, it will be funnelled out of rural areas. It is important for those areas to be able to keep young people there. We are fighting to put measures in place to keep young people at home, in rural areas, and the Conservatives are tearing down those efforts.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue is a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I am wondering if she is as surprised as I am to see that this budget bill includes a division on the Dominion Coal Blocks and procedures to allow the government sell off coal reserves.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that measure makes no sense, and I spoke to that.

Should the Minister of Finance and the Standing Committee on Finance be talking about the Dominion Coal Blocks? That makes no sense, yet there it is in division 7 of Bill C-4. That should be managed by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. This proves that the Conservative government is putting anything and everything in this budget, which does not allow us to have meaningful discussions on issues that are of concern to us.

As the official opposition's new deputy critic for energy and natural resources, I find it sad that I cannot expresses my views on division 7 regarding the Dominion Coal Blocks because the bill will be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. This is a tangible example of how this is a catch-all bill.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to BIA 2 and, more specific, to the government amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

I want to be clear. The focus of our government and the purpose of these amendments is to improve the health and safety of Canadian workers. We have said it before and I will say it again, Canadians have been very clear that what they want are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have listened to Canadians and delivered. Over one million net new jobs have been created since the beginning of the recession and we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio among the G7 countries.

We are all very proud of the very recent and historical trade agreement that was announced with the European Union, which will create an additional 80,000 jobs for Canadians.

In short, there is a lot of which we can be proud.

However, in order to improve upon this record and maximize Canada's economic potential, it is vital that we continue to work together to create safe, fair and productive workplaces.

The proposed BIA amendments to the Canada Labour Code are good examples of how we are streamlining operations to achieve better outcomes for workers, businesses and all Canadians. The result would be safer workplaces, which is something we all should be supporting.

A number of media sources and opposition members have misreported on these amendments. For the record, I want to ensure all Canadians no rights will be restricted or limited as a result of these proposed amendments. The right for a worker to refuse dangerous work remains absolute.

Workers and employers will continue to have access to recourse mechanisms if they disagree with a decision. Employers remain accountable for providing workplaces that are safe and healthy, whether the danger is imminent, serious or a future risk. There is no reduction or elimination of health and safety officers.

I want to underline again that our government is dedicated to creating safe, healthy, fair and productive working environments. A safe and healthy workplace is not only good for a business' competitiveness and productivity, it is good for workers, good for families and good for Canada.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Labour Code are designed to improve the prevention of accidents and injuries to workers in the course of employment. They are based upon the principle that employers and employees are best placed to prevent injuries, identify health and safety issues and resolve them in an effective and timely manner. This is called the “internal responsibility system”. This means employers and employees are jointly responsible for the health and safety of all workers. However, since employers have the most control over working conditions, they have the greatest responsibility.

Employees are also responsible for ensuring their own health and safety. They are responsible for following procedures when handling equipment, hazardous substances and other materials, wearing protective clothing provided by the employer, complying with the employer's instructions concerning health and safety and reporting any possible hazards to their employer.

Employees have three fundamental rights: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying work-related health and safety concerns; and the right to refuse dangerous work. All these rights will remain enshrined in the Canada Labour Code.

Our government's role is to support employees and employers in meeting their obligation and to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. We are doing this by responding to complaints and incidents, conducting inspections and providing tools, information and assistance to employers to help them fulfill their responsibilities.

The numbers actually speak for themselves. Disabling injuries in federally-regulated industries have declined by 22%, from 2007 to 2011. In 2000, there were 2.51 disabling injuries per 100 workers, compared with 1.73 in 2011. However, there is always room to improve.

In Canada, occupational injuries and illness cost the economy about $19 billion a year and an average of 1,000 Canadian workers lose their lives every year. Health and safety is a priority for our government. That is why, again, we are introducing amendments that allow us to focus on critical issues affecting health and safety of workers in the workplace, respond to imminent or serious situations of danger in a more timely manner and reinforce the internal responsibility system.

There has been a lot of discussion about one important amendment, the definition of “danger”. We are clarifying the definition because more than 80% of refusals to work in the last 10 years have been determined to be situations of no danger, and that is even after appeals. That is really important and I want to repeat it because it is so important. Eighty per cent of refusals to work in the last 10 years have been determined to be situations of no danger after appeals.

These proposed amendments emphasize that requests should be dealt with in the workplace bringing together employers and employees who are best positioned to work co-operatively to identify health and safety hazards. It would ensure that health and safety officers use their time more effectively to enforce the regulations and to focus more on preventing workplace accidents through increased awareness, education and proactive interventions. These proposed changes would not lead to fewer health and safety officers but would ensure that their time is used more effectively to improve the enforcement of the regulations.

I want to go back in my history. As many people might know, I worked in a rural emergency room for a number of years and there are images that will remain seared in my mind forever. It was a fall day like this when, in the early morning, a gentleman went off to work. His wife got their three children up and fed them breakfast. The children went off to school and she was baking bread when we had to go over to tell her that her husband had been killed in a tragic workplace accident. I remember that day that Debbie's life changed forever. To be honest, this was a preventable accident.

I would like to contrast that situation where there could have perhaps been more intervention. It was a provincial example, but it speaks well to the issue at hand. There was also a well-reported issue in the media about a year ago regarding name tags. Certainly, it was a legitimate issue for employers and employees to maybe have a discussion about, but where do Canadians want their resources focused as taxpayers? Do they want to make sure Debbie and her children have their husband and father forever, or do they want us to intervene in what should be a simple, reasoned discussion between employers and employees? This, again, illustrates very effectively how we need to spend our time and resources.

I want to reassure my colleagues in the House and all Canadians that health and safety officers will be there to help when employers and employees cannot come to an agreement on a workplace hazard or how to resolve it. They will be there 24-7 to respond to urgent situations that require intervention. Again, I want to emphasize that these new amendments will not affect the investigative capacity of the labour program and will not lead to fewer health and safety officers, as it has been erroneously reported in the media. Health and safety officers have been, are, and will remain the key to enforcing the Canada Labour Code.

As the hon. Minister of Labour has stated, the right of employees to refuse dangerous work remains absolute. The definition still provides protection from all hazards, imminent, serious or long term. Employees will continue to have the right to refuse all forms of dangerous work. Employers will still be responsible for ensuring their workplaces are safe and are required to take action if they are not. Employees and employers continue to have access to recourse mechanisms if they disagree with a decision. These proposed changes will not lead to fewer health and safety officers, but will ensure their time is used more effectively to improve the enforcement of occupational health and safety regulations.

Our government remains focused on the economy, jobs and long-term prosperity. A healthy and safe workplace goes absolutely hand in hand with those goals and we are continuing to move forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her presentation and appreciate having members in the House of Commons with her important background of nursing.

I am a little troubled at the hon. member's comments on this budget. One aspect of this budget, which is most troubling for my colleagues, is the fact that the government is taking on the discretion to determine what work is dangerous. It is taking it from fully trained health and safety officers and giving total discretion to the minister. I would expect that the hon. member would be doubly concerned because her government has been convicted of three counts of failing to protect federal workers, three violations of basic health and safety protections. I am a little troubled that she would think that the government is going in the right direction in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that delegation of responsibility is very common in statute after statute. I go back to my previous world where I had delegation as a licensing officer for community care facilities. Delegation allows for consistency across the country. It allows for the minister to mobilize important resources as she needs them.

This will greatly improve both the ability to respond and the consistency of response, and will provide a framework for national improvement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague on the other side of the House say that her government wants to protect workers. At the same time, that same government is fighting very hard through the backbench members of Parliament putting bills in the House and the Senate to almost get rid of unions.

I worked underground. Within 18 months, six of my colleagues were killed underground. I remember Westray Mine when 26 guys were killed underground. The law has to be very strong when it comes to the workplace and the workers. The only ones that could save the workers and the workplace, I really believe, is the unions. If people do not have unions, they do not have the right to speak. They know they will lose their jobs.

I went through all of that. I know what I am talking about and I am sure the hon. member knows what I am talking about. I am wondering why the government would not send it to the right committee, to labour, and bring the right people in to speak to that bill, instead of sending it to the finance committee, which has nothing to do with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we obviously all have the same goal, and that is that workers are safe, workers are protected.

Truly, I do not know how the member could stand up and say that when he looks at the statistics, which say that 80% of those who went forward on appeal were found to be not dangerous situations.

Does he not agree that we need to focus our resources on those miners who are in dangerous situations, on those forestry workers, and on those pipeline providers? Then we have mechanisms that deal with the 80% of issues that are important issues, absolutely, but not life-threatening, not imminent, and we allow our officers the opportunity to really do the job they are trained, hired and very effective at doing.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member whether or not she is as disappointed as I am that the current budget does not seem to touch on the whole question of adequate benefits and pensions for seniors. When I talk to my constituents, this comes up constantly. We know that there is an active debate going on in this country, including with the premiers, about the need to enhance the CPP. One of my constituents whose name is Nancy actually talked to me about creating a national portable pension plan through the CPP and the need to increase the amount of the CPP and OAS. Another of my constituents said exactly the same thing.

I am wondering if she is as disappointed as I am that the only mention, it seems, in the budget bill with respect to this kind of question is the addition of three foreigners to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely senior citizens are critical to this country and they have contributed so much over the years.

That is why I have constituents in my riding who have said to me that splitting their pension plan has made all the difference in the world to them. There have been many measures we have taken, the biggest raise to the guaranteed income supplement in years, the decrease in the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, the working income tax benefit, that have made the lives of seniors much easier in terms of them being able to afford their senior years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill C-4, which clearly is nothing more that a new assault on the Canadian economy. This bill does not provide anything new, but it takes away a great deal. It still benefits the same individuals and still penalizes the same people, namely Canadians.

The bill will allow the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for building gazebos, to designate any public service as an essential service. Will building gazebos become an essential service for the federal government? One may wonder. Judging from what we know about the minister, the answer is yes.

The minister has again decided, for the 50th time, to impose a gag order on debate on this 300-page omnibus bill. The bill covers a wide range of topics, including the appointment of Supreme Court judges. However, it does not say anything about cutting the Senate’s budget. The Senate budget is not being restricted and I have to wonder why. The Conservatives want to do away with some senators, but they do not want to cut the institution’s budget.

Not one member opposite is able to tell me what is in these 300 pages. I will sum up the bill for them. It covers just about everything and anything. It is not an economic piece of legislation, but rather a Conservative and partisan bill. It attempts to hide the fact that the Conservatives are incapable of managing the economy properly. That is why they prefer to talk about gazebos and the appointment of judges. They are not focusing on real problems such as unemployment, household debt, tax evasion, large-scale offshoring, industry shutdowns, cuts to public services and especially the elimination of regulations aimed at protecting the public. It was not exactly a brilliant idea to have only one engineer working on a train instead of two. If members were to visit what is left of a small Quebec town, the residents could tell them more about that than I can.

There are 1.4 million people out of work today. At the height of the recession in 2008-09, there were 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. In five years, unemployment figures have dropped by only 100,000. The Conservatives say that they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, which is a good thing, but they always forget to take into account the number of jobs that have been lost. Personally, I think that when you replace a job that pays $25 an hour with one that pays $15 an hour, that does not benefit the economy and it certainly does not benefit Canadian workers who see a smaller take-home pay. Household debt now stands at 163% of a family’s annual income. According to the OECD, Canada ranks first in terms of household debt. How encouraging and how very good for the economy. The Conservatives are proud of what they have done, but few of them are talking about this record.

I said that jobs paying $25 an hour were being replaced by jobs paying $15 an hour. The wages of only 20% of Canadians have risen over the past 35 years. Apart from the 1%, that is to say the friends of the Conservatives, the majority have had a slight increase. In fact, the real incomes of 80%, the vast majority of the population of Canada, have declined or been frozen. Is that what the Conservatives call economic progress? I call it Conservative economic policy. The corporate welfare bums are entitled to everything, and, in the meantime, we are entitled to the deficit, the bills and wage cuts.

Their employment insurance reform was also a botched job. They decided that the system was not working and that the minister alone would have authority over it. There is no longer any organization to oversee the tax rate. They have also put an end to tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, which were useful to us, and have replaced them with a $350 million tax.

For people who say and claim that they want what is good for taxpayers, we have seen better.

However, what is terrible is tax evasion. The Conservatives talk about this issue a lot but do nothing to address it. Here is a very simple example. They say we will discuss these issues. Certain individuals have told them to wake up because some people are in favour of and facilitate tax evasion. That is called white-collar crime, criminals in ties. Tax evasion is organized by bankers and firms of accountants and tax experts.

What penalties are imposed on those organizations? They do not talk about that. They say nothing. They talk, but at the same time they make sure not to bite the hand that feeds them. They always favour the people who finance their election campaigns, their friends—friends of the Conservatives—who are now the enemies of Canadians.

This bill also contains an item that is a bit odd. The Conservatives do not guarantee that we will control our main economic levers. They are no longer protecting our strategic industries. This is what they call being Canadian. They are so Canadian they say the fund that manages the Canada pension plan may now employ foreigners. I imagine they will recruit them from the American Tea Party. It will be ideologically quite similar.

The Conservatives like to tell us that they are here to protect us. I would rather be protected by a bogeyman than a Conservative. When it comes to food safety, the most serious meat recalls have happened since they have been in power. Allowing tainted meat through the system is not really protecting consumers.

The government has closed customs offices and cut the Canada Border Services Agency budget. In some places, people just have to stop their car, pick up the phone and declare that they are crossing the border, swearing that they do not have any illegal immigrants or cocaine in the car. People are being taken at their word. That sure sounds like secure border control.

Let us talk about cuts to transportation security offices. It is really wonderful. Do they realize that their deregulation led to the death of 50 people? That is just the beginning. The government doomed to repeat Walkerton over and over is the Conservative government.

About the cuts to the RCMP, again, really wonderful. For a government that claims to be tough on crime, I am sure that people in some luxurious mafia homes are on their knees begging God to keep the Conservatives in power for a long time to come. The mafia's best friend is the Conservative Party because it is making sure that the police do not have the means to punish these people.

They are the worst managers we have ever seen. Not only are they bad at it, but they use public advertising budgets to claim that they are good at it. The truth is that the only thing this government is good at is turning gold into lead and making sure that the benefits trickle down into their friends' pockets and that taxpayers foot the bill. Canadians are the only ones on the hook for the loss.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his impassioned speech, in which he mentioned many important things.

What concerns me the most is the fact that we are in a fragile economic situation. This is a budget that curbs growth. Indeed, the budget will further slow Canada's sluggish economy, and this means that it will be increasingly difficult to perform as a society.

Given that consumption is an economic driver and that Canadians are heavily indebted, I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this situation and tell us how far he thinks we can continue in this direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this government believes that growth should be stimulated only by consumption. Instead, it should be stimulated by investment, especially given that businesses are richer than they have ever been, thanks to this government's tax cuts.

Let me give an example. It seems that when many ministers began their career, Ontario was paying equalization transfers. Now, because of their mediocrity, Ontario receives equalization payments. People like the President of the Treasury Board can be proud of putting their province in the red.

That is what this government is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his speech. It was excellent, as always, and full of rather serious observations.

I wanted to ask him if the Conservatives' approach since they were elected—that is, introducing budget implementation bills up to 400 pages long—could result in the kinds of mistakes we saw in the last budget implementation bill. We noted a mistake in the taxation of caisses populaires and credit unions.

Can he comment on the problems that can be caused by such long bills, when we have so little time to examine them? In the end, we realize that they can contain some rather glaring errors.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with omnibus bills, especially when they are accompanied by a gag order. We do not have time to look at what we are voting on. This is terrible, because it allows major errors to slip through, such as the one my colleague mentioned about co-operatives. It also carries more consequences than we could even imagine. We do not know what kind of impact the cuts and decreased services will have on the public affected. That is a tragedy, because we are doomed to repeat Walkerton over and over. This government will no longer be the Conservative government. It will be a government doomed to repeat Walkerton over and over. This is destroying our economy and it is destroying lives, but this government does not care. We will not forget that.

Fortunately, the people of Ontario got fed up with mediocrity and told the fools that enough was enough. They waved the government's record on water pollution in their faces and showed them the door. That is exactly what will happen. They were kicked out of Ontario and will be kicked out of the federal government. If they are mediocre at the provincial level, they will not become intelligent at the federal level. Mediocrity has clearly made its way here, and it will come to an end.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-4. This bill is very important for creating the necessary balance between the interests of the public, which the Government of Canada wants to protect, and the interests of public service unions.

I will talk a little bit about the sections relating to my portfolio. Certainly there are some changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as my colleagues across the way and the union heads have cottoned on to. I think it is important to explain the context and why we believe that they are fair and reasonable.

If citizens were not informed and are now informed, these things are, in fact, not in the legislation now. Citizens I have talked to are quite surprised that these bits of the legislation we are changing are not, in fact, the law as we see it today. That is one of the things I think is the common sense of the people when it comes to these matters.

A lot has been made of changes to the designation of essential services. Let me just say this. Again, most citizens, if one had told them that the designation of essential services was a matter to be bargained with the bargaining agent, with the union, so that the government, as the employer and the protector of the public interest, had to bargain for the designation of essential public servants, would have been shocked. They would have been totally surprised by that. However, that is, in fact, the law as it now sits. There has to be a bargaining process the Government of Canada has to undergo to designate various individuals as essential.

Our position is very clear. It is not for negotiation to defend the public interest when it comes to health and safety and security issues. That is not in the public interest. This bill represents a very common-sense change that most Canadians would agree with.

How does it work? This has come up, and some have suggested that the details are not in the bill. The details are in the bill. It is very clear, under both the bill and the practice that is considered good faith bargaining, that the designation of public servants as essential has to occur before negotiations with the public sector union on a collective agreement have started.

Let me be clear. I cannot wake up one day after a bad bargaining session with the bargaining agent and say, “That is it; they are all going to be essential”. We cannot do that. It would be absurd. The designation has to occur before the bargaining takes place. Indeed, good practice is to sit down with the union heads and say that here is what we are proposing as essential employees, and what do they think? We would get their feedback and then proceed, in the public interest, with those designations.

Let me repeat the point that safety and security are not negotiable. The Conservative government, through this bill, intends to protect the safety and security of the public.

Let us talk about two-tier arbitration. This is another facet of the changes we are making to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, except in the case of essential services, where there is mandatory arbitration.

That is another point, by the way. To hear it from the unions, this designation of essential services means the end of bargaining as we know it and that they have been stripped of all of their bargaining rights. No. Part of bargaining, in some cases, is arbitration. Indeed, this is preserved under the legislation. I wanted to make that point clear and put it on the record, as well.

Two-tier arbitration is to make sure that the bargaining agent and the employer both have a say as to whether arbitration is going to be used, except in the case of essential services, when it would be used. That is an important change as well.

Let us look at arbitration factors. This is, again, common sense that most Canadians would agree with. The arbitrators have to look at recruitment and retention issues.

We cannot have an arbitrator who is not aware that in a particular bargaining unit there are 20 applications for every position, or maybe there are no applications because it is that tough a job. I think that is relevant information for the arbitrator and goes to the impact on the treasury of the demands of a particular union.

The arbitrator should also have regard to the economy. What is the state of the economy? This is critically important, because the amount of revenue that can be raised affects the bottom line of the government. The arbitrator should have regard to the economic policies of the government, because those are relevant. If we are in a period of tightening, that should be a relevant piece of information for the arbitrator.

Again, it is common sense. If most Canadians were asked and given these choices, they would say they were surprised that this was not the case right now.

Cost sharing on grievances is again common sense. If there is going to be a grievance process, those costs should be shared by both the union and the employer. The employer should not pay 100% of the cost. Quite apart from everything else, that arrangement only encourages those with spurious claims to grieve. Therefore, let us have some responsibility and some common sense by sharing the cost of the grievance procedure.

There was as well a compensation research bureau under the Public Service Labour Relations Board. Quite frankly, it was not very effective. My point of view, and the point of the view of the government, is that if there is research to be done on pay scales or positions on the impact of a bargaining agent's position or the government's position in a particular collective bargaining session, that should be borne by either the government or by the union, whichever of the two is making the point. It should not be borne by separate research that may or may not be accepted by the bargaining agents or by the government in any case. That is again common sense.

We are also proposing to eliminate double jeopardy for grievances. Currently we have a situation in which the grievor can forum shop: if she or he does not like one forum, the grievor can go to the next forum, and so on. Our commonsensical position is to pick a forum, have the adjudication at that forum—they do not lose any rights, because there is an adjudicative process—and at the end of the day, that decision has to be accepted by the government and by the union at the same time. I think that eliminates years and years of forum shopping whereby people who do not like a decision go to the next place. It does not help the employee and does not help the system generally.

Finally, I want to draw members' attention to another provision. This one would allow the bargainer, in this case the Government of Canada, to start the process of negotiation with the bargaining agent 12 months before the expiration of a contract.

Again, this is common sense. We have a lot of cases right now in which there is a lot of back pay that has to be added on, and the employees have a lot of uncertainty for a number of years because they are waiting for the process of bargaining to begin. Let us start the bargaining earlier. Let us get the collective agreements done earlier. That means less back pay, but it also means, on a go-forward basis, more certainty for the employee as to what her or his collective agreement is.

These are commonsensical changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It follows on some of the other positions we have taken over the last few months. I know this is somewhat of a controversial concept, but how about explaining to employees what their job is, how their success is going to be measured, and then following up with that employee to see whether she or he is meeting those goals.

Again, it is common sense, which is not performed systematically across the whole public service. We are going to do it.

We are also going to look at absenteeism to make sure that we have the right policies in that area.

I will leave it at that. Bill C-4 is a well-intentioned bill that will do the job for Canadians.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with interest to the President of the Treasury Board as he glossed over some of the measures that the government will be taking in the next few months, measures that are in fact an attack against the rights of collective bargaining in the public service as well as the right to strike.

The assumption in what the President of the Treasury Board is saying is that the way essential services were negotiated in the past was somehow a problem, as if some essential services were not deemed essential because there was a process in place to consult and negotiate with the employees. In fact, I think employees would be pretty well placed to define what might be essential and non-essential, knowing their place of work.

This is clearly an attempt to centralize this designation in order to use it as a tool ahead of the bargaining process in order to win every single conflict.

I would like the President of the Treasury Board to tell me where the problem is.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that a system in which the employer, in this case the Government of Canada, has to bargain on which employee is essential and which employee is not essential is not the right way to approach the issue. These issues should not be bargained. They should ultimately be the responsibility of the employer to designate.

That said, as I said in my remarks in this chamber, there should be a process of dialogue with the labour unions to get their input, their feedback, on what the government's intentions are.

Ultimately it is the responsibility and the duty of government to protect the public. That is the government's job. If it does not have the ability to appropriately designate the individuals who carry on essential services or if that designation is subject to bargaining and negotiating, that is not in the public interest, and that is what we object to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. minister.

Bill C-4, in the guise of a budget omnibus bill, takes aim at a lot of federal civil servants. I am particularly concerned about the Canada Labour Code changes that affect the right to refuse unsafe work.

It did not come as much in the minister's statements, but I do not understand why, with only 150 refusals in any given year by federal workers under the Canada Labour Code who find that they need to refuse dangerous work, the definition of danger has been changed in this act. It specifically removes the language that deals with refusing work that could lead to a chronic illness or threats to reproductive health.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this topic was just discussed by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo in her address on this issue about 40 minutes ago.

The member put an interesting fact before this House: the present situation, 80% of the cases that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is talking about that were appealed because of dangerous circumstances, even including the appeals, were found not to be the case.

Clearly this provision, if I can say it euphemistically, has been overused. I think it does deserve tightening. It the Minister of Labour's responsibility, and she is an excellent person to ask about this issue. I certainly support the Minister of Labour and her changes to the Canada Labour Code.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

The President of the Treasury Board is here in the House to talk about aspects of Bill C-4 that affect his department. That is fine.

However, why did he not fulfill his duty as President of the Treasury Board and introduce a bill from his department rather than including these items in an omnibus bill introduced by the Minister of Finance and accompanied by a gag order? That complicates things a bit.

I would have appreciated it if he had come here to explain his own bill rather than the Minister of Finance's bill.

Another rather important aspect of this bill pertains to the designation of essential work during a strike. When there is no strike, are these essential workers safe from job cuts?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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

I can explain why this is included in Bill C-4. It is simple. Budget 2013 indicates the importance of fiscal balance and relations with a more modern public service. We made mention of this in budget 2013 and in the Speech from the Throne two weeks ago.

This is government policy. It is absolutely connected to the fiscal probity and the fiscal future of the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, so it is no surprise that it should be part of this bill.

In answer to the hon. member's second question, I would only say it is important to designate which services are essential before the negotiations take place. This is what Canadians expect of a government that is managing the public service and the fiscal finances of the country.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for the summer, the Auditor General pointed out that there was $3.1 billion unaccounted for by the Treasury Board. I listened to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board very carefully, but my constituents have been asking me over the summer whether the $3.1 billion had been found or whether the President of the Treasury Board had had an opportunity to locate it. I hope he will inform this House in the next day or two, or weeks, whether or not that $3.1 billion has been located.

I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to talk about Bill C-4, the budget implementation act. Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

This is déjà vu all over again. It is like Groundhog Day. One would think that the Conservatives, after proroguing after the summer break, could come up with a new mandate, new ideas, to address the needs of Canadians and the families and individuals in my community. Yet, I do not see anything in the bill that addresses the real needs of Canadians: jobs, job security and well-paying jobs. That is not in the bill.

It looks as if the Conservatives never got out of the Ottawa bubble. If they had, they would see the long and growing lineups at the food banks. They would be looking at creating jobs for our young people. As members can see, the unemployment rate for young people is the highest among any age group. There is nothing in the bill that addresses the needs of our young people.

There is another crisis brewing in the Lower Mainland. Port Metro Vancouver is a major port that helps to facilitate trade. It helps move goods from the Prairies right across to the port. In the last week, I have seen the trucking industry having major issues at the port. It takes them a long time to either pick up or drop off the goods they need to transport. A crisis is looming. I urge the Conservative government to address this issue before our economy in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver area is damaged.

As members know, truckers provide a vital role in the movement of goods throughout this country. However, they are having difficulty in picking up and dropping off their goods from the port, and the wait times are very long. The government needs to address that in a way that will help with the movement of our goods.

As I said, there are many issues in Bill C-4, which addresses over 70 different bills. I want to pick up on two issues that are important to my constituents of Surrey North.

One issue is that this is a missed opportunity for the Conservative government. As I read through Bill C-4, the irony certainly strikes me that we are approaching Remembrance Day as we discuss the bill. The next couple of weeks should be dedicated to thanking Canadians in service and our veterans for their dedication to our country, including those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. At this time of the year we repeat the mantra, “Lest we forget”. However, the truth of the matter is that Bill C-4 demonstrates that the Conservatives have forgotten Canadian veterans. Here the Conservative government had an opportunity to make real changes, but Bill C-4 does not do that.

The 300-odd pages of the bill address a wide range of things, but they do not address what is needed for veterans. In Bill C-4, there is one change to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an institution that New Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated as biased, subjective and inefficient. The Conservatives can only think of one change to make, which is to reduce the number of permanent members on the board from 28 to 25.

It is no secret that veterans do not find support or reassurance in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In March I spoke in the House about one of my constituents, retired sergeant Fergus, who was having difficulty navigating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Since March, the Conservatives have had many opportunities to make changes to the VRAB, but they continue to forget about veterans.

Mr. Fergus is not alone in his plight. Many constituents have approached my office to seek help to navigate the board for disability claims. Members of the board are appointed primarily because of their political connections. They have little military or medical knowledge. These members have the responsibility of deciding the future of our veterans, but without contextual knowledge of their challenges, they often make decisions that are not based on evidence. Like the immigration system, the decision-making process of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is lengthy. Long waits can leave veterans out in the cold.

I mean “out in the cold” literally. A veteran approached my office this summer who was at risk of being homeless after serving Canada bravely for years. It is clear that the Canadian government did not intend to serve my constituent, retired sergeant Lorenz. Although my office helped him navigate the application process, Mr. Lorenz is now at a standstill while he waits to see a psychologist to assess his mental health. He has to wait six months. He already knows that he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but he must wait six months before his application can continue. After he sacrificed so much for peace and freedom, it is shameful that Mr. Lorenz must wait this long to be awarded the benefits and support to which he is entitled.

I thank Mr. Fergus and Mr. Lorenz, and all the men and women who have bravely stood up for our country, for their service. I commit, along with my NDP colleagues, to continue to stand up for their rights around Remembrance Day and throughout the whole year.

The other area I want to talk about that is contained in the bill is the changes to the immigration act.

My constituency is very diverse. Many immigrants live in my community. It is clear to my constituents that Canada's immigration system is broken, especially with regard to family reunification. Family reunification is not a priority for the Conservative government. Recently, Canadians were appalled to hear a Conservative minister referring to family reunification as a burden to Canada. I am a product of that family reunification. The Conservatives have repeatedly undermined the importance and value of family, by making such claims. It is not only disrespectful but outright inhumane for a minister to assert this. Canada has always welcomed immigrants, fostered family bonds and provided opportunities for families to reconstruct their lives.

Every day my office receives many visits from victims who have fallen through the immigration system. I cannot provide specific cases here because it would take a long time and there are too many to list all of them. They are families who cannot be reunited at joyous occasions like weddings and birthdays, or daughters and sons who are not able to say goodbye to their dying parents in time because their temporary resident visas were refused for some obscure reason. Husbands and wives are separated for years before they can begin their lives together. Babies are born to first-time mothers who need the support of their far-away partner, and new fathers must wait months to meet their newborns.

This legislation basically would not address the needs of Canadians.

I am tired of seeing these omnibus bills come through the House. I am tired of seeing the Conservatives attempt to hide these changes that are made within the 300 pages.

This truly demonstrates that the Conservative government is out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

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

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

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

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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the bill humongous—it is 300 pages with changes being made to 70 laws—but on top of that, the government is trying to ram it through. It is not giving opportunity to every member in the House to speak about it.

One of the phrases I learned from the Conservatives is “time allocation”. I want to explain that to Canadians. Basically, it is shutting down the debate. It is not giving the opportunity for every member in the House to speak to the bill. Not only that, but this bill will only go to one committee. That committee may not have the expertise for all of the 70-odd bills that are addressed in this omnibus bill.

If the government is going to bring forward legislation, it needs to make sure it addresses areas that are important, not a hodgepodge of different areas in one bill that it tries to ram through. Canadians expect more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up along the same line. What we have seen is a Conservative majority government that has provided a different form of government. It is somewhat unprecedented in the way it abuses the rules by bringing in numerous pieces of legislation through the back door of a budget implementation bill, thereby denying members of Parliament the ability to represent their constituents by providing due diligence on what should be a wide variety of bills.

This is one bill that could very easily have been split into a number of different bills. However, there is this new PMO-instructed directive on how to pass legislation, which is not healthy and is highly undemocratic. To top it off, the government puts in time allocation to ensure that even fewer members of Parliament would be able to contribute in pointing out the misgivings of this irresponsible budget bill. Would the member like to provide further comment in regard to that?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that this is a PMO-directed initiative, that it brings in a bunch of different bills and laws and puts it into one omnibus bill. We have seen what happens to PMO-driven agendas. We see it in the other House.

I can assure the member that Canadians are paying attention to what is happening in this House when Conservatives are trying to ram through omnibus bills. In 2015 they will provide the answer to the Conservative government and elect an NDP government.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on our government's actions vis-à-vis the budget. I will focus my comments on my home province of Manitoba as it is obviously a very broad topic. I would like Manitobans to know what is involved in the budget as far as their concerns.

First, Manitobans have to realize that we receive a significant amount of support from the federal government. In fact, transfers have increased to $3.4 billion in 2013-14. That is a huge sum of money and there has been an increase of about $62 billion in this last year, almost a 50% increase in transfers since the last Liberal government, across Canada. We are talking about major investments.

When it comes to Manitoba, of the $3.4 billion, $1.8 billion is through equalization, which is an increase of $191 million or almost 12% since 2005-06, $1.1 billion through the Canada health transfer, an increase of $336 million, or a 43% increase since the last Liberal government, and $443 million through the Canada social transfer. That is an increase of $109 million or almost 33% since the last Liberal government. Manitoba benefits greatly in general from the federal government.

Now I will talk about some other specific great initiatives in the budget that will help Manitobans.

The Canada jobs grant will be a way of transforming skills training by providing up to $15,000 per person in Manitoba with the combined support of the federal and provincial governments and the employer. It will bring the student, the employer, the funding and the job together. Therefore, up to 130,000 Canadians will benefit and many will benefit in Manitoba.

We are also be creating opportunities for apprenticeships, supporting the use of apprentices in federal construction and maintenance contracts in Manitoba, such as investments in affordable housing and under the building Canada plan, which I will speak about in a few minutes.

We will encourage students to study in high-demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

The fact is that we will also invest $70 million to support an additional 5,000 paid internships for recent post-secondary graduates in Manitoba and across Canada.

We will extend support for Pathways to Education Canada to assist students from low-income communities in Manitoba and across Canada from dropping out of high school.

First nation youth is a priority for our government and is a great resource in the province of Manitoba. We will be providing $241 million to help first nation youth in Manitoba and across Canada to access skills and training they need to participate in large economic projects like those in the resource sector near their communities.

We also provide $10 million to grants, scholarships and bursaries to inspire and help first nation and Inuit students in Manitoba and across Canada.

This budget brings forward a landmark in infrastructure investments.

The new building Canada plan will invest $70 billion over 10 years. I was quite happy to be involved in the development of this plan with the former minister of transport before the last cabinet shuffle. We were able to consult stakeholders, meet with individuals, meet with municipalities, provinces, territories and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and we listened. They asked for stable, reliable funding for infrastructure. That is what they received.

We have created a new building Canada fund, which is, as I mentioned, $70 billion over 10 years. It is comprised of three main parts.

First, will be the community improvement fund of $32.2 billion over 10 years, which will include the federal gas tax fund, which is indexed, as well as the incremental GST rebate, to help municipalities in Manitoba and across Canada so they have stable, predictable funding to support community infrastructure projects.

Then we have the building Canada fund, which announces $14 billion over 10 years to support major new economic infrastructure projects in Manitoba and across Canada that have national or regional significance.

Finally, we have announced the renewal of the P3 Canada fund, which will continue to find innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster through private-public partnerships in Manitoba and across Canada. It will enable us to have a vehicle to leverage private sector moneys for the public good.

I wish I had more time because there are so many great initiatives in this budget.

We will be supporting the commercialization of research by small and medium-size enterprises. This will be an investment of $20 million in Manitoba and across Canada to access research and business development services. There are $37 million for post-secondary education in Manitoba and across Canada and $325 million for clean energy projects. We are supporting aerospace and defence projects, investing almost a billion dollars in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. In my riding those beneficiaries could include Bristol Aerospace, Magellan, StandardAero and Boeing. We have the third largest aerospace industry in the country.

I wish I had more time because this is a good budget and I cannot name all of the great initiatives. However, it is good for Canada and good for Manitoba.

God keep our land glorious and free.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the government's love of the P3 project for private-public partnerships. The city of Edmonton was a victim of this. It applied for funding to expand its LRT and was promised a certain amount of money. Then it was told to withdraw its application and apply under the P3. It was then only given a portion of those dollars, which means the LRT that is badly needed in Edmonton is delayed for probably a decade.

Does the member think municipalities should be forced to choose the mechanism to build infrastructure or should they have the choice as to how to proceed with infrastructure in our cities?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the new building Canada plan offers more money for infrastructure across the board. There will be an opportunity to use the gas tax fund in the way each municipality wishes. It is a direct transfer. The P3 Canada fund will have a threshold, but the red tape associated with it has also been looked at and any hiccups have been fixed.

The big picture is that there is a lot more money for infrastructure than there ever has been from the federal government in Canadian history.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of concerns related to the Department of National Defence and what is happening within its budget. I am sure the member is familiar with PPCLI. At one time it was located in Winnipeg. It has been relocated to Shilo. Some concerns have been expressed regarding some form of guarantee that there will be no downsizing whatsoever of the PPCLI or the Shilo base.

Is the member in a position to provide those assurances to the House that in no way will there be any sort of cuts to Shilo, given some of the cuts happening with respect to DND?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry is a storeyed regiment. It is celebrating its 100th anniversary next year. Manitoba is proud to have it with us.

I believe it left the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg under the Liberal regime. Therefore, perhaps the member has a better understanding on how to reduce the armed forces.

The Conservative government is improving the armed forces so it does the job that we have asked it to do. We are investing in defence, in our sovereignty and in our freedom.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will bring up some facts and figures. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.7% reduction in GDP.

Also Statistics Canada states that there are 6.5 unemployed people for every job vacancy in the country. It has also reported that we have had four consecutive years without significant change in the after-tax incomes of Canadians. Really, it demonstrates that Canadians are holding fast or having troubles getting ahead.

The member spoke greatly about the building Canada fund. The Minister of Finance came to Scarborough a few weeks ago to announce a big pile of money. When other mayors asked how they could access the program, the answer was that the criteria was not there, the Conservatives do not know yet. How in fact can they decide what programs do qualify when they have not even made the criteria yet?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the building Canada plan will be active in the spring of 2014. That has always been the plan for the plan. Certainly that is what the stakeholders expect.

In regard to the statistics the member rhymed off, we are the only G7 country growing at the rate that we are. We are the only G7 country that has a GDP-debt ratio that can be dealt with. We are the only country in the world, maybe with Australia, that has weathered the economic storm and come out of the great post-war depression stronger than when we went in.

Over a million jobs have been created. The new free trade agreement with Europe will bring in hundreds of thousands of jobs. The prosperity will be wonderful.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, boy, is there a lot of hot air this afternoon. I suspect it will continue as we go forward. It is clearly up to constituents or anyone who is watching to pay attention to which side of the House is in favour of this omnibus bill and where we all stand on the issues. One member stands up and brags about how wonderful it is, and the next one points out all of the mistakes and errors that are there. It must be quite comical for people who are watching at times.

I am glad to have a chance to speak briefly to the omnibus legislation that has been brought to the House. I say “briefly” because closure has been introduced again. This is the fourth bill that has been introduced since the House came back after prorogation, and we have had closure on each and every one of them. The Conservatives are clearly in a rush. I am not quite sure where, but we have to think about that as Canadians.

However, this continues to be the same pattern the government has followed previously. We have prorogation, then we have a budget, and then we will have prorogation and we will have another budget. It is the pattern of management of House business that continues to be a huge challenge in here, as to how House business is dealt with. As I said, it is an omnibus budget then prorogation and back to an omnibus bill and another prorogation. If at any point we try to go off of that particular calendar, then somewhere or another there will be another closure bill. It is a very sad reality when we talk about democracy in other countries, and democracy in our own country and our own House is being shortchanged every day with the kind of closure motions that are put down.

However, today we are not supposed to be here talking about the past because that should speak for itself for a lot of people who are looking. Let us look ahead a bit. Let us look past the government's mismanagement of the debt, past the Conservatives' meddling with Senate business, which has consumed everything going on in the House for several weeks now and clearly is going to continue on, and past the fact that the Conservatives continuously ignore the plights of middle-class Canadians. Today I will talk a bit about this budget.

This omnibus budget had its genesis somewhere deep within that 7,000 hollow words and empty platitudes of what was called a throne speech, a speech that some have called the longest and most incoherent piece of government rhetoric in living memory. It clearly was that, at least a half an hour too long. Indeed the Prime Minister spun quite a fiscal yarn into that throne speech, a tale that his Minister of Finance continues into this omnibus budget.

As an example, the Prime Minister would have us believe that he saw the recession of 2008 looming on the horizon. This is really odd because in the campaign of 2008, the Prime Minister said the recession would never happen. He guaranteed Canadians would never have a recession, and attacked those warning Canadians to batten down the hatches as fearmongering. We saw where that went. Indeed, Canada could have been better prepared had the Prime Minister actually listened to those of us in the Liberal Party who were sounding the alarm. However, as usual, the Prime Minister listened only to himself or those in the PMO.

This budget is a continuation of this closed-minded and confused fiscal management theory that the Conservatives continue to put ahead. This budget is again projecting a significant deficit. Just so people do not forget, I remind them that seven years ago the current government, when it got into office, inherited a decade of balanced budgets, annual surpluses of $13 billion, declining debt, declining taxes, strong economic growth exceeding 3% annually, 3.5 million net new jobs and the most robust fiscal situation in the world. It was an ideal, perfect position for the Conservatives to come in. Despite all of that, the Conservative budget is another example of failures.

Besides dealing with the fiscal matters, such as the Supreme Court appointment process that has been completely bungled, this budget does little more than remind Canadians that the Conservatives have overspent by three times the rate of inflation. The Conservatives have eliminated the contingency reserves that Liberals had built into the federal budget process to protect Canadians against unexpected and adverse events. We have clearly very little protection built in anywhere today should there be a major problem for Canada. Most importantly, the Conservatives sent the surplus up in smoke and put Canada back into deep deficit long before, the key phrase being “long before”, the onset of the recession, which the Prime Minister's economic wisdom said was never going to happen.

Now as ridiculous as that sounds, people just have to read the books and read the blues and they will see how it is. Despite all of that looming evidence, evidence that almost every Canadian detected ahead of time, the Prime Minister continued with his denials. Despite collapsing markets in the U.S. and the onset of American bank failures, the Prime Minister continued to blindly plunge ahead. Rather than positioning Canada for the recession in advance, the Prime Minister suggested that economic problems in other countries would be a good thing for Canada. Remember how he projected good buying opportunities when other countries were in trouble.

I am not sure if this was deceptive or just clueless. Canadians will be the ultimate judge of this ineptitude but this country was left vulnerable, and this budget is further proof of just how serious that exposure was.

This brings us back to the omnibus budget that is before us today. After six Conservative deficits and nearly $180 billion in new Conservative debt, the minister has the audacity to suggest that his debt-to-GDP target of 25% by the year 2021 is bold. Worse still is the extreme hypocrisy of a government that took Canada from its largest surplus in history to the largest deficit in history, promising balanced budget legislation. In my estimation, deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as the tax hikers they truly are.

Remember, the government deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and the amount it has the nerve to collect. It is odd to hear this particular promise from this particular Prime Minister's mouth because in the past 17 years he is the only prime minister to permit a deficit. He is the only prime minister to hike the national debt. The real story here is that the omnibus bill is an admission of the Conservative government's failure and ineptitude as fiscal manager.

Let us not forget that it was the Prime Minister that promised to attain a debt-to-GDP target of 25% by the year 2012. When the Conservatives missed that target, they began planning and now they have made the same kind of promise again, only this time they are promising to do it by 2021.

Conservatives can promise and then re-promise the same things over, but the promises are not credible. This budget makes promises and commitments but the promises are not grounded in sound fiscal policies and they are certainly not in the best interests of the middle class. The Conservatives think they can slash their way to prosperity but the past seven years has proven they only dig a deeper hole. Sadly, this hole now contains the Conservative cuts to old age pensions, to health care plans and to environmental projects, but prosperity still eludes the government.

There is an old saying that suggests the first thing to do when someone finds themselves in a hole is to stop digging. Budget 2013 is nothing more than a shovel and will yield the same results as its predecessors, which were advanced under the failed Conservative fiscal ideology. In every year since 2010, economic growth in Canada has been slower than the year before. No prime minister has done worse since the days of R. B. Bennett. What Canada needs most, alongside strong, competent, honest government, is a concrete plan for greater sustained economic growth, focused on the middle class.

As the voice of the people of York West, I am truly saddened by the government's negligence and disregard for middle-class families, students, seniors and those working to make a living. Canadians are already being hurt by the fiscal policies of the government, and this omnibus bill is just another swipe at the middle class. I cannot support it. Clearly, it would be a good idea if the Conservatives did not support it either.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing her views forward.

I want to share with her something that has happened at the Department of National Defence. A veteran today, who was a member of the armed forces last week, Corporal Hawkins, was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He had one year to finish his 10 years in order to get a pension. I do remember the Minister of National Defence last year saying that no member of the forces would be pushed out. Yet, last week, last Friday, he was given his marching orders. He was pushed out.

Therefore, I am just wondering if my colleague could share with us how she sees the shortcomings of the government and the failed promises of the Minister of National Defence as this veteran, a soldier of yesterday, is pushed out of the forces and not allowed to finish his 10 years.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague on his new role as the critic for veterans affairs. We have been very fortunate that we have had some great members do some fabulous work on the veterans file. As his predecessor did before him, my current colleague is doing a great job.

We keep hearing about these issues for our veterans. It is nice to stand up and talk about all the wonderful things we are doing for them. It is that rhetoric we continue to hear from an awful lot of people. We actually get out there and talk to some of the veterans.

I have a young man in my riding who did 20 years in Bosnia and is now suffering with PTSD. He has been turned down several times. We have launched an appeal to get the proper support for the men and women who put a uniform on to defend our country and put their lives at stake. They get very frustrated hearing all the rhetoric about all the things they are going to be doing, and yet when they reach out for the help they need, the doors are always shut.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last number of months, one of the strongest advocates for seniors who are on pensions has been my colleague from Toronto. She has taken a look at how the government has increased the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I know that she has had the opportunity to tell the House on previous occasions about the impact that is going to have. I wonder if she could share with members once again her thoughts on the impact of increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that we intend to do a good job on this side of the House. I would expect that the only way it is going to change to 67 is if Canadians are deluded enough to re-elect the Conservative government. Under the Liberals, and in our future, 65 is an ideal age.

I have countless people in my riding and throughout the country who do not even make it to 65 because of the kind of work they have to do in construction and in difficult jobs and due to bad health. They do not make it to 65 to get their pensions. They are 55 and are already unable to work because of various injuries and so on, and they are looking for assistance. God bless everyone who wants to work to 67, 70, 72, or whatever and wants to pay the additional taxes, because the government could always use it, but an awful lot of people never get to 65, never mind 67, because they cannot wait.

On this side of the House, as far as the Liberals are concerned, if and when we have an opportunity to form government, that age will stay at 65.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand behind our government's record on job creation, growth, and long-term prosperity, which is helping Canadian families and businesses.

Our government's top priority is what matters most of all to Canadians: creating jobs and securing economic growth. With one in five jobs depending upon exports, our prosperity depends on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investment. That is why the Speech from the Throne launched the most ambitious trade agenda in Canadian history.

Just days after the speech, the Prime Minister negotiated an agreement in principle for the Canada-European trade agreement, which was just tabled this afternoon. When ratified, this would be the biggest deal Canada has ever made. It has the potential to create 80,000 new Canadian jobs.

However, to take full advantage of Canada's economic potential, we need to ensure that all of our workplaces are safe, fair, and productive. As highlighted in the Speech from the Throne, we want to lead the world in security and prosperity, not for the sake of doing so but so that Canadian families who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules can get ahead.

Our goal cannot be clearer. Safe, healthy, fair, and productive working environments are vital for our workers, families, communities, and businesses, because when workplaces run well, Canadians benefit economically.

A safe and healthy workplace is not only essential for a business' competitiveness and productivity. It also protects its most important resource, our most important resource: Canadian workers. This is exactly why the Government of Canada has proposed to strengthen part II of the Canada Labour Code, which is designed to prevent accidents and injuries to workers.

We all agree that employers and employees are at the forefront of preventing injuries, identifying health and safety issues, and resolving any possible disputes in an effective and timely manner. What I just described is called the “internal responsibility system”. It is the cornerstone of the Canada Labour Code.

Employers and employees are jointly responsible for the safety of all workers while in the workplace. Employees and employers are better able to assess and determine most effectively the particular workplace hazards and the health and safety needs of the employees. Employers have the most control over these conditions of work and how it is done. They have a responsibility for health and safety in their workplaces.

However, workers also have a responsibility to ensure their own occupational health and safety, including following prescribed procedures in handling equipment, hazardous substances, and other materials; wearing protective clothing provided by employers; complying with employers' instructions concerning health and safety; and reporting any possible hazards to their employers.

I want to point out that part II of the Canada Labour Code provides an employee with three fundamental rights: the right to know about hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying work-related health and safety concerns; and, most important, the right to refuse dangerous work. All of these rights would remain enshrined in the code.

Our government's role is to support employees and employers in making and meeting their obligations and in ensuring compliance with the code. We do this in a variety of ways, which include conducting inspections; providing other tools, information and assistance to employees to help them in discharging their responsibilities; and responding to complaints and incidents.

Altogether, we have done a good job. The number of disabling injuries in industries under federal jurisdiction steadily declined by 22% between 2007 and 2011. In fact, there has been a marked downward trend since the start of the century. In 2011, there were 1.73 disabling injuries per 100 workers, compared with 2.51 in 2000.

That is very good, but we must do even better, because the cost of a workplace accident is too high, especially for the workers involved. Businesses and the Canadian economy suffer as well.

In Canada, occupational injuries and illnesses cost the economy approximately $19 billion a year, and an average of 1,000 Canadian workers lose their lives each year. Everyone has a role to play to prevent these injuries, illnesses, and fatalities.

We need to continue to work together, employers and employees, government and stakeholders, to understand workplace hazards, to identify potential dangers, and to find solutions to issues that threaten the health and safety of employees.

The health and safety of workers is a priority for this government. We are committed to ensuring that at the end of the day, every worker returns home safe and sound, and in my case, as a surgeon who works in this area, with all his or her fingers and toes.

The amendments to the Canada Labour Code we are proposing would better focus attention on the critical issues affecting the health and safety of workers in the workplace, better respond to imminent or serious situations of danger in a more timely manner, and reinforce the internal responsibility system.

These changes would ensure that the obligation to resolve occupational safety issues would fall to the people who are responsible for them.

We believe that employees and employers are the ones who know their work and working environment best. They are in the best position to resolve health and safety issues in their workplace.

One important amendment concerns the definition of danger. Currently, over 80% of refusals to work in the past 10 years, from 2003 to 2013, have been determined to be situations of no danger, even after appeal. With the proposed amendments, employees and employers would be better able to deal with health and safety issues through the internal responsibility system.

I want to make it very clear that the right of employees to refuse dangerous work is paramount and remains. The definition still provides protection from all hazards: imminent, serious, and long-term. Employees would continue to have the right to refuse all dangerous work. Employers would still be responsible for ensuring that their workplaces were safe and would be required to take action if they were not. Recourse mechanisms would remain the same for workers and employers.

These proposed changes would not lead to fewer health and safety officers but would ensure that their time is used more effectively and efficiently to improve the enforcement of occupational health and safety.

The amendments would also have a very positive impact on our operations. They would ensure that the time—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister, but we have had word that the interpreters are having difficulty hearing the minister, partly because of some of the background noise. I encourage other hon. members, if they do need to carry on conversations, to do so in a quieter way or perhaps to use the lobby. If the minister could keep that in mind as she speaks, it might help out the translators as well.

The hon. Minister of Labour has just under three minutes left.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments would ensure that the time of health and safety officers is used more effectively to enforce the occupational health and safety regulations and to focus more on preventing workplace accidents through increased awareness, education, and proactive interventions.

We want to reassure Canadians that when employers and employees could not come to an agreement on a workplace hazard or how to resolve it, health and safety officers at Labour Canada would still be available 24/7 to respond to urgent situations that required immediate intervention.

Under this approach, I, as the Minister of Labour, would have the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions previously conferred on these officers. Aside from increasing support to them, this would also have the added benefit of greater consistency in decision-making across the country.

Rest assured that the new amendments would not affect the investigative capacity of the labour program and would not lead to fewer health and safety officers, as has been falsely reported in some media and by the opposition.

Health and safety officers are key to enforcing the Canada Labour Code. Through the delegation process, decisions with national impact would be made by HSOs with the necessary expertise. This would result in increased support to health and safety officers. This approach would provide them with additional guidance when making decisions and issuing directions that may have national implications.

This is about improving safety for workers. There would be no financial changes as a result of these amendments. What they would do is allow the labour program to better focus resources on critical issues affecting the health and safety of Canadians in the workplace. This means that we would be able to respond to imminent or serious dangers more quickly and resolve them.

I am convinced that these changes will result in a more streamlined process for the 9,000 federally regulated workplaces. More importantly, they will improve workplace health and safety.

These changes would put the decision-making responsibility in the hands of the people who best understand the problems they face in their workplace and how to solve them: employers and their employees.

As the workplace culture shifts to heightened health and safety awareness, which is evident from improving injury rates on the job, we need to modernize our legislation and the way we conduct business to reflect these realities.

Finally, rest assured that the fundamental rights and protections for employees remain. These changes would streamline procedures and practices to ensure timely and quality decisions and safer workplaces. Most importantly, these amendments would benefit workers, businesses, and all Canadians, which would lead to a more prosperous Canada.

I encourage all parties to support these necessary amendments with the passage of the budget implementation bill.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member herself referenced, she is also a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. In that capacity, the well-being of her patients depends not just on her but on an entire team of health care professionals, many of whom are, of course, unionized. I know that she will value the dedication of those public servants who work with her every single day.

My question is why she would value only those contributions of provincial public servants and not those of federal public servants. As she will know, this bill, in effect, denies potentially all, but definitely some, public servants the right to free collective bargaining. Her colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, was on the radio saying that the government reserves for itself, at some point down the road, without defining that in the House for us now, the right to declare some federal public servants essential, therefore taking away from them the right to free collective bargaining.

I cannot believe that as the Minister of Labour she would condone and support that and would stand in the House and say that she is perfectly fine with taking the right to free collective bargaining away from hard-working, dedicated federal civil servants.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments of the member opposite mildly amusing. What I will say is that at the labour program, as we always have, we encourage and support both parties whenever they are participating in their collective agreements in the federally regulated space for the private sector.

What we are doing with respect to amendments to the Canada Labour Code, and it is something I will continue to emphasize, is making sure that the rights of employees in dangerous work remain paramount and supported and that we have a more efficient and focused system so that we can make sure that workplaces are safe and productive. That is what Canadians want. That is what we are focused on. It is what we have heard from employers and employees.

We will stay focused on that and on creating jobs and making sure that Canadians can be productive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the Minister of Labour. I would actually ask the minister why it is that she did not feel that it would be important to see the types of changes she is bringing forward in stand-alone legislation. Why did she choose to use the back door of a budget implementation bill to bring in legislation that would, in fact, generate a great deal of debate and interest from all regions of Canada? We are concerned about some of the things she is doing through the back door, such as the definition of danger.

All of us are concerned and believe that an employee has to have the right to refuse work. We believe in the health and safety regulations. The minister is making significant changes through the back door of a budget implementation bill. Why did the minister not do the right thing and bring in separate legislation that would have enabled us to have a more thorough debate on the issue at hand?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the member opposite supports what we are doing to make sure that workplaces are safe and productive. I am sure that means that he will be supporting the budget implementation act, and I am delighted to hear that. This is great news for Canadian employers and employees. We need as many members of Parliament as possible supporting what is occurring here so that we have safe and productive workplaces.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, who is an orthopedic surgeon, and obviously a highly educated individual, what the budget offers to help improve skills in the labour force at the post-secondary university or college level.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key components of the budget is the Canada job grant, something that provides Canadians and individuals across the entire country with an opportunity to train for a job that is available today, working with employers. That is let alone the focus in the budget on apprentices to make sure that apprentices have opportunities with respect to federal contracts and are otherwise supported.

This is a great budget to make sure that Canadians are supported to get the skills they need in the places where jobs are available. I encourage the opposition to get on board. This is about supporting Canadians.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a dark time.

It is a dark time indeed, because we are confronted by parliamentary non-democracy at its height. As a result, we have a number of reasons to be significantly concerned for our future, not only as Canadians, but also as human beings who are part of the evolution of this great planet we call Earth.

We are all one on our planet and Canada plays a big part. Canada has long been a leader in environmental and democratic matters and in all kinds of areas that contribute daily to the evolution of our society and allow all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, to reach their potential in a healthy, well-balanced and democratic setting.

That is why I want to start my remarks by focusing on the consequences for our society and our civilization as we know them today.

I will discuss the tax on public services that the Conservatives have imposed and the unacceptable impact this will have on the workers who contribute to our society.

I will also talk about this government's inertia on environmental matters, an area in which we have long been leaders, and about the muzzling of its own scientists. Scientists working in a number of departments are seeing their research interfered with or cancelled for all kinds of reasons or their reports simply sitting on shelves unpublished.

I would also like to discuss the government's inaction on rail transportation, in terms of both safety and the underfunding of infrastructure in Canada. This is a subject that is particularly close to my heart.

Also unfortunately missing completely from this bill is the next generation, the young people who are the strength of the future, of our future. Young people are faced with a government that wants to put an end to any debate as soon as it begins, whether in the House or in the committees. However, in both the House and the committees, there is goodwill and good discussion.

When the government starts feeling the heat, it shuts down debate. That is unacceptable in a modern country that is a world leader in democracy.

This document is almost 300 pages long; the provisions of this budget implementation bill affect 70 pieces of legislation. Nevertheless, the government is putting an end to the debate as quickly as possible.

As for the public service, all departments are being asked to tighten their belts with, of course, one objective: balancing the budget. The consequences for the quality of the services provided to Canadians are a matter for concern. This is dangerous.

Whether we are talking about veterans, the unemployed, or those who receive old age security benefits, no one is answering them anymore. Wait times are so long that people get discouraged and do not follow through on their requests. However, the disabled, for instance, are entitled to tax credits, and others are entitled to weeks of employment insurance benefits or the guaranteed income supplement.

In the end, people get discouraged, because they are told to press a button, then another, then to dial another number, and then they get to wait for hours. Some have even told my office that while they were on hold, they got disconnected. There is nothing anymore. Nothing is happening anymore. In the House, where democracy is concerned, nothing is happening anymore. That is for sure.

I would now like to talk about the environment, that is to say the protection of the Great Lakes, our rivers and species such as the St. Lawrence beluga whales and Pacific salmon. There is no vision whatsoever anymore, except the one dictated by the oil industry. We hear about the extraction of shale gas and the oil sands.

Potable water is the next environmental resource we are going to have to protect. There is land that has dried up out west. Climate change is causing such disruption that in some places, certain crops can no longer be grown, since there is no more water or climate change has caused certain species to migrate. This is very serious. Water is the most vital resource for the human species. I spoke earlier about the consequences for humans and the natural cycle of things, and this is proof. The government has no vision for the environment. What are we going to do about water?

By introducing such a bill, the Prime Minister is undermining the state's ability to help and protect Canadians. That should be its role. The government should not be mistreating the middle class and the most vulnerable members of society. That is unacceptable.

I will now talk about labour law. The bill takes away the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives them to the minister. What is this annoying habit the Conservatives have of taking away as many discretionary powers as they can in order to turn them over to a minister? A deputy minister, senior officials, working groups and various public servants are all paid to do this work and objectively analyze this kind of thing. Instead, they decided to give the minister greater powers.

The bill will also significantly weaken employees' ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. Unsafe conditions cannot be analyzed from a minister's office; they have to be analyzed on the ground. I worked on the ground, both for workers and for employers. Employees and employers analyze the situation together, on the ground, working with a health and safety advisory committee. These studies are sometimes done every day, and even every hour in some industries. This is done in consultation with the employees who work in these conditions. Employers really need to give workers a safe working environment to help them work at full capacity, which will then move the entire system forward. This is important. Whatever the type of business or industry, health and safety should be a priority for the employer and the government, if the government wants to set an example. The example must be set from the top and at all levels. This is unacceptable.

I will now talk about science. The Conservatives have gutted our scientific research institutes, which are highly respected not only in Canada, but also around the world. Geographers and geologists study the environment. The Conservatives fired hundreds of scientists and researchers who are counted among the best in the world scientific community. They did all this without assessing the impact on the market and the economy. Research and development are the pillars of change and growth. More importantly, they are the economic levers that every major industrial country needs. Scientists are important.

Scientists must be respected. Moreover, funding should be provided to all science faculties across Canada.

To conclude, I would like to say a word about our youth. Young people need stable, high-quality jobs. With a budget like this, the government certainly cannot claim it wants to help young people and the next generation of workers in Canada.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my NDP colleague's speech, which he delivered with great passion and enthusiasm.

He highlighted a number of key issues for Canada's future. I am very interested in one issue in particular: water. I have been working on this issue for quite a long time. The member also mentioned the fact that the government is no friend of scientific research. I would like to talk to him about a subject that has to do with both water and scientific research: the Experimental Lakes Region, an open-air laboratory that the federal government has been involved with for some 40 years, a place where scientists have been doing field research on water pollution. As we all know, the current government eliminated that program.

Does the member think that now would be a good time for the government to use Bill C-4 to reverse its decision and reinstate the research projects in the Experimental Lakes Region?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Scientific research on the environment, biodiversity and how pollution affects biodiversity, including the research in the Experimental Lakes Region, is critical to our future. It is just as important as healthy agriculture. Healthy agriculture needs water, as it happens.

Enabling research means having scientists who are at the cutting edge of all innovations. Consider all of the information needed to create projects to protect water, a rich natural resource. Canada has one of the largest reserves of fresh water on the planet.

The government missed an incredible opportunity to continue that research and to ensure that we have scientists on the leading edge of knowledge about both the environment and biodiversity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

The most important thing on the subject of biodiversity in the omnibus bill is the issue of the selling off of federal properties in British Columbia. Bill C-4 calls it the Dominion Coal Blocks. This area of over 60,000 hectares is very important to the region's biodiversity. It is very important because there are also plans for a national park in that region.

I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees that it would be better to examine this very important proposal in a separate bill.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these are indeed examples of environmental legislation that should not be lumped together in a Sears catalogue or phone book, especially since those things are nearly obsolete. Legislation on biodiversity, which is so important for the environment, cannot be properly addressed in this way.

We were talking about belugas in the St. Lawrence. Studies and research have been done, but once again, the scientists who conduct this research are being muzzled and all of their hypotheses and evidence are being refuted.

Whether in western Canada, on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast, this research is vital to Canada's future and to the environment. The study of climate change begins with studies of seabeds in our national parks. Changes have been observed in the migration routes of ducks, geese and Canada geese in the fall, specifically because the biodiversity and flora have changed in the lakes where they once stopped over before heading further south. There are many in my riding and some on the land right beside where I live. It seems as though these birds no longer know where to go.

The impact of climate change is measurable, which is why we need research. This kind of legislation should definitely not be included in such an omnibus bill.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

Over the past number of months and through the summer, I spent a lot of time going door to door, meeting with constituents at events and hearing their thoughts, suggestions, advice, and support. I have also taken the time to talk about our many budgetary accomplishments in 2013.

As has been stated by representatives and leaders around the world, Canada has shown exceptional leadership at a time when many countries are facing fiscal challenges, and Canadians are benefiting from the work of this government.

Our government has focused on using its budgetary means to reduce taxes and support Canadian families. Since we have been in government, we have introduced the tax-free savings account; made reductions to personal income tax; reduced the GST; created new target measures, such as the first-time homebuyers tax credit; and created the universal child care benefit and tax credits for children participating in fitness and arts programs, measures that are aimed at reducing the financial pressure faced by Canadian families.

Tax credits and benefits are not the only manner in which our government is helping Canadians manage with the prices of products. Even though the Canadian dollar has been strengthened in the past few years and has been strong, Canadians are still paying more than people in the U.S. for the exact same goods; in response, the economic action plan 2013 would help to eliminate tariffs to reduce the cost of many goods, and this is expected to represent about $76 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian families.

As a parent of two children and grandfather of three, I understand how important these programs are in helping middle-class families provide for their children and live comfortably.

Frequently while door-knocking these past few months, I was greeted by seniors. They often asked why I was there. I was pleased to tell them that I wanted them to hear from me, but also that I was pleased to share with them what we are doing as a government to help our seniors and our veterans.

It is an honour to thank seniors for their many contributions in building the Canada we have today. At the very least, we as government should provide our seniors with programs and tax relief that allow them to plan and live comfortably in their older stages of life.

Our family caregiver tax credit, pension splitting, and expanded tax relief for home care services are a few examples of measures we have introduced to help seniors.

Since 2006, over $2.7 billion in annual tax relief has been provided to seniors and pensioners because of our programs.

In less than two weeks, Canadians will be gathering in their communities to remember the bravery and sacrifice of our veterans and our current Canadian military. I look forward to joining the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 582 in my riding to participate in its annual Remembrance Day ceremony and parade. It is truly an honour for me.

In addition, the government is proud to honour the dedication and sacrifice of those Canadians who serve this country. A total investment of $1.9 billion over the next seven years will be made to ensure that disabled, ill, and aging veterans and their families are receiving the support they need to retire and live in dignity.

There have been over 30,000 projects accomplished to build and enhance infrastructure across the country. These projects created jobs for Canadians and will facilitate growth and prosperity for many years to come.

Since 2006, our government has made several important and impactful investments in my community in Mississauga. I will give a few examples.

In the GTA, the lack of transit investment continues to be a problem for residents. The residents of Mississauga will benefit from the completion of the $14 million in improvements to the Clarkson GO Station. The upgrades have made commuting easier for the more than 5,500 people who use the station every day.

We have invested $15.6 million in the new Sheridan College campus, right in downtown Mississauga across from City Hall. It is a wonderful facility.

Another example is the $35 million investment in the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus.

As well, over the last year thousands of residents have gathered at the new city Celebration Square, where our government invested $13.3 million. Since I have been there to mark the completion of the project, I have visited the square several times for community celebrations. This project has really contributed to the spirit of the community in downtown Mississauga.

Furthermore, many residents have been impressed by investments in the redevelopment of Burnhamthorpe branch library, where our government invested $5.5 million.

As Mississauga continues to grow, it is important to recognize existing infrastructure that needs maintenance in order to keep up with the growing interest of individuals and families in settling here. Across the city, over $12.3 million was invested in replacing old water mains. These repairs were necessary to accommodate the great future we have envisioned for the city.

We did not stop there. Our government's mandate has always been focused on our economy and job growth.

To meet the labour shortages in specific industries and to assist the thousands of Canadians who have had a difficult time finding employment, we have made it a priority to invest in skills and training for Canadians by introducing the Canada job grant.

The grant is a combination of federal, provincial, and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. Once fully implemented, this grant would help nearly 130,000 Canadians to obtain training in institutions such as community colleges and trade union training centres each year.

To assist small businesses, which contribute to the economic vitality of municipalities, our government has reduced the small business tax rate, lowered the federal corporate income tax rate, and extended the hiring credit for small businesses. An estimated 560,000 employers would benefit from this measure, which is expected to save small businesses about $225 million this year. These steps will help encourage small business growth in Canada.

Let us not forget our young people. Our federal government has acted to help them gain work experience by supporting more internships, valued at about $70 million. To encourage new ideas, about $18 million was allocated to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to support young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34. Even though life is not easy for a post-graduate, I can reassure them that our government recognizes this, is acting to provide assistance, and will continue to do so.

By implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. As I stated earlier, we are recognized by leaders around the world for having the courage to take the much-needed measures to deal with these economic challenges. In the past two years, we have already cut the deficit by more than half.

Canada's budget is exemplary. We recognize the needs that are faced by Canadians and have found a way to be fiscally responsible to protect our families, seniors, and youth.

I would like to encourage all opposition members to vote in favour of Bill C-4, move it forward, and continue to focus on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs, growing the economy, and securing Canada's long-term prosperity.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the member chose to stand here and talk about jobs when in fact his government has cut job after job in the federal public service and now the Conservatives are trying to remove the right to a safe and healthy workplace.

First, how does removing the right to a safe and healthy workplace fit into a budget bill?

Second, why are the Conservatives making a mockery of the democratic process?

Third, could he tell me how many people have lost their jobs in the federal public service since his government has been in power?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to comment on the third question, it is really fearmongering. If she is referring to jobs lost in the federal public sector or any other sector, if the general idea is that more people working is better and efficiency does not matter, I do not think we can share that approach. We have to look at both. We have to look at the quality of work and we have to look for efficiencies in every sector. The numbers do not always translate into efficiency and economically it makes sense to actually cut jobs where it is necessary to achieve efficiency.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank my other colleague for asking such fundamental questions about Bill C-4. I was hoping for an answer, but we have not gotten any, as she just mentioned.

My colleague had a three-part question. I would like to focus on one aspect that has to do with Canadian workers and that is extremely important. I wonder why this is in a budget bill in the first place. Perhaps my colleague opposite can answer that.

Bill C-4 will make it harder for employees to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions.

Why is my colleague opposite trying to undermine the process that enables Canadians to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions? Does he have an answer this time?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the idea comes from. Safety in the workplace is a priority for everybody, including for our government, and it should be for employers. There is no question about a safe working environment.

I come from industry. I had my own business. I used to manage a business. A safe workplace and the safety of working people are the priorities not only for government but also for employers. Nobody wants to put a worker in harm's way. Every employer should look at getting safe working conditions. That is a priority, should be a priority and will always be a priority.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a fourth mammoth hodgepodge bill that seeks once more to amend legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is a scandal. We also have to debate it under the pall of a time allocation motion. Once again, debate is being limited. We are only in our second week of work. It is an absolute scandal.

Should we be surprised? We have just started work again after a prorogation, and the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the saying goes. It is a new session of Parliament but we have the same old tactics from this government.

This is the fourth mammoth bill with which the Conservatives are trying once more to push through legislative changes so that Canadians will not notice. Here we have a 300-page document that amends a number of pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with the budget.

The NDP is familiar with the Conservatives' bad-faith manoeuvres, and we will do everything in our power to put a stop to these underhanded tactics.

This bill is a travesty. It is supposed to implement the budget, but it includes measures that have nothing to do with the budget. I am thinking particularly of the government's shady attacks on the rights of public service workers. That is why we have been demanding, since the start of this debate, that Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, be divided into several parts so that the appropriate committees can properly analyze and study the proposed changes.

We were only on the first day of the debate when the Conservatives moved a time allocation motion in order to cut off debate and once again prevent Canadians from seeing the entire content of this bill. To us, this way of doing things is completely anti-democratic. We cannot even debate a bill without debate being cut off. This has become the norm in this institution. It is a complete scandal.

Not so long ago, the Conservatives were talking about democracy. Unbelievable. They were saying that they listen to Canadians and co-operate with other governments. However, when they are here, they do everything they can to obstruct the work of the House. They would simply like us to support their bills with no debate, no discussion. This government would like Canadians to write them a blank cheque. Speaking of cheques, we know what they do with those. It does not always make much sense, so this is a cheque they are not going to get.

Canadians are not fools. As the NDP leader told the Prime Minister, Canadians are going to judge this government's actions harshly. Canadians do not want to see their government act this way and show so little respect for democratic institutions. The NDP is offering Canadians a true alternative to this government's anti-democratic ways. In 2015, the NDP will show Canadians that we can govern this country and that we will not engage in these underhanded tactics.

Coming back to Bill C-4, I would now like to discuss a division of the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Section 4 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act will be replaced with the following:

There is established an independent board, to be known as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, consisting of not more than 25 permanent members to be appointed by the Governor in Council and any number of temporary members that are appointed under section 6.

Thinking about this change to the number of board members, I can only wonder whether the Conservatives learned anything from the VRAB study in committee. Several accusations were made during that study, and many witnesses mentioned that the board was rife with patronage appointments, interference, procedural unfairness, a lack of expertise, and so on.

I will summarize what Mr. Leduc said; he was one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He said that, unfortunately, our veterans do not have the benefit of a fair and equitable hearing. I think that that statement is a good summary of the problems veterans encounter with that board.

Have the Conservatives made any changes to ensure that this board will be made fair and impartial? Absolutely not. They preferred to reduce the number of members who will sit on it from 28 to 25; the effect of this will be to slow down the work and increase waiting periods.

The Conservatives will also continue to appoint their friends to that board despite the fact that many of them have no expertise and no knowledge that would qualify them to sit on it. Once again, veterans are the ones being penalized by this type of measure.

As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore stated quite rightly, the government now wants to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans, on the backs of our heroes. Is that a good approach? Of course not. The Conservatives are only bringing in half measures that do more harm than good to our veterans.

If we take a look at budgets in this period of fiscal austerity that prevails throughout the world, we see that our allies have absolutely not cut their veterans' budgets; in fact, several have increased them. The Conservative government is clearly bucking that trend and is making deep cuts to the Veterans Affairs budget. That is a clear sign of the lack of respect the government has for veterans.

In addition to these new cuts and those to the number of members who sit on the VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the government is going to close nine district offices throughout the country. These Veterans Affairs Canada offices provided services to veterans. The Conservatives are also going to transfer Ste. Anne's Hospital, the last hospital to provide care for veterans, to the provincial government. The Conservatives continue to transfer veterans' services to government agencies that have no expertise, such as Service Canada, or they offload the task of caring for our veterans to the provinces.

According to the Conservatives, veterans are no different from other citizens. The government considers that it owes injured veterans absolutely nothing. The government feels that it has absolutely no moral obligation to veterans, which is scandalous. These days, veterans are angry with the government because of everything it has done over the past few years.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the veterans affairs critic, recently introduced Bill C-447, which would completely dismantle the VRAB and implement a system with a peer-reviewed process for making medical decisions, which would be much more beneficial for veterans. A more effective and impartial board would better serve our veterans.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to introduce only half measures, such as reducing the number of VRAB members from 28 to 25, which could potentially increase wait times for hearings before this board. That is the extent of the government's respect for veterans.

Not just veterans will suffer the consequences of this budget implementation bill. The rights obtained and gains made in recent years by workers and public servants are also under attack. The most significant and most unacceptable changes in the latest budget implementation bill target Canadian workplaces.

In fact, the bill fundamentally changes Canadians' right to a safe and healthy workplace. How does it do that? It will take away the powers conferred on health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and give them to the minister.

The bill will also reduce a worker's right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. We are convinced that no worker should be made to work in conditions that would put their health and safety at risk. This provision is ridiculous and we strongly oppose it. The government has always served as the watchdog for private business to ensure that workers have a safe environment. We wonder if the government knows what it is doing in this file. We really do wonder.

In addition, Bill C-4 will put practically all of the power related to health and safety into the minister's hands, without taking into account how that will affect protections for workers.

Bill C-4 also makes changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, eliminating binding arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in the public service. The only explanation for this change is that the government wants to provoke disputes with public servants.

I could go on and list more situations, but I will leave it at that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that excellent speech on Bill C-4.

The Conservatives came into this session with drums rolling. They were going to talk about a consumer-first agenda. Yet, we see in this Bill C-4, which is an omnibus bill that deals with 70 different laws of this country, that they have failed to address any of the consumer issues that Canadians want. They have failed to address the airline passenger's bill of rights. It is not here. They have failed to address the fact that cell phone bills are so high. They have also failed to address gas prices that average Canadians are paying, being gouged by big oil companies.

I know my colleague has done excellent work on the veterans affairs committee. I have had a number of veterans from my community come to my office asking for help, trying navigate through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Could the member highlight some of the issues he has discovered through his travels and through the committee, in regard to veterans not being treated fairly?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and comments.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government took up several NDP causes, including protecting consumers' rights.

We look forward to seeing how this will play out. However, there really is nothing in this bill that will help consumers. Not that long ago, they rejected outright many of our proposals to help consumers. I look forward to seeing what they think of them now and what they will do to help consumers.

The committee looked at the issue of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. There are several problems with the board, notably a lack of procedural fairness. Many of the people who sit on the board—there are currently 24 or 25 people—have no knowledge of health and safety and no military knowledge. They are qualified because they are friends of the regime in power and the Conservatives. They were placed there. However, they have no military or medical knowledge, yet they must make decisions about problems that veterans are having in getting Veterans Affairs Canada to reverse its decisions. It is completely absurd. That is why we want to replace this board.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I asked the Minister of Labour was in regard to how we in the Liberal Party believe that she should have brought in her own piece of legislation, given the number of changes that are being put into place through the budget implementation bill.

We are talking about the ways in which we define danger, for example, issues related to health and safety regulations and issues related to our unions. There is a lot of substance there that ultimately would have seen a great deal more debate and discussion by many different stakeholders across this country, given the importance of the labour file.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on what I believe is one of the greatest deficiencies of this legislation, the fact that it is incorporating so much other legislation through the back door of the budget bill that it is preventing legitimate debate on a wide variety of other important issues facing Canadians today.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

He pointed out one of the biggest shortcomings of this bill: the fact that the government is amending approximately 80 laws in a 300-page document and we have only a few hours of debate in the House of Commons to examine it because the government moved a time allocation motion. This bill will not be examined properly. It is simply disgraceful. This bill addresses many issues, and we will not have the opportunity to conduct a thorough and proper examination of it. It could potentially contain mistakes, like the error concerning the tax rate for credit unions in the last omnibus bill. There may be mistakes in this bill that we will not see because we did not have the opportunity to examine it properly. It is completely disgraceful. Clearly, we are against this. What is even more disgraceful is that, because of the Senate scandal, the media are not focusing on Bill C-4 and so Canadians will not be properly informed of the changes that are being made.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to some of the key initiatives in Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

As a government, we have much to be proud of. I am glad to see that we remain focused on the issues that matter most to Canadians, which are job creation, keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced budget.

Through Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. We have created over one million net new jobs, of which 90% are full time and over 85% are in the private sector, which is an astounding figure.

Statistics Canada announced that 59,200 net new jobs were created in August and nearly another 12,000 in September. The national unemployment rate has fallen to 6.9%, the lowest level since December 2008.

I have seen the same recovery happen in my hometown of Barrie, Ontario. In September, the unemployment rate in Barrie fell to 7.2%, an improvement of nearly 2% from the September before, which is remarkably better than the 11.7% unemployment rate we saw a few years ago. Therefore, I am certainly seeing in Barrie the recovery that has occurred nationally. As Councillor Brassard said when I addressed the Barrie City Council in September, the federal government's initiatives have been the linchpin to this recovery.

Our strategies to create jobs are working. I am particularly proud of our government's support for job growth through the Canada job grant. As organizations grow, their success is often contingent upon knowledgeable staff. However, with a family to feed and a full-time job, it can be tough for staff to go back to school on a full-time basis. That is why our government created a program that would enable employees to train for better jobs without having to worry about the excessive costs to retrain. Canadians who have an offer of a new or better job might qualify for up to $15,000 or more to learn new skills to accept that job. This will serve as a tremendous help to both employees and employers looking to grow their business.

However, the job does not end there. There is still more to be done. While more Canadians are finding work, I sympathize with the many Canadians who are still searching for gainful employment. We are not immune to the economic volatility beyond our borders. This is especially true for Canada's key trading partners, the United States and Europe. With our big export consumers still on shakey ground, that will have an impact on Canada's economy. That is why our government is staying focused on the economy and creating jobs. One way we are doing that is through supporting small business.

As we all know, small business growth has been one of the key components of Canada's recovery. Since taking office in 2006, our government has supported small business by keeping tax rates low. Small business is the economic engine that drives our economy. Statistics show that 75% of workers in Canada are employed by companies with four or fewer employees. Our commerce relies on keeping taxes low to maintain our competitive edge over many of our trading partners. I have heard this in Barrie.

On September 23, I had the pleasure of having the President of the Treasury Board in Barrie for two round tables, one with Meridian Commercial Banking, hosted by Councillor Alex Nuttall, and one with the Chamber of Commerce, hosted by its executive director Sybil Goruk. It was that focus on training and small business that we heard at both those local round tables and that they appreciate our efforts on both those fronts.

We have already extended the hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 for new hires, and over one million employers have benefited from that program. There has been some strong feedback from the small business community on this initiative. BIA 2 seeks to expand that recovery by freezing the employment insurance rates that employers and employees pay for the next three years. In Barrie, this means that businesses and their employees will be keeping more money in their pockets, which is great news for our local economy, especially our small businesses.

In my riding, I have seen first-hand how many local businesses have benefited from federal incentives and programs. Federal investments have also supported local businesses to create jobs. For instance, through a repayable contribution, Southmedic was able to take its plant from China to Barrie. It is providing medical masks. TNR Industrial Doors had a major expansion with another repayable loan. Those are good, high-paying jobs.

With a repayable loan, Wolf Steel, which does high-efficiency furnaces, was able to almost double the size of its company with an impressive expansion. Even more significantly, thanks to the southern Ontario economic development agency, we were able to convince IBM to put a plant in Barrie. A $20-million contribution has led to some of the highest-skilled jobs around just on Bayview Drive. Phase one is now open and phase two will be under way shortly.

I would also like to mention the federal contributions that led to the new wellness centre in Barrie. That was 400 construction jobs; 400 new full-time and part-time jobs for staff and faculty. The economic impact of this construction alone was approximately $98 million for my community, a pretty significant benefit.

Last week, the Minister of Finance released the annual financial report of the Government of Canada for 2012-13. This report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, $7.4 billion, from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. I certainly hear from around Barrie that this disciplined approach to deficit reduction is applauded and appreciated across Canada.

This is an excellent example of our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars. Further direct program expenses have fallen by 1.2% from the year prior and by 3.8% from 2010-11. We have found these savings without raising taxes or cutting transfers to the provinces and territories. The 1990 approach by the Liberals was simply to slash transfers to the provinces and that meant huge cuts to health care and education. That certainly was not the approach we were prepared to make. This has been a much more fiscally prudent manner to approach the deficit.

Our support does not end there. Our government has also recognized the need for improved infrastructure. Not only have we recognized this need but we have taken action by investing over $4.5 billion into greater Toronto area infrastructure since we took office in February 2006. Since 2006, the City of Barrie alone, to give another example, has seen its share of the federal gas transfers not only become permanent, but they have risen from over $2 million a year to $8 million. There is a lot that can be done with that and the city certainly has. We have put $7.2 million into various road renewal activities, and $16.5 million into improvements of stormwater management, like Kidds Creek, Bunkers Creek, Sophia Creek, the Kempenfelt Bay shoreline, culverts and storm sewers. In fact, the City of Barrie got an FCM award this year for its excellent management of gas tax funding. We have also put $2.1 million into the landfill improvement projects up on Ferndale Drive.

Continued investments in my region's infrastructure have improved amenities for families across the board. Building a better community is something that we all have a stake in and a commitment to new infrastructure helps make Barrie an attractive area to live, work, play and invest. I am sure that is the case in every community across this country. Certainly, Bill C-4 provides those significant tools to build our communities.

Not only does Bill C-4 address this issue now, but it includes initiatives that will help Canadians into the future as well. Canada has free trade agreements in force with more than 10 countries and half of those agreements have been brought into force in just over the last four years. These agreements are strategic economic advantages for our country in a wide range of sectors. I think we see that in every community in Canada.

Bill C-4 also addresses the Government of Canada's intent to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. Through the much needed amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, we will ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing, as taxpayers expect.

There is one other item I want to mention that I was particularly proud of in Bill C-4. That was the investments that were made in Lake Simcoe. This government has put $59 million into the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. We have never seen a nickel put into Lake Simcoe before this government. Bill C-4 also puts in funds for protection against invasive species. Lake Simcoe is a tremendous jewel in our region. It contributes an estimated $200 million to our region and more than 400,000 people depend on the lake for drinking water. We have seen the phosphorous levels go dramatically down, and I am proud that our government has shown such significant leadership on Lake Simcoe.

I commend the Minister of Finance for his incredible hard work on Bill C-4 and the astute leadership he has shown, respecting Canadian taxpayer dollars and investing in a manner that supports the economic growth of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments by the member for Barrie.

There are two things I would mention. One is that this supposed budget bill actually creates dangerous workplaces by forcing employees to continue to work even though a danger exists, unless somehow they can prove that danger is imminent or will cause serious harm. We are now getting into the whole range of things about what is imminent and what is serious. Is asbestos imminent? No. Is it serious? Maybe. Are changes to a person's reproductive system imminent? No. Is it serious? It depends on whether they want to have children. Those are two examples of the kinds of things the bill does to weaken this legislation.

The other issue is that there is nothing in the budget bill that helps small businesses in the hon. member's community deal with the cost of banking. The banks have recently raised the fees that businesses must pay to Visa and other credit card companies. The voluntary system just is not working and there is nothing here for it. Maybe he would like to comment on that.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of small businesses, it is very clear and widely recognized across the country that this government has been incredibly supportive, whether it was when we first got to office and reduced the tax rate for small businesses, or more recently with the small business hiring tax credit.

Recognizing small businesses as the economic engine of the country has always been a priority of this government, has always been a focus. Certainly I find it almost comical that the NDP would be standing up asking a question about small business. As we know, in every case when there has been an NDP provincial government in this country, small businesses have fled. I am sure the member recalls that when the NDP were in power in Ontario, I think we lost close to 10,000 small businesses under its economic management.

The best support for small businesses in Canada is a Conservative budget. We are certainly seeing that with the incredible support for small businesses that we have seen under the leadership of our current Minister of Finance.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite intrigued by the whole issue of weakening worker protection. We are all quite close to our communities. We listen to Canadians. I have never heard anyone say that what we really need to do in this country is to weaken the ability of workers to stay away from dangerous work situations. No one in the entire time that I have been an elected MP has said to me, “This is a big problem. Too many workers are refusing to work in dangerous situations that are actually not dangerous at all.”

I am wondering from where the impetus came for the government to act on this issue in this way.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly disagree with the interpretation of the hon. member.

This budget is certainly about standing up for Canadian workers. It is about creating more jobs and more opportunities. The impetus is creating jobs.

If we look at every aspect of this budget, it is about ways to stimulate our economy, because more jobs in our community, more jobs in our country, means there is greater competition for workers. I have certainly seen that in Barrie where our unemployment rate dropped from 11.7% to 7.2%. We are actually starting to see competition for workers, and that drives higher wages, that drives better working conditions.

We saw that with the expansion of TNR Doors, with Napoleon, with the acquisition of IBM. We are talking about creating a vibrant economy. That is what our Minister of Finance has been doing, and that is a win for workers across Canada.

[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 Edmonton—Strathcona, Rail Transportation.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments. When he spoke about the employment insurance fund, he hit a sore spot for the Liberals and Conservatives.

In 2008, the Conservatives created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board to show more transparency and independence with respect to employment insurance financing. We can only imagine how much money they spent on creating this board, whose objective was to be transparent. Now they are shutting down this board because it did not give them the power they needed. The government decided that it was not interested in what the board had to say and that the government was going to make the decisions. What a waste of money.

Could my colleague talk a bit more about employment insurance and tell us why we cannot trust the Conservatives or the Liberals not to dip into the fund, and what impact this has on workers who lose their jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very timely and interesting question.

To give a tangible figure, $57 billion was stolen from the employment insurance fund by the Liberal and Conservative governments. Imagine just for a second, $57 billion at 5% or 6% interest. This will give you an idea of the amount of economic leverage that we would have right now, especially to support families going through hard times. What is employment insurance? It is a social safety net that ensures that recipients can survive until they find another job. It is important to understand that most people who receive EI never exhaust their benefits because they find another job before the payments come to an end. EI was there to support them.

However, at this very moment, less than five out of 10 people, or even less than four—3.65 if remember correctly—who have made EI contributions are able to qualify for EI benefits just when they need them most.

This system, which was put in place at great expense and is given little chance to be effective, is yet further tangible evidence that the government that wants to do everything in secret and to concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of its ministers so they can govern from within the confines of their offices and without the public's knowledge.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I do not buy the numbers the member is putting on the record with regard to billions of dollars. I would love for him to clearly show that in any sort of a document.

My understanding is that when the Liberals were in government, it was the national auditor general who made the recommendations. Are Canadians and I to believe that if a national auditor general recommends something and if the NDP has anything to do with it, it will not follow the advice of the national auditor general? From what I understand that has taken place.

The member is giving the impression that the House of Commons should not follow recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada. Is that an adopted position of the New Democratic Party today?

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

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

Very simply put, I recognize, once again, the Liberal Party's inability to be in sync with Canadians. The member need only visit any riding in Canada that has a organization that advocates for unemployed workers. All of these organizations will confirm the statistics that I just mentioned. Everyone in the community agrees. However, it is likely more difficult to admit that it is true when you are the one who dipped into the fund.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill.

If we think back five years ago to the day to where we were in the global economy, certainly no one would forget the financial crisis that occurred in the United States, the failures of investment banking houses and the failures of banks throughout the United States. The Lehman Brothers, a 158-year-old investment bank, went out of business. We remember the troubled asset plan, TARP, that the United States brought in, which was $700 billion to help keep the banking sector alive in the United States. We can all remember the “credit crunch” terms.

What is the point of that? The point is that it was one of the geneses of the economic downturn that occurred in early 2008 and for more than a year after that.

The idea is that the economic downturn did not start in Canada. No one would ever say that. Certainly, we were negatively impacted by the downturn. The contraction of the U.S. economy in 2005 was minus 1.5, a negative growth. The Europe eurozone went down 2%. Japan contracted as well by 2.5%.

When we put that in context, looking back five years ago, that is what this government dealt with. How to get out of it was the question we needed to answer.

Some of the realities in July and August 2009 were that the unemployment rate in Canada was 8.6% and 8.7% respectively, new car sales in 2009 dropped precipitously to under 1.5 million new cars, the Toronto Stock Exchange composite index was at 8,500, and I mentioned the economic contraction that took place.

The job of government is not one to create jobs. The job of government is to create an economic climate so it creates ease and assurance for businesses to conduct business, feel strong and secure, grow, make it through the tough times and add jobs.

My former employer, prior to getting elected, had about 150 employees. Today it has over 800. It was not due to our government. We did not create those jobs, but we created an economic climate for it to succeed, make it through those tough times and to now hire many new employees.

Since the economic downturn in 2008-09, and July 2009 is a benchmark we have used many times, the Canadian economy has added over one millions jobs, which is truly remarkable.

Another important fact we need to remember when we look back is that our unemployment rate in Canada is actually lower than the United States, and it has been that way now for a couple of years. It has literally been decades since our unemployment rate was lower than the United States. Canadians should be proud of that. Canadian businesses should be proud that they have created these jobs.

In addition to that, Canada's net debt to GDP is the leader of G7 countries with developed economies. That is something to be proud of. We have been able to get through these tough times of deficit and yet keep our net debt low. We will lead the G7 in net growth as well.

There are many things that Canada has done. We have been through the tough times and, again, it was not brought on by us but by the other much larger economies. However, because of our fiscal policy, we have been able to get through it.

The unemployment rate from September 2003 is now down to 6.9%. Huron county is at 5.4% and in Bruce county it is 4.5%. Certainly, I can take credit for none of that, but I am very proud of the people in our communities who are job creators. They have been able to adapt, respond and react to the fiscal realities and create unique and interesting jobs in our communities.

I mentioned new car sales. They were under 1.5 million in 2009. I can remember meeting in my office with car dealers at the time. They were thinking of any possible way to create a carrot, an incentive for people to buy new cars and get them going, because in December 2008 to July 2009 sales basically ground to a halt. In 2012, I am proud to report, sales were at a 10-year high. We saw 10-year highs in auto sales of over 1.7 million units. That is a 15% increase over the 2009 levels. The TSX composite index, as I mentioned, was at 8,500; it is at about 15,500 today, which is over a 50% increase.

What does that mean? Well, it means that the general health of the largest Canadian corporations is much better. Their earnings have increased and their capacity to grow and hire new employees has expanded. That is why we have seen the million-plus job increase since then.

What does BIA 2 have in it that is going to continue this growth? As policy-makers in our country, how do we continue to create a stimulus to continue to grow our economy? One of the things, in my opinion, is the freezing of employment insurance rates.

Here is an interesting fact. If we go back to 2000, the rate for the employee was $2.40 per $100 in earnings. Today, the frozen rate is $1.88 per $100 in earnings. We have been able to come through good times and bad, and we still have a very competitive rate.

Freezing the rates also helps employers, because we know that they pay 1.4 times what the employee pays, and that comes right off their payroll. It is very important for employers to be able to save as much as they can. I believe it is about $660 million that Canadian businesses would have available to use to invest in capital and employees and to continue to grow their businesses. That is vitally important.

Another point that is important for policy-makers in creating a climate where investment is going to occur and create stimulus for our economy is increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption. The last time an increase took place was in 1988; in 2007, our Conservative government increased it from $500,000 to $750,000, which is a tremendous benefit to people who are in business and are there to create jobs in small businesses.

I come from a rural riding, and that is certainly a huge benefit for our farming community. Many farmers sell their farms and move into a new community where they will reinvest that profit and interest and create jobs and economic prosperity.

The lifetime capital gains exemption would now be increased from $750,000 to $800,000, and then in 2015 it would be indexed moving forward. That is very important, because a lot of the time, what happens is that capital gets locked in. It gets locked up, and the person holding that capital and that asset does not want to sell it because he or she will trigger a taxable occurrence. That is a part of life. That is just the way it is. However, for us as government, to create a policy that provides a reason to sell and let somebody else come in to reinvest and maybe grow the business is vitally important.

There is a ton that I would like to speak about. Another point that I will mix in very quickly is the accelerated capital cost for biogas. There is a farm in my community near Walkerton that has created a biogas facility that uses methane and food waste from the food industry to power two Caterpillar engines that create electricity. To be able to now accelerate the depreciation to create a stimulus and a reason to make an investment is a great opportunity.

There are about four or five other things that I would like to talk about. Hopefully, during the questions, I will be able to address them.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech rather carefully, as he was talking about how it is the role of the government to create the kind of investment climate that in turn would allow for job growth in Canada.

Just his afternoon U.S. Steel announced that it was going to shut down the blast furnace in its plant in Hamilton.

The member will recall that the federal government actually rolled over with respect to the foreign investment review it had undertaken. U.S. Steel had broken its commitments to the federal government; the federal government took the company to court, and despite the fact that the government won in the court case at every step of the way, the government abandoned that court case and just rolled over. Today we have an announcement that the blast furnace is being shut down permanently.

Would the member tell me exactly how his government is helping lay the foundation for securing jobs and for keeping jobs safe? Would he reassure the people of Hamilton that their jobs will be safe under his government's handling of the economy?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my suggestions to the member would be to call Dalton McGuinty.

I was the chair of the auto caucus for a number of years. Time and time again we heard from automakers that Dalton McGuinty's flawed electricity policy in Ontario raised costs.

I used to work at a foundry. The furnaces in that business use a lot of electricity. Because of the policies of the Province of Ontario, companies that use a lot of electricity are now at a disadvantage because of Dalton McGuinty's policies.

I would call Andrea Horwath, the leader of the NDP, and ask her what she is going to do about it. She is quite happy to support Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to the other side in this House boasting about its supposed economic accomplishments for quite a while now, and it is wearing a bit thin. What we notice in the speeches from the government side is this inherent contradiction in everything the members say. They say the economy was bad because of other countries, because the recession started with the housing crisis in the U.S. Then when things pick up, it is never because of an increase in demand elsewhere; it is always because of the government's policies.

The government says that although the recession started outside of Canada, we have a stable financial system and we have a good debt ratio; however, it never mentions that the stable financial system was there when it arrived and was preserved by the previous Liberal government. It never mentions that if we have a good debt ratio, it might be because of the seven years of continuous surpluses that the previous government built up.

One thing I find quite interesting is that the government takes credit for the growth in employment, but anyone who has read an economic textbook knows that employment naturally increases with population. Some economists are saying that the increase in employment is being driven by an increase in population.

How can the government constantly take credit for things that are happening naturally? Increased demand for oil is happening naturally. Immigration is bringing in more people and creating more jobs and so on, so how can the government always take credit for everything?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with that kind of scrambled logic, there is no doubt why the Liberals are in third place and heading to fourth very quickly.

Under the leadership of our finance minister and our Prime Minister, the biggest problem we have right now in Canada, and certainly the biggest problem we have in Huron—Bruce, is finding people who are qualified to do the job.

Canada job grant: those are three words the Liberals should learn really quickly. We have people who want to work hard, who have worked hard, who need a hand up. They need retraining. I know all the professors down at the far end in the third party have no comprehension about that because they learned it in a classroom, but here, where we have actually done the jobs that are in the economy, we understand that sometimes people need to be retrained. Sometimes people need a chance to improve.

In Huron—Bruce, that is what we need. We need the Canada job grant. The professor party down there at the far end needs to clue in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to focus on a very particular part of BillC-4, but since this is a chamber of debate I feel I should address the very last remarks of my Conservative colleague across the floor.

This is not the first time I have heard Conservatives use the word “professor” in a very derogatory manner. In fact, the first time I encountered that was at all-candidates debate in the 2008 election. The Conservative candidate referred, very derisively, to Professor Dion.

I am sorry; I forgot the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is still here.

This shows the attitude that the Conservative party and the Conservative mind have towards education, towards learning, and towards respect for an inquiry toward the truth. I feel I have to point this out, because the member opposite clearly intended to insult Liberal Party members by calling us the professor party; well, I am proud to be part of a party that thinks about facts and evidence and is occasionally humbled by facts and evidence.

Canadians need to know that the Conservative Party is the party that does not value education, does not value learning, and is essentially willing to insult teachers. I have to start my remarks with that rebuke. Canadians need to know what kind of party this Conservative Party is.

I have three post-secondary institutions in my riding of Kingston and the Islands: the Royal Military College of Canada, Queen's University, and St. Lawrence College. I know that all of the professors and their students would be insulted by the remark of my colleague across the way.

Let me now talk about a particular part of Bill C-4. I am referring to the changes that will be made to members of the National Research Council, the council members who serve in an advisory capacity to the management of the National Research Council.

In Bill C-4, the composition of the council is going to be reduced from 18 members plus a president to 10 members plus a chairperson plus a president. What I would like to do today is simply ask the question “Why?” That question has not been answered in the legislation. The change appears in the legislation, but there has really been no supporting argument from the government for making this change.

I want to talk about why this should not be considered a trivial change. These are not salaried employees. Some members, as I checked the record, thought scientist employees were being cut from NRC, but these are experts who are meant to guide the management of NRC in planning for its future.

What we need to do is ask why the opportunity was not taken in Bill C-4 to, for example, establish some rules on replenishing the membership of the advisory council, to consult with them, and to put in place some guidelines on how to choose members.

Members may not know that only 5 of the 18 spots on the council are filled right now. This is a very strange thing, given the enormous changes happening at NRC. Later I will talk about that a little more.

One thing that the bill we are discussing today could have done is provide some guidelines on how to choose these council members. For example, we might want to have three sets of criteria: first, knowledge of research, innovation, and commercialization; second, the personal experience, accomplishments, and integrity of the person; and third, diversity in the composition of the National Research Council members.

This is a time of big changes, so this expertise is very necessary. The Conservative Party seems to believe in less governance and less consultation. It is very comfortable with less governance and less consultation.

Why should the management of NRC consult? Let me mention the report of a task force commissioned by a former Progressive Conservative government in 1987. In the report, the task force told the Mulroney government that it would be foolish for NRC management not to take advantage of the real and wide expertise found within the members of the council. That council would be the consultative body of potentially up to 18 members.

Why does this Canadian national institution need a large consultative body? The reason is twofold. One is that we are a very diverse country regionally, and NRC is supposed to serve this very diverse country. There is a part of NRC called IRAP, the industrial research assistance program. A web of industrial technology advisors across the country works with small companies to help them develop and commercialize their technology, connect with partners, get funding, and get the people they need to succeed. It is clear that NRC serves all of Canada and should be very sensitive to the large regional geographic diversity we have in our country.

In addition, NRC aspires to serve a large range of disciplines and sectors of technical capability. For example, it is involved in astronomy, metrology, security, aerospace, construction, health, and ICT. NRC is responsible for an enormous range of scientific disciplines and technologies. Therefore, it makes sense that its consultative body should reflect the broad range of technical capabilities NRC aspires to. This is something Bill C-4 could have tried to put in place but did not.

Let me also talk about why this is a special time for NRC and why a consultative body would be very important. It is a time of great change at NRC. In fact, NRC has never undergone such a great change. We know that there used to be institutes at NRC. They have been completely restructured into R and D portfolios with individual programs inside that have to get business plans approved through a four-step process. We know that this approval process has been very slow, probably too slow for the comfort of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Certainly it has been too slow for the morale of the scientists and researchers at NRC.

We know that morale has been severely tested at NRC. We receive messages all the time from people who work at NRC. We even know that there was an online survey on the internal NRC website that showed how low morale was and how dissatisfied workers at NRC were. This is a time of extreme stress at NRC, and it is important to have that consultative body.

I might just throw out a question to the government to ask if a second pair of eyes checked out the idea of sending Tim Hortons cards to employees. Some went to employees who had lost their jobs.

In conclusion, this is an important time for NRC. This is an opportunity to make sure that NRC is fully consulting with the diverse geographic and disciplinary range it aspires to. This is a time when the NRC council could be strengthened and used to provide good advice to the management of NRC as it attempts this very ambitious transformation. It is a transformation that we know has had some problems. It has been a bit slow and has caused morale to suffer at NRC. The government has missed an enormous opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for raising the importance of what we find at division 10 of Bill C-4.

When we are dealing with omnibus budget bills, there is scant attention paid to the multiple ways in which the legislation would impact on dozens of pieces of legislation.

I would ask about these changes to the National Research Council. They are obviously not intended to save money. They would reduce the scope of the work of the National Research Council in terms of the expertise upon which it can draw. However, the member failed to mention one of the other changes that has been brought about by this administration, which was the elimination of the position of the science adviser to the Prime Minister. It was recently outlined in a book by Chris Turner, The War on Science.

What does my hon. colleague make of this effort to undermine access to good advice from those who are qualified to offer it in areas of scientific competence?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for a government to have access to, respect, listen to, and act on the very best advice to formulate policy. That includes science advisers. That includes, in terms of the management of NRC, advice that can come from the members of the council.

The thing that can happen, if people are willing to accept this advice, is that sometimes they realize that they are wrong and have to change what they are doing. That is what I mean by saying that sometimes we are humbled by respect for the truth. I think we should govern that way. It is a good thing for the country to govern in that way. It can be embarrassing sometimes for the government, but perhaps not as embarrassing as what the government is experiencing now. It is a good thing to be humbled by the truth sometimes. If we let ourselves be humbled by the truth, we will avoid the kind of situation the current government is in with the problems the Prime Minister's Office is having with some of the Senate appointments.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP opposes all omnibus bills, as we previously opposed the omnibus bills introduced by the Liberals in the 1990s.

However, my question is about employment insurance. We have spoken a lot about it on this side of the House. I would like to know whether my Liberal colleague approves of the changes to EI proposed in this bill, particularly the elimination of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

I would also like to know what my Liberal colleague thinks about the fact that the Minister of Finance is being granted new powers that will allow him to play political games with the EI premium rate.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not happy with how the current government has treated employment insurance. This bill was a chance for the Conservatives to change some of their plans, and they did not take advantage of that opportunity, so I would have to say that we are opposed.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands opened his speech by commenting on a previous speech given by the member for Huron—Bruce. I want to ask him a question about that.

The member for Huron—Bruce was lauding the Canada job grant and how wonderful it is and how much it means to everybody in his riding. The interesting thing is that it is a myth. There is no Canada job grant. It has not been created.

The Conservatives have been spending $90,000 per minute for commercials on TV for a program that does not exist. Why does it not exist? It is because they took $300 million away from the provinces that were using that money for skills training.They took it for themselves and said that they would give it back to the provinces, provided that they do it their way. The Conservatives did that without consulting the provinces at all. There is no Canada job grant.

I would like the member for Kingston and the Islands to comment on the seriousness of youth unemployment and the lack of the current government's attention to that issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the chamber, the youth employment strategy is not working. The number of jobs the federal government has created for young people has decreased since 2006. It is something like half of what it was in 2006. I think it is very important for the government to look at that and to take some measures, because this will have a big impact on the economy. Youth is the age group for which employment has not recovered since the 2008 recession. There should be quite a focus on that, and there is not.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak to Bill C-4 today, the last speaker before we vote on this.

Yesterday I heard a lot of discussion from both sides of the House. I want to take a couple of minutes to explain exactly what we are doing here. This is a budget implementation bill. It is the second one. We have one in the spring and one in the fall. It is the traditional way of doing things. We have a budget, and out of that budget, we have to implement what is going on in the budget. That is what this bill does.

I am the 69th speaker to this item. Twenty-two percent of members of the House have spoken to this implementation bill thus far. This is at second reading stage. Then the bill goes to committee, and committee studies the bill. It calls witnesses, has a discussion, and more members of Parliament have an opportunity to comment on the bill. Then the bill comes back to the House for report stage. Then there is another set of speakers to this. Then there is third reading.

More than half the members of the House of Commons have an opportunity to speak to the bill. That is a significant amount of input and debate on this implementation bill.

I have heard over and over about there not being enough time, about closure motions, and about time allocation. The reality is that the public expects us to get things done for them. That is what we are doing here, and that is what the implementation bill does.

I hear about the omnibus bill. The bill is 309 or 312 pages, French and English. I know that I can read 150 pages. I am making the assumption that the opposition members can read 150 pages. I cannot read it in French. I wish I had that talent, but I do not. I do not think there is anything in the bill we need to complain about in terms of there being so much in it that it cannot be understood. Those are not the facts.

We on this side will do our homework. We will do the job we need to do to get things done for Canadians and move things forward. There are many good pieces in this bill. If members do not want to read the whole bill, there are summary pages at the front. In the summary, the very first item is to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and to index it to inflation. For the first time, it would be indexed to inflation.

We are giving small businesses the opportunity to create jobs and create wealth for them, their families, and their communities. They get to keep it after they have done their jobs. They pass that on to the next generation. They sell it to the next entrepreneur, and they keep building this country through jobs and economic activity. We support small business. We support entrepreneurs, and that is what the implementation bill does. I am very happy that we are getting it done.

Tonight we are voting on it. We will get it to committee and will get it back in this House. Hopefully we will get it passed by Christmas so that people can continue to create good-quality jobs for this country and for our youth, and we will continue to build a great Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, October 24, 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #6

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #7

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)