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

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has not alluded much to Bill C-4 and that is what we are debating. Could you get him to come back on track, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. There is so much that could be said about the bill that limiting one to only 20 minutes does somewhat of a disservice because of the amount of content in the bill. It can be a challenge to take into consideration the numerous pieces of legislation that have been incorporated into Bill C-4.

There are probably five or six points I want to emphasize, but I will start off with regard to the government's attitude toward presenting budget bills. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of the majority Conservative style of governance in the House, which has been very disrespectful in terms of democracy. Democracy in the House of Commons has been lacking in allowing for proper diligent debate and proceedings on a wide spectrum of different issues.

We have witnessed the Prime Minister and the instructions he has given to the PMO that the best way to pass legislation under the Conservative majority is to start compiling it, submit it to the PMO and it will be bundled altogether, forwarded to the Minister of Finance and be brought in through budget legislation.

Not to be outdone by previous budgets like this under the same Conservative majority, this time not only did the Conservatives prorogue the session by limiting the number of days we would sit this fall, but they also once again put in time allocation on this legislation. It is so very bizarre and very undemocratic.

Unfortunately, we have found that the Prime Minister, through the Prime Minister's Office, has done a great disservice by not allowing for legitimate debate on a wide variety of issues. I plan to touch base on a number of those.

Things have really changed for the Prime Minister. I was provided a very interesting quote. I may have said this in the past. I have had opportunity to do so because it was last year around this time when we had another mega budget bill. Let there be no doubt before I cite the quote that it is important to recognize that no prime minister in the history of our country has taken such liberties in bringing so much legislation forward under one budget bill.

Let us reflect on the days when the Prime Minister was in opposition. What did he have to say about legislation of this nature? I quote what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for democracy and the functionality of Parliament.

That is what he said when he was talking about a bill that was just over 100 pages long. This is the Prime Minister who has introduced thousands of pages through a few budget bills, effectively changing 100-plus pieces of legislation with a few budget bills.

That is why it is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority Conservative/Reform government has brought forward budget legislation. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for what takes place within his cabinet and his government. There is no doubt in my mind that he does rule the Prime Minister's Office and that he is very much aware.

That bring me to the next topic. We know why the Prime Minister prorogued the session back in September. It was because he did not want to have the House sitting. He avoided the day in and day out accountability in the House, because he was not happy with what was being reported in a sequence of events that portrayed corruption and fraud in the Prime Minister's Office.

As a result, we lost weeks of debate earlier this fall because the Prime Minister did not want to come back. Why did he not want to come back? He had a very serious problem, and still does, and it is not going to go away. It is going to continue to be there and it will ultimately be dragged out, all the way to the next federal election in 2015.

There is so much more that has not been disclosed. We will ultimately ensure that we get more information as we sit, because Canadians deserve to know the honest truth, the full truth in what has taken place in regard to the scandal in and around the Prime Minister's Office.

I pointed this out to a number of individuals in looking at the Prime Minister's actions and trying to understand them. All those people are around the Prime Minister are so close to him. There was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright. This individual had the ears of the Prime Minister on a daily basis. He in essence paid off a $90,000 debt that was owed by Senator Mike Duffy.

The Prime Minister likes to say that he had taken corrective actions. We are not too sure if, after it became public, what Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, did but within days of when it became public he was no longer the chief of staff.

There were no RCMP charges or anything of that nature. It just became public. The chief of staff at least acknowledged that something wrong had been done. We do not know if he was actually fired or released or took it upon himself to leave. We do not know, or at least it is not clear. It is one of the things the Prime Minister has not been very clear on.

What we do know is that he has not been consistent.

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 third time and passed.

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

Many witnesses support our position on various issues. At one point, we were discussing the gradual elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. I found it very interesting to see the government witnesses—who came to say good things about the government's initiatives—learn about certain aspects of the bill that they had ignored or neglected, such as the agreement proposed by the funds. Once they had that information, the government witnesses told us that we were right and that the government should have accepted those proposals.

With regard to omnibus bills and the use of this tool, this bundle of legislation, to fast-track a number of bills, some knowledgeable organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Association of Justice Counsel, oppose the government's vision.

From everything we have seen in the most recent bills, the majority of witnesses are not siding with the government. The government invites its own witnesses and, obviously, it will get support for some aspects of its bills. However, the aspects that do get support are often the same ones that we support in committee.

We feel obliged to vote against bills such as Bill C-4 because of all the damage that these bills will cause and the consequences they will have. These are the reasons for our position. We will continue to fight, not only against the process but also against the damage caused by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The measures proposed by this government often affect the regions more than any other area of the country. That was the case.

That is why I responded to the speech made by the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River two days ago. He said that Bill C-4 would create jobs in Saskatchewan, right after I told him that this bill would destroy jobs in Quebec.

The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I represent heavily rural regions. Some measures in the bill are absolutely disastrous for the regions, such as the reform of EI, as proposed by the government. Now, the government is going further and abolishing the Employment Insurance Financing Board. These measures hit regions like ours particularly hard, since our economies rely on seasonal employment.

I mentioned general measures. However, some of them affect labour-sponsored funds. The Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction have regional funds that specifically invest venture capital and development capital in areas like Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski and Gaspé, where private venture capital is lacking compared to other regions.

These measures will hit rural regions very hard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-4. We do not have much time to debate it, despite what my colleague said, given that we have only one day for third reading debate. I am referring, of course, to the second budget implementation bill.

First of all, as we have already heard a few times, including during questions and comments this morning, it is worth reminding the House that this is another omnibus bill, at least the fourth one of its kind to be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was directly involved.

In order for an omnibus bill to really be effective, it must contain consistent measures. A budget bill should include budgetary measures, amendments to the Income Tax Act, for example, or the Excise Tax Act. We could understand such measures being in an omnibus bill.

However, the omnibus bill before us has practically everything in it. The Conservatives included measures that amend the process for selecting judges from Quebec for the Supreme Court, to correct an error they made. Furthermore, the bill contains measures dealing with workplace health and safety, as well as measures that alter the relationship between the government as an employer and the public service as employees.

These measures are extremely important and should be debated individually. Once again, however, despite what my colleague said, we did not have enough time to debate them. Time was very limited, particularly at the Standing Committee on Finance. A time limit on the debate was imposed from the very beginning of the committee's examination of the bill.

Three meetings were scheduled to study such an important bill that will add, eliminate or amend about 70 different acts. We heard from five witnesses during the first panel, which took about an hour and 45 minutes, and we heard from five witnesses during the second panel,which took less than an hour and 15 minutes. The Minister of Finance addressed the committee, but he did not really answer questions, as he often asked his officials to respond. Then four other witnesses spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes. We heard from an additional 13 witnesses over a three-hour period.

That is the extent of the study that was done of the imposing and important Bill C-4, just like all of the other budget implementation bills.

The Conservatives have a habit of ramming various measures down our throats, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process and were not even in the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in March.

This tendency has been criticized by several extremely credible organizations, which leads me to wonder why the government continues to do this. We heard some very interesting evidence in that regard. There is a generalized sense of frustration among experts and Canadians who are worried and concerned about the state of our democracy.

For example, the Canadian Bar Association gave a presentation on this. No one here can dispute the credibility of that organization. I will quote what the representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance:

All parties are now disadvantaged as they hastily review unexpected and unexplained changes in Bill C-4. The concern is compounded when those changes arrive in omnibus legislation, as the opportunity for serious reflection and debate is minimal. The [Canadian Bar Association] Section believes that eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices.

I do not know how we could make it any clearer that the kind of omnibus bills the government has been introducing for the past three years distort the democratic process and force members of Parliament to vote on bills that have a lot of flaws and deserve closer attention.

The Association of Justice Counsel agrees. The judicial process is at the heart of what they do. They testified at the Standing Committee on Finance, which is never mentioned by the government. This is what they said:

By virtue of introducing these changes under the umbrella of a budget bill, the government has effectively sidestepped the much-needed consultation process with stakeholders. The scope of this Bill, combined with the very short time span, is unduly pressuring elected officials to make uninformed decisions without the benefit of a solid understanding and healthy discussion and debate.

When the government tries to claim that there were wide consultations, extensive debates and all kinds of presentations in committee or the House, and that we had time for exhaustive discussion, I have to say that I have some serious doubts.

Omnibus bills like this one have a huge impact. They are introduced very quickly with a minimal amount of consultation. Since these bills have a broad scope and there is little time for discussion, they can contain serious errors that the government is then forced to fix.

We saw an example of this a year or a year and a half ago. The government had introduced an omnibus crime bill. We told the government that some of the measures in Bill C-10 were quite problematic.

We told the government precisely how it should amend the bill. We did not agree with the scope of the bill, but we made proposals in the House and in committee. The government said no and had the omnibus crime bill passed very quickly.

After the bill passed, the Conservatives realized that the opposition was right, that the bill contained a very harmful measure. Do you know what they did? Instead of admitting their mistake, they turned to the Senate to fix the mistake. Once the bill was amended in the Senate, the government brought it back to the House.

The same thing is happening here with the budget bills. The last budget bill contained a measure that affected caisses populaires and credit unions by changing their tax rate from 11% to 15%, effectively eliminating the 4% advantage they had. We felt that the caisses populaires and credit unions deserved that leg up given their mandate. They are not-for-profit organizations, unlike the banks, and they play a major role in local economies.

For extremely complex technical reasons, this change did not simply shift the tax rate from 11% to 15%. The tax rate actually increased from 11% to 28% for caisses populaires and credit unions.

We had very little time to study the bill and therefore did not have the opportunity to address this technicality. The government realized that there was a mistake.

The bill before us contains a measure that corrects the tax rate and brings it back down to 15%. Nevertheless, this mistake should not have gone through in the first place. I wonder how many of these technical mistakes are in bills that we have had to pass hastily over the past two years.

Bill C-4 contains numerous measures. As I mentioned, the bill adds, eliminates or amends 70 acts. We are opposed to many of these measures. We agree with some of the government's efforts. There is no problem with the fight against tax havens and tax loopholes. If people look carefully into the testimony and interventions before the Standing Committee on Finance, they will see that we support this measure and indeed find that the government is not going far enough.

This bill has some extremely harmful measures. I find it really interesting that in their speeches the Conservatives talk in very general terms about how their budget bill and their government have such a positive impact. However, they only talk about those tax issues they support.

In 2008, the Conservative government established the Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was supposed to be a means of correcting the Liberal government's misuse of the EI fund in the 1990s. We are talking about $57 billion.

The Conservatives did not promise to put this amount in an independent employment insurance fund, but they promised to correct the situation and ensure that such a thing would never happen again. They created the Employment Insurance Financing Board to set EI premiums and to determine EI benefits and eligibility criteria.

We are now in 2013, only to find that this bill contains a proposal to eliminate the Employment Insurance Financing Board, which has been essentially an empty shell since it was created in 2008-09.

We heard testimony from some public servants. They said that, ultimately, the minister will be given significant discretionary power so that he can decide on issues such as premiums, benefits and eligibility.

There is a recurring theme in the government's budget bills, and that is the fact that they give more power to the minister, whether it is the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to employment insurance or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to changes to the system. The budget bill contains an amendment that will affect immigration and refugees.

Certain provisions will give the minister more discretionary power. Ministers are consistently assuming more and more power, and that poses serious problems. The Association of Justice Counsel commented on the Conservative government's tendency to centralize power in the hands of cabinet. That power used to be more spread out and dispersed among various experts and functions. The witness from the Association of Justice Counsel had this to say:

The government holds all the keys to the legislative closet. They hold all those cards, to use that analogy. The whole point of having a choice and giving that choice to the unions in terms of what route they choose was to recognize that unions are stacked when they're dealing with the government. We're not dealing with Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola can't draft legislation and say, “Go back to work”, or, “Here's wage restraint”. This government has used those tools, and our hands are tied.

Of course, the quotation refers to one element of the bill before us, namely the balance of power between the government as an employer—that is to say, the Treasury Board—and the public service. The government is using the bill to amend various aspects of the bargaining process. For one, it eliminates the possibility of using arbitration.

Arbitration is an extremely important tool when a government or an employer and an employee cannot come to an agreement. They may agree to have someone else make the decision for them. That is what arbitration is. The government is taking away that option.

Consequently, if the government wants to provoke a dispute with the public service for political reasons, for example, it can do just that. That poses a significant problem for government operations and for the system that provides public services. If the government wishes to provoke that kind of dispute, it will have a much easier time doing so now that the arbitration process has been amended.

Furthermore, the government is giving itself the right to define essential services, even after the fact. The government will be able to declare that a given area of the government, where a labour dispute might be happening, is now an essential service and therefore does not have the right to strike or use any kind of job action. The balance of power has shifted completely in favour of the employer, who happens to be the legislator. Thus, this is a huge conflict of interest for the government, but it chooses to ignore that fact, for purely political reasons.

I also referred to another aspect of Bill C-4 that I find completely appalling. There was a lot of media attention around the fact that the government made a colossal blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court to represent Quebec. Now the government is trying to correct that blunder after the fact by adding a measure to the omnibus budget bill. My comments have nothing to do with Justice Nadon's competency as a possible Supreme Court judge. However, the fact remains that the government really erred in this matter, as many experts agree. The government has included a measure to correct this process in a budget bill—a measure we will not be able to examine in detail. When measures like this are included, it makes it very difficult to see the relevance of the legislative process in terms of the budget.

A retroactive measure like this one will not make people forget the blunder, nor will it actually correct the government's blunder in this matter.

I talked about the attack on worker protection. Something else I would like to talk about is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. The government members know exactly where I stand on this issue.

This measure affects Quebec in particular because 90% of this tax credit goes to Quebeckers.

Once again, to clarify, this tax credit does not go to the funds. It does not go to big speculators, but to small investors. More than 600,000 Quebeckers save regularly for their retirement by investing in a program that is really like an RRSP. Instead of investing in speculative funds or mutual funds, where the money does not go directly to job creators, they invest in labour funds that work hand in hand with private venture capital funds and go directly into the Quebec economy.

This money is used to save businesses that need a hand during difficult times or a recession or to start up new companies, especially in very important emerging areas that promote innovation, research and development. I am referring to the medical and pharmaceutical fields and new technologies.

The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN specialize in these areas and work with private venture capital funds.

There is good reason why, the day after the government announced in its budget that it would phase out the tax credit, Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association said it was opposed to this measure, even though the government is also creating a venture capital action plan.

Other associations, such as the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec are also opposed to the phasing-out of this tax credit.

Even the witnesses that the government invited to praise the injection of $400 million and the creation of the venture capital action plan supported the opposition's arguments against phasing out the tax credit. They said that it did not make sense for the government to reject the agreement proposed by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN.

That astounds me because the government had the opportunity to really make its venture capital action plan relevant and effective.

The two funds proposed an agreement with the government if it would decide to not go ahead with the phase-out. Under the agreement, the funds would voluntarily put a cap on their share issuing to save the government 30% in tax expenditures—in other words, the government would offer 30% less in tax credits. The funds would also inject the equivalent of $2 billion into the government's venture capital action plan.

The government is investing only $400 million. That is all. The funds proposed that they would invest the equivalent of $2 billion not only in Quebec but throughout the country.

I strongly believe that this model works in an area where Canada is lagging behind the other OECD countries. We are at the back of the pack. Quebec is a leading country as a result of the creation and administration of these funds. Of course, Quebec is not a country, but it is one of the leading jurisdictions in the OECD, ranking just below Israel and the United States when it comes to the amount of managed venture capital as a share of its GDP, its economy.

The proportion of managed venture capital in Quebec is nearly three times greater than the Canadian average and more than four times greater than Ontario's. The government should take note and learn from what happened in Ontario when it eliminated its tax credit. It got rid of it. That has been quite harmful to Ontario since its investment in venture capital, its amount of managed venture capital, has decreased steadily since the tax credit was eliminated in 2005. Despite having a much larger GDP than Quebec, Ontario's share of managed venture capital is equal to Quebec's in proportion to the total amount of venture capital invested in Canada. Right now, that figure is 36% for both provinces.

In many ways, Bill C-4 does not create jobs; it eliminates them. It stifles economic growth.

The IMF report shows the impact this will have on economic growth. The government should take that into account and take a more serious look at the measures it is proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, will oppose Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-4 introduced by the Conservatives is another undemocratic omnibus bill. What is more, the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate.

Once again, there was not enough time in committee to study the ins and outs of the bill and the negative impact it will have on the everyday lives of Canadians. This is another bill that attacks workers' rights instead of creating jobs. In this case, it is an attack on their right to work in a healthy and safe environment.

I think that nearly all of the members here met with Unifor workers, who came to tell us just how serious an attack this is and how difficult it was for them to refuse to work in dangerous situations. They feel that this bill makes it more difficult to refuse work when there never used to be an issue between the employers and the employees.

How can the member opposite justify those provisions, which now put workers at greater risk?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve in the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech.

This speech is not very different from all the other ones we have heard on Bill C-4. When the Conservatives deign to rise and speak, they usually just rehash the same old arguments, the same script written for everyone.

I would like to correct what the member said. He is very well aware that the NDP and even the third party are in favour of eliminating tax loopholes. We would like the government to act much more forcefully to prevent tax avoidance. My colleague knows this, since he sits on Standing Committee on Finance.

The arguments presented here to tout the government's record contain elements that the government often chooses to ignore. For example, the austerity measures and provisions for deep cuts in Bill C-4, as well as the other budget bills in the last two years, have a negative impact on the economy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about this. An International Monetary Fund report released just two weeks ago shows that the budget cuts and various austerity measures enacted by the government will reduce the potential GDP by 0.2% per year. This is very close to the numbers quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I would like to hear the member's comments on this question: when I talked about the impact of certain measures included in Bill C-4, for example the phasing-out of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, his colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River replied that this was a good measure because it would create jobs in his province of Saskatchewan. This measure will eliminate 20,000 jobs in Quebec, which depend on the impact of these labour-sponsored funds.

I would like the member to tell me whether the government's strategy consists of promoting job creation and growth in some regions at the expense of other regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to highlight many of the pro-growth and job creation measures in Bill C-4, economic action plan 2013 act no. 2, which is a very important piece of legislation for our government.

We all recognize that during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries. Indeed, since the depths of the global economic recession, Canada's economy has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full-time, with over 80% in the private sector.

This morning, in fact, Statistics Canada announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in the month of November, which is great news. Not only did this job growth beat market expectation, but solid gains were made in the manufacturing sector, where 24,900 new jobs were created. This continues Canada's strong job creation record, which is the best in the entire G7 by far.

It is not only that, but Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S. This is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.

However, that is not all.

All the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating. It is worth mentioning that Canada is one of only a handful of countries that can boast this top-notch rating. We can do this, thankfully, because the Conservative government understands the meaning of fiscal responsibility.

Indeed, when Standard and Poor's affirmed Canada's AAA rating on November 13, here is what it had to say:

The ratings on Canada reflect its strong public institutions, prosperous and resilient economy, fiscal and monetary flexibility, and effective policymaking. [...] Canada's success in the past decade in achieving credible monetary and fiscal policy, along with its openness to trade...will continue to support its economic performance.

Unlike other countries, Canada has found the right balance between efforts to support job creation and economic growth by respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets in 2015. While many European countries, and even the United States, continue to struggle with their national debts, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. In fact, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level in the G7 by far. Germany was second lowest, and closest to Canada, at 57.2%. If members are still not impressed, how about this: the G7 average is 90.4%.

While the Liberals may want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

Most importantly, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will balance the budget without slashing transfers for health care and education. Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services that Canadian families depend on. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we understand that if we make government more efficient and control program spending, we can reduce the deficit while still increasing transfers.

As was recently outlined in the government's annual financial report in 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion, which was down by more than one-quarter; that is $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. The Liberals might be interested to know that the reductions in direct program spending played a key role in this outcome. Indeed, expenses fell by 1.2% from the prior year and by 3.8% from 2010-11.

Our government will also balance the budget without raising taxes. 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.

The opposition may be interested to know that since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant that savings for a typical family of four, in 2013, totals nearly $3,400. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax, and introducing pension income splitting for seniors. It also includes measures like reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, which has put an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of average families. This is a measure that both the Liberals and the NDP opposed.

That is not all. It includes introducing measures like the working income tax benefit, and the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls.

Keeping taxes low also helps the businesses in our communities grow and succeed. That is why, since 2006 we have consistently reduced the tax burden for small businesses. This includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, while at the same time increasing the small business limit to $500,000. In fact, our government's low-tax plan has resulted in over $28,000 in savings for the typical small business.

The NDP and Liberals might not understand how the economy works, but lower taxes not only encourage businesses to innovate and grow, it also makes Canada a more attractive destination in which to invest. As a matter of fact, Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

To question whether this is having a positive impact, one need only look at the facts. Both the independent International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, project that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7 in the years ahead. Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter of 2013. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada and is an encouraging sign that Canada's economy is on the right track.

However, while this is certainly encouraging news, we cannot become complacent. While economic conditions are improving, there are still too many Canadians out of work. The global economy looks fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, both among our largest trading partners. This is why our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and growing the economy. That is exactly what today's legislation is all about.

Bill C-4 would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013, which would help support job creation and growth in communities across the country. One such measure is the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business. The history of this credit illustrates our government's commitment to small business in Canada.

Indeed, in economic action plan 2011 our government first introduced the hiring credit for small business, which provided up to $1,000 to help defray the cost of hiring new workers. In fact, the credit was so successful that we extended it again in economic action plan 2012.

As I mentioned earlier, the economy is showing encouraging signs of growth. At the same time, there is still a large amount of uncertainty in the global economy. We have heard these concerns from business owners. That is why economic action plan 2013 and Bill C-4 extend and expand the hiring credit for small business.

As a result of this legislation, the credit provides for up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 EI premiums over that paid in 2012. It applies to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012, an increase from the previous level of $10,000. Extending this credit would benefit over 560,000 employers, providing them with an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013.

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said recently:

The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit. [...] That's really good news....

That was from March 21, 2013, on the CTV News channel.

Clearly, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed.

On that note, there are many other measures in Bill C-4 that will support small businesses across Canada.

Bill C-4 increases and indexes to inflation the lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only will increasing the exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 make investing in small businesses more attractive, it will make it easier for entrepreneurs of today to transfer their family businesses to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

Our government also wants to ensure that the value of this exemption is preserved over time. That is why Bill C-4 will index the exemption to inflation for the first time ever. Overall, this will provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15.

However, there are still more measures in Bill C-4 that support Canadian job creators.

Bill C-4 provides tax relief to encourage more businesses to invest in clean energy generation, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance.

The message is simple: keeping taxes low helps attract investment, allows our businesses to expand their operations and to hire more workers. It also helps Canadian families keep more money in their pockets. At the end of the day, Canadians know best how to spend their hard-earned money.

How can we keep taxes low if people are gaming the system and exploiting tax loopholes? Our government does not think it is fair when a select few businesses and individuals avoid paying their fair share. That is why economic action plan 2013 introduces a number of measures to close tax loopholes and address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

When it comes to closing tax loopholes, our record speaks for itself. Since 2006, including measures in economic plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. Bill C-4 includes some of these measures, such as eliminating the unintended tax benefits from character conversion transactions and 10/8 arrangements. It also includes a number of measures to strengthen the ability of the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, to crack down on tax cheats and combat international tax evasion.

Overall, the actions in economic action plan 2013 to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system will provide about $350 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to over $1.2 billion 2017-18, for a total of $4.4 billion over the next five years.

Protecting Canada's tax base is essential, as Canadians need to have confidence in their tax system. They need to know it is fair.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP do not seem to share this view. While our government has worked hard to close over 75 tax loopholes, the NDP and Liberals have voted against each of these measures each and every time. I have to ask what the NDP and Liberals have against closing tax loopholes.

However, there is no reason to worry. While the Liberals and NDP work to protect these tax loopholes, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have a fair and neutral tax system that keeps everyone on a level playing field. Indeed, Canadians can rest assured that our government will continue to take action to close loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Our government is also taking steps to crack down on those who are trying to defraud taxpayers. It has come to the attention of the CRA that certain retailers have been using electronic sales suppression software, also known as “zappers”, to selectively delete or modify sales transactions in their computer systems. By engaging in this practice, certain taxpayers are avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes. That is why Bill C-4 introduced new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to target those who use, manufacture or possess this type of software.

The Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association welcomed this, saying:

These measures appropriately target the producers, installers, and users of sales-distorting software, while supporting the competitiveness of Canada's hard-working small business community, among them 81,000 restaurants, the vast majority of which pay their taxes and operate in full transparency.

It is important that our government crack down on these types of activities. When some businesses cheat, everyone loses, but when everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share, we can keep taxes low.

On that note, I would like to quickly conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the opposition will support these measures and Bill C-4. It is clear that these measures will help grow Canada's economy and will create jobs for Canadians. If the opposition members decide to oppose these measures, as they have done so many times in the past, I hope, at the very least, that they will stop advocating for high taxes.

I must admit that I was very sad to hear just last week that the leader of the NDP confirmed that he would impose a crippling tax hike on job creators, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy.

The simple fact remains that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. Thankfully, our Conservative government understands that low taxes promote economic growth and job creation.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

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 third time and passed.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I do not think that my answer will really matter.

It is a very hypothetical question because it is not going to be divided. I would have preferred removing the two little clauses about the Supreme Court of Canada from Bill C-4, but that did not happen. There is a difference between the real situation and what I would have wanted to see or what would have been natural to expect.

Are there parts that are easier to pass than others? As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am going to leave it up to the experts in aboriginal rights and devolution or transfer between a territory and the federal government. Perhaps these matters will also be raised in committee.

Furthermore, we go through these different stages to try to find the best ways of passing provisions that make sense, that remedy a certain situation and do so properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is truly an excellent question from my esteemed colleague.

I am going to make a sad observation about the implementation of the budget, about Bill C-4, which we studied in committee.

Unfortunately, we had to review, examine and vote on 472 clauses. The opposition parties introduced over 60 proposed amendments to that bill, and they were systematically voted down.

That is not even to mention the government's particularly underhanded trick of amending the rules in committee to allow independent members to submit their proposed amendments to the committee instead of here in the House. That showed a lack of respect and it reduced the powers of independent members. Those powers are widely recognized and have been in effect for a very long time.

The government respects virtually nothing, and that completely undermines our trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-15. It is a major piece of legislation, in terms of both its size and its implications for the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I would like to point out to the House that the residents of the Northwest Territories have been trying for a very long time to acquire powers that are similar to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. Their quest is entirely legitimate considering that the Northwest Territories have been part of Canada for a long time and that they are contributing more and more to our country’s social and economic sphere, not to mention the fact that, from a geographical point of view, they occupy a huge space, a very large area.

For a long time now, the New Democratic Party has been in favour of enhanced status for the Northwest Territories that will allow them to move forward. With an adequate transfer of powers, they will be able to make progress in taking control of their destiny. Above all, we must recognize that it is entirely normal, legitimate and desirable that the residents of the Northwest Territories should have control over their future. After all, they are in the best position to understand the repercussions of decisions. They are living in their reality and experiencing the problems relating to their territory and their lifestyle, as well as any changes that occur. Things are changing very rapidly in that part of Canada. They can therefore make enlightened decisions that can help them meet the challenges of the modern world, and they can do so more quickly as well.

Of course, the NDP really wants to make sure that we meet their expectations and that we meet them completely and respectfully. In talking about respect, it is not enough merely for us to enact legislation or amend a range of different laws, because a great many laws are affected by this bill. We must also listen to the various groups that make up the society of the Northwest Territories. There are many different nations located in this huge territory. In the Northwest Territories, these groups face realities that are really very different.

This brings me to one very specific element of Bill C-15. The bill replaces the Northwest Territories Act. In addition, it affects the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and it amends other legislation such as the Territorial Lands Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act. I would like to take this opportunity to speak primarily about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Our work on the Standing Committee on Finance involved the consideration of another omnibus bill, the enormous Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Of course, the omnibus aspect of the bill meant that we were again faced with a catch-all bill containing amendments to legislation ranging from the Supreme Court Act to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as to the law governing labour relations in the public service of Canada.

This bill was a disgrace, and the part that involved the Mackenzie Valley really dealt with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act. This is a very specific issue, one that is much narrower than the amendments made to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In reality, the new Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act is a marketing campaign by the government. The idea of having financial resources set aside in order to mitigate the impact of the development of the Mackenzie gas project is not something new. It has been around for a long time.

Canada already had the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act. It was passed in 2006, was most recently amended in 2011 and is still in effect.

The people of the Northwest Territories and the first nations have many concerns about this gas project. It has been in the background for a number of years but has still not been implemented, and we still do not have any real idea about when it will get going.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Finance has not heard from very many witnesses about the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, despite the many hours that have been spent on Bill C-4 over the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, the committee has been able to devote only a few minutes and direct only a few questions to witnesses who are directly involved in the issue.

This is really shameful because the government, in a particularly underhanded way, hid, kept secret and failed to disclose this amendment, which should have been examined separately by the committee that was the most directly concerned, instead of being buried in the omnibus bill sent before the Standing Committee on Finance. That is really a shame.

Basically, it is a sign of contempt for the people of the Northwest Territories. Once we have completed our debates in the House at second reading and we are able to consider Bill C-15 in greater depth in committee, I hope that the government will show a great deal more respect than it did to the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to Bill C-4.

Several years ago, the Prime Minister asked the opposition parties to make suggestions and put forward ideas concerning our shared future. However, every single one of the ideas and suggestions put forward by the New Democratic Party were voted down by the Conservative members on the committee.

Were it not for the fact that Bill C-4 as a whole will have such serious, and even critical consequences, I admit that we might have laughed about the situation. It was almost comical to see my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance putting their hands up automatically.

Unfortunately, these are very serious matters. The new bill concerning the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund, that was hidden in the middle of the omnibus bill, Bill C-4, has finally been passed, even though no serious consideration has been given to it and even though there has been no consultation with those who are most directly concerned.

In addition to making proposals, as an opposition party, we tried to block the passage of six clauses in Bill C-4 that pertained directly to the Mackenzie gas project. These were clauses 282 to 287. We put forward a motion on each clause, that each one of them be deleted, considering the fact that it was completely impossible to thoroughly study the bill separately from the omnibus bill.

It is very sad that we have reached this point. The government is acting completely unilaterally and is paying no attention to any other opinions. I am not even talking about dissenting opinions; I am talking about reasonable accommodations for matters that should have been discussed and negotiated.

I must admit that Conservative government members sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance and other committees have, on rare occasions, agreed to certain minor concessions, in fact common sense suggestions. Many other common sense proposals were systematically rejected because they were not the government’s ideas, which is truly lamentable. After all, both Conservative Party members and those of the other parties represent all Canadians. Consequently, we should respect each other and the various realities and great diversity of opinion among the people of this country. It is utterly unacceptable for a party, particularly one that holds a majority, to turn a deaf ear, to refuse to listen to reason, to refuse even to hear the merits of an idea and to refuse to discuss ideas that will have an impact on thousands of people.

Coming back to Bill C-15 as a whole, I have done everything in my power to shed light on the measures that will unfortunately be adopted without any consideration for the needs and fears of the people of the Northwest Territories. There is nevertheless something positive in all this, and that is why we will support this lengthy bill at second reading. The Northwest Territories are currently governed by a constitution, by specific statutes that restrict its powers relative to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. They obviously limit the power of the Government of Northwest Territories over resources, lands and water and revenue collection. A large portion of the revenue of the Government of the Northwest Territories obviously comes from federal government transfer payments.

This agreement is linked to the resources developed and revenues derived from those territories. Although it holds out some semblance of justice, it does not enable the Government of the Northwest Territories to collect its own revenue, at least not completely, and thus to enjoy the freedom and dignity associated with that responsibility and with the consequences of making decisions with respect to its development and the welfare of its population. That will be a major challenge. That is why I have focused on a very specific aspect of this bill.

The enactment of Bill C-15 will result in amendments to 42 different acts. That is a vast legislative field. It is quite extraordinary that we have ultimately wound up with this bill. Once again, I hope that the government will seriously consider discussing this matter in committee with all parties concerned and especially that it will agree to hear, consider and respect the witnesses’ opinions on the subject of this major change to the destiny of the Northwest Territories. I have previously said so, and we made a distressing observation.

I had the honour to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights together with my colleague, our justice critic, and we had some success. However, we also saw the government close its mind completely. We found ourselves facing a very high wall. The government stuck to its position and especially abused its majority. It did not take advantage of its majority; it simply abused it in order to impose its ideas and its version of the facts.

It is entirely valid for someone to have a precise idea about a matter and to defend that idea. I will always respect that in my Conservative colleagues. However, Canada is far too big and diverse a country and has too many aboriginal nations on its land for the government to operate in isolation and to impose its will.

I am not saying that amendments to Bill C-15 are absolutely necessary. However, it would be tragic if our study led us to make amendments that were subsequently disregarded. It is normal for there to be inconsistencies. That is no one's fault; it happens in the normal course of affairs. This is an extraordinary bill, and, as is the case of any extraordinary and far-reaching bill, it is very hard to achieve perfection.

Let us hope the government will be willing to hear the other objections that are made and especially that it will consider the basic needs of the population and representatives of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and of the tribal councils, which work very hard and must bear heavy responsibility for the welfare of their communities.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking the House staff, you, and all members of the House for indulging Tuesday night in going through 284 virtually identical amendments from the opposition with regard to that budget implementation bill, all of which simply required deletion. Fortunately, those were reduced by the Speaker to some 16 to make the process more manageable. That did help us to advance the process, notwithstanding the clear efforts by the opposition to obstruct at every stage our very important economic action measures for the benefit of Canada's economy, for job creation, and economic growth for Canadians.

First let me thank all parties in the House for their co-operation on that. This afternoon we will continue and finish the second reading debate on Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act. If we wrap it up before 5:30 p.m., we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-11, Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act.

Today, all parties in the House worked together to pass—at all stages—Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act. Perhaps this is a sign of the Christmas spirit spreading throughout the parliamentary precinct. I hope it will continue into tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.

As I told the House on Tuesday, the budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures that our government has advanced. Unfortunately, once again we find the NDP opposing it, despite such things as the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which has the potential to benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many thousands of employees they might hire into the future. That is something the NDP is voting against. We think it is important that it be put in place right away.

Monday will be the final allotted day of the autumn, which will see us consider a proposal from the New Democratic Party, followed by the supplementary estimates and a supply bill.

During the remaining time available to us next week, I hope to see the House adopt second reading of Bill C-15, if that does not happen today; second reading of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-8, the combatting counterfeit products act, which was reported back from the hard-working industry committee this morning.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to squeeze in two questions to the minister in response to Bill C-15.

The first question is that I am confused by the fact that in Bill C-4, which was an omnibus budget bill, we incorporated a change that would have more properly been done here—the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act, which allows the minister to have complete discretion as to how the funds are used, as opposed to the previous way they were used.

This relates to my next question, which is this. Admittedly the Northwest Territories has a complex jurisdictional framework. Anyone who participated in the Mackenzie gas pipeline hearings is aware of the multiple levels of jurisdiction. However, the regional boards that were established, and which are being conflated through this act, were set up in relation to land claims agreements and were to stay in place until all land claims agreements were resolved. With land claims agreements still outstanding in the area, was it appropriate to devolve and reduce the number of boards? It is fine to say it makes the Northwest Territories more competitive, but what does it say about the consistency with agreements with the federal Crown and various complex regional organizations?