Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, our government has actually lowered taxes more than 150 times since coming into office. The average family of four pays $3,200 less in tax each year. That means they have $3,200 in their pockets to spend where they like to spend it, on their families.

I encourage the members opposite to get on board. We lowered the GST. We are lowering taxes on Canadians. We will continue to do that so we can make sure Canadians are successful.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech. I found it very interesting. I want to know what the member would like to tell us about the gas tax fund, how important that is to Canadians and how well received it is from coast to coast.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, infrastructure in our country is essential to making sure we can actually grow our economy. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, we have learned first hand from investments in infrastructure how valuable that is, and that is because of the opportunity for the municipalities in my riding to have access to the funds through the gas tax.

The mayors in my riding, whether they be from Springwater township, Wasaga Beach, Collingwood or the Township of New Tecumseth, all appreciate what our government has done in creating the gas tax and making it permanent so that infrastructure opportunities are available in their local communities.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about family. However, we know that Bill C-60 contains nothing to reduce household debt, which is estimated at 167% of disposable income.

I would like to know how someone can plan for a decent retirement by working an hour away from home at what might be 70% of their salary.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, our government has created a number of tax savings options, whether it be the TFSA, which I think is an excellent tool for Canadians to save and then be able to access their funds, or whether that be lowering taxes so Canadians actually have the money in their own pockets and can make their own decisions with respect to it. It is $3,200 for a family of four. I think that is exceptionally meaningful. We will continue on that track of a low-tax plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary said they are lowering taxes, she made reference to pockets. What we need to recognize is that a tax is a tax. If they start charging people money to park in a parking lot at a hospital, or charging money as a tariff, that is all money coming into the government's pocket.

Yes, in the other pocket, they might be lowering some of the taxes, but when we net it out and ask how much tax the government has collected versus how much it has cut back or given back to citizens, we will find that the government has actually increased taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars over the last few years. That is the reality. The Conservatives might want to say this is a government that does not believe in taxing people, but in fact the opposite is true.

The reality is that the government has more taxes today and is charging more tax today than it has in the last few years. It continues to grow, just in a different form. The Conservatives need to recognize that.

It is about the economy. Canadians are concerned about our economy. Quite often, we find individuals who have been let go from the manufacturing industry, let us say for the sake of argument, where they were being paid a reasonably well-deserved salary of $30 an hour. These people find themselves unemployed and, more often than not, we see that they have to readjust. Part of that readjustment often leads to a lower wage.

In fact, the gap between the rich and the middle class is widening. The rich have been able to become richer under the Conservative regime. It is the middle class on whom we need to spend a little bit more time. We appeal to the Minister of Finance to start focusing more on the middle class here in Canada and the types of issue it has to deal with. Those issues may be personal debt, housing or adjusting to the new working environment. That is where the government needs to put a higher priority.

We talked about overall performance, one of the things we really need to be concerned about. I remember a number of years ago, before the Conservatives were in government, back in 2005 or 2006, that we had a huge trade surplus of billions of dollars. When the Conservative government took the reins of power, it took the surplus that was there through the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin eras and turned it into a deficit.

What is more, the Conservatives like to think they are great traders. The Prime Minister goes to China and brings back a couple of panda bears. Let us contrast that to when former prime minister Jean Chrétien went to China with a team-Canada approach and brought back literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. It is a different way of governing. The past has shown that the Liberal Party did exceptionally well in terms of managing the economy. I believe Canadians are starting to recognize that.

The reason the banking industry is doing as well as it is today, which has been pointed out even by Conservative members, is because of good, smart decisions when Jean Chrétien was the prime minister. At the time, we went against what the world was doing in terms of deregulation. We believed we needed to have the status quo in terms of banking back in the 1990s. That was not a popular decision back then, but it was an important decision, and the government today has seen the benefits of that.

One of the first actions the government took in regard to the banking industry was to increase mortgages from 25 years to 40 years.

We addressed the issue in the House, expressed the concerns we had and demonstrated that it was a bad policy. The government had to flip-flop on its position. We applaud the government for changing and reducing it back down to 25 years.

Canadians have priority issues. Is the government really listening? Health care is an important issue from coast to coast to coast. Canadians love and appreciate the health care system we have today. What have we seen from the Prime Minister?

Leaders before him expressed concerns and took action. Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought in the Canada Health Act. He recognized the five fundamental principles of health care, which Canadians believe in today.

It was Jean Chrétien who established a base of health care transfers; in other words, cash going to the provinces. It was that prime minister who stopped the tax point shift, where provinces were shifting their reliance from cash to tax points. That would not have been good for the longevity of health care in Canada. It would have taken more of the federal government's responsibility out of Ottawa and put it into different regions of the country. We believe in a national health care program. That is why Jean Chrétien took that action.

When Paul Martin was prime minister, we negotiated the health care accord. When Conservative members stand in their place and say their government gives more toward health care than any other government, that is because of Paul Martin and the health care accord that was achieved prior to the Conservatives taking office.

That was a commitment, and we have demonstrated that commitment through different prime ministers in terms of what we believe in with respect to health care. We know it is a high priority for all Canadians.

What has the Conservative government done? The Prime Minister has not even met with the 10 premiers. He has said he will meet with them one on one. If the Prime Minister believes in health care and believes in the important issues Canadians have to face today, then he needs to do a lot more than just pick up the phone and talk to one premier here and one premier there. We need leadership.

A first ministers' conference needs to be held in Ottawa, my home city of Winnipeg or any other jurisdiction. The point is that the Prime Minister needs to sit at the head of the table and work with the different stakeholders, in particular the premiers, working out some agreements that are absolutely critical to Canada's future. He needs to deal with issues like the social health care accord that needs to be renewed. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to tell the provinces to trust him, that the government will continue to give annual increases. That does not cut it. It is an issue of priorities. What are the government's priorities?

I have seen absolutely no hesitation with respect to money heading over to the department responsible for advertising. Advertising costs have gone through the roof. There is no doubt that all political parties advertise, but their advertisements are not as partisan as those put out by the Conservative government. We have huge student unemployment. We could hire 30-plus students for summer jobs with one 30-second ad on this so-called economic action plan.

The Conservative government spends an enormous amount of tax dollars in areas in which it is not necessary. At a time when the Conservative government is cutting back on the civil service, it has decided to have more members of Parliament. The government had a choice. It chose to have more elected members of Parliament as a priority and cut back on the size of the civil service. What kind of priority is that? The residents of Winnipeg North do not want the Minister of Finance to create more members of Parliament at a time when the Conservatives are cutting back on civil servants. It does not make any sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Conservative members appreciated that trip down memory lane where we got to learn about the Liberal government.

For 13 long years Canadians had a Liberal government. Then the Liberals went from a majority on that side of the House, down to a minority official opposition, down to the window seats at the end because they lost the trust of Canadians.

The member talked about health care. One of the things the Liberals did was cut $25 billion in health care transfers to the provinces. They downloaded those tax cuts onto the provinces.

Perhaps the member could explain for Canadians how they were so wonderful for the health care system when Canadians rejected that government, rejected its cuts to the program and indeed looked forward to our agenda at the end of this decade where we had $40 billion in health care transfers, the greatest amount ever transferred to the provinces for health care.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member makes reference to the social transfer cuts. When those cuts were made, it was the current Prime Minister who said that the government of the day did not go far enough, that the cuts should have gone deeper. We always have to put things into perspective of time. That is the same administration that provided the current government its budget surplus.

There are many different policies throughout those 13 years that improved the quality of life for all Canadians, that gave people a reason to be optimistic that there was a government that had a national dream of being able to fulfill programming, of being able to deliver real economic opportunities and making a far greater contribution than the current government has.

The member needs to reflect. If he wants to compare the 13 years of Liberal administration versus the 7 years of Conservative administration, I would welcome the opportunity to do that comparison at any time. We might have to get leave in order to facilitate the time necessary for us to give just explanation in the details that would be required.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised, stunned actually, by the member for Winnipeg North's lack of memory. I lived through the Liberal regime. What we saw was massive slashing in health care funding and closed hospitals right across the country.

For the first time, we saw thousands of homeless people because the Liberals destroyed the national housing program. We continue today to be the only country in the G20 that does not have a national housing program.

We had the corruption and scandals of the sponsorship program. We saw, repeatedly, a government that was arrogant and simply ignored the needs of ordinary working families.

I do not know what planet the member for Winnipeg North was on during the Liberal regime. I can tell members, from an ordinary Canadian's perspective, it certainly was one of the worst periods in Canadian history. Tragically, it has been maintained and enhanced by the Conservative government.

The member did not actually speak to the budget document at all, but I want to speak to him about Investment Canada. Under the Liberals, every potential takeover was rubber-stamped. The Liberal leader supported the takeover of Nexen by CNOOC.

Do the Liberals also support all of the exemptions that the Conservatives are bringing in under Investment Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that the member would take that sort of attitude. All we really need to do is reflect in terms of the absolute and total incompetence of the administration of health care under the NDP administration in the province of Manitoba.

If we want to talk about where money is wasted, take a look at the regional health care authorities that the Government of Manitoba, the NDP administration, funnels. The largest increases in health care today in the province of Manitoba are through regional bureaucracy.

The New Democratic Party in government talked about getting rid of waiting times, waiting lists, getting people out of the hallways in emergencies and did nothing. It absolutely failed in being able to materialize on that.

The Liberals do not need to take any lessons at all from the New Democrats in terms of delivering health care, because the Liberal Party's record is far greater—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise tonight in support of Bill C-60, the budget implementation act.

It is important to begin with a level set, and that is that our government thrives on three foundational principles: job creation, economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians. That has been reinforced over the past couple of years, with 900,000 net new jobs established since the recession. Since taking office, our government has lowered taxes 150 times and reduced taxes for families by an average of $3,200 per Canadian family. Those are significant numbers because they speak to Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their own pockets to save and spend as they choose, not as government dictates.

In economic action plan 2013, we are introducing tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors for an additional two years, to include investment in eligible equipment in 2014 and 2015. This will result in $562 million in tax relief to create jobs and grow companies. As a former business person in small and medium-sized businesses, I understand what it takes to establish savings in businesses to allow them to reinvest in equipment, plant and people. This measure is all about that.

I would like to quote the Ontario Liberal minister of finance, Charles Sousa, who stated, “I welcome the opportunity accelerate the capitalization and depreciation of some of their capital spend. That is going to provide further incentive for those investments. What is going to be positive is that we'll have more investment and, of course, for Ontario, we're the largest manufacturing sector in Canada. This is welcome news”.

In my riding of Don Valley West, in the heart of Ontario, that is an important factor and it is interesting to hear that from the provincial finance minister as validation of that measure.

Through economic action plan 2013, we are also closing tax loopholes, which would reinforce the integrity of our tax system. This is an important measure because it would help in our focus to balancing the budget and keeping taxes low for Canadians. We have heard lots of debate on this issue over the past day or so. Closing tax loopholes, while inconvenient to some, is important in helping to achieve our overall goals.

Supporting small Canadian business is something that economic action plan 2013 takes very seriously. We have proposed a number of key measures to support business, including extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. Approximately 560,000 small businesses will benefit from this measure, allowing them to reinvest approximately $225 million in 2013.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000, from $750,000, in 2014 and indexing it going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the rewards of investing in small businesses and making it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation of Canadians.

In Canada, in excess of 90% of businesses are small or medium sized. Often, they are family owned and operated and succession is an important part of what they thrive on. Families like to see their businesses maintained by their families so their families can prosper and the next generations can also grow and develop under that culture. This initiative, the lifetime capital gains exemption, would help to ensure that value is maintained.

Under our government's low-tax plan for Canada, typical small businesses with taxable incomes of $500,000 have seen their tax bills drop by over 34%, or $28,600, since we were elected in 2006. There are lower corporate income taxes. In fact, in Canada today under the finance minister, we have the lowest corporate income taxes in the OECD. That is a further incentive and opportunity for businesses to thrive and prosper.

Again, I would like to read from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the CFIB, which states, “There is a surprising number of measures for small and medium-sized companies in this particular budget. They have expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That is very good news. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs. The accelerated CCA will help not just large companies but small, especially in the manufacturing sector, and we think the Canada job grant actually has some real potential”.

The CFIB is a voice for small business in our country. I know, as a business person, we had a lot of respect for it in our business. I often spoke to it to find out the pulse of small business and how it felt about the economy and its businesses.

I spent a lot of time talking with small businesses as a member of the industry committee. I welcome our government's efforts to promote small Canadian business. Our government values the contribution of small businesses to the success of the Canadian economy. We will continue to support and encourage growth in this important sector.

Another area we have talked about today and have heard quite a bit about is the Canada job grant. I held a business round table in my riding of Don Valley West just this past Friday. I had a number of very successful business people come to that breakfast to talk about what they felt was a wonderful opportunity in the Canada job grant in to help to train and develop new workers and to help existing workers improve their skill sets.

The Canada job grant itself is a partnership between the federal and provincial governments and the particular business. It is important to have that partnership in place where businesses will partner with government to ensure they have a stake in getting that employee retrained.

At its full implementation, we will see 130,000 Canadian workers who need to find work to improve their skills access to that training each year. We have heard a lot of points of interest today on the Canada job grant being advertised. However, the reality is that this government, under our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance, is delivering incentives to cause businesses to help develop their people to make them longer term, better employees by helping them increase their skill sets.

A number of consultations will be held across the country to discuss the development of the Canada job grant. I mentioned mine last week where my constituents were blown away by the program and stressed the importance of the Canada job grant being advertised, particularly so it would reach high school students. It is interesting that we are talking about whether the advertising is premature or not. People in my riding are saying that we have to get the word out to high school and university students so as soon as they graduate, they know there is an opportunity for them and companies are willing to invest in their development.

The new building Canada plan makes investments into Canada's public infrastructure to create jobs, economic growth and provide a high quality life for families in every city and community across the country. The new building Canada plan has three foundational principles.

First is the community improvement fund, which is a $32 billion infrastructure investment focused on municipalities. This will build roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other pieces of community infrastructure across Canada that will improve the quality of life of Canadian families.

Second, the new building Canada fund will contribute $14 billion in support of major economic infrastructure, projects that have national and regional significance.

Third is the renewed P3 Canada fund, which is $1.25 billion to continue finding innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and provide better value for Canadian taxpayers through public-private partnerships.

These are just a few of the opportunities in budget 2013, the economic action plan. I encourage the opposition to get on side. Let us get this voted through as soon as possible so these initiatives can be put into place for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Don Valley West, and I have to say that he raised a number of topics related to the economy that we could debate. That is even the purpose of tonight's debate.

Why does the government not make a budget bill, instead of an omnibus bill that includes all kinds of things that they refuse to talk about tonight?

For example, no one has been able to explain to me how the President of the Treasury Board's interference in negotiations at crown corporations can help our economy. There are many more examples, such as issues related to citizenship, the merger of CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and so on.

Why does the government never talk about the 50 acts that were slipped into this budget implementation bill? Why are government members suddenly talking only about infrastructure and a few topics that would ultimately be worth debating?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking to the budget bill, because we are trying to get it passed. It is very simple and straightforward.

The member opposite asked why the President of the Treasury Board is paying attention to investments in crown corporations. That is taxpayer money, and it is significant taxpayer money. As a business manager, when I manage my own business and I look at what the President of the Treasury Board has under his direct responsibility, yes, we should be paying attention to crown corporations. We should know where we are investing taxpayer dollars and ensure that they are being well invested and well cared for.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise a few points and ask my colleague from Don Valley West if he would take them back to the business round table he struck in his riding some time ago and ask the people there how they might react.

I am not sure if he has informed his business round table that the government has spent just over $600 million in advertising in the last six years. It spent $29 million to produce and put up 9,000 billboards. It has even begun advertising, which has never been seen in Canadian history, for programs that do not exist, training programs that have not even been negotiated with the provinces.

How would the member justify this to his business round table members? Could he actually look a small-business owner in the eye and justify this kind of expenditure, when we know, for example, that tonight, during playoff hockey, the government is spending just under $100,000 for every 30-second advertisement? That would buy 14 insulin pumps for needy Canadians with diabetes or would produce 40 summer jobs for unemployed students. Can the member explain to the owners of small and medium-sized businesses in his riding how this has come to be?

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

Mr. Speaker, we had a very robust discussion in that round table. The participants wanted to understand more about government funding and the number of different initiatives that are presented within this budget. I was able to address many of them, the Canada job grant being one. It would be a tremendous incentive to businesses to train and develop someone. I have been a business person. I understand what it costs to train somebody new or to help redevelop existing employees to increase their skill sets. I understand that the Canada job grant would clearly provide the tools to help get that accomplished. Therefore, it is being advertised today. It is not there, because we have not passed the bill, but it is soon to be.

To the member opposite's position on the cost of advertising, we know that while we are spending a lot of money, we are still spending 40% less than that party spent in its last year of operations. Our money is being well spent. We are spending it responsibly. I thank the member for his question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise today on Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no.1.

As we know, Canada's economic action plan is working. Just this past Friday, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada positively revised its economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 up from 0.6% to 0.9%. This is the seventh straight quarter of positive growth in Canada, which is another sign that our economy is on the right track. Additionally, of the over 900,000-plus net new jobs created in Canada since the depth of the global recession, over 90% are full-time, and nearly 75% are in the private sector, which represents the best job-growth record in the entire G7.

Bill C-60 includes a number of measures that were in the economic action plan. They include reforms to the temporary foreign worker program that would ensure that Canadians are always given the first crack at available jobs. It would introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. We have reaffirmed our government's plan to proceed with the sale of Ridley Terminals in British Columbia. We would formally establish the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to better align Canada's foreign diplomacy, trade and development efforts. We would improve benefits for Canadian veterans through changes to the war veterans allowance, which would result in over 3,100 veterans being eligible for this allowance for the first time. In addition, an estimated 5,350 veterans and survivors would benefit from the change. We would support high-quality value-added jobs in important sectors of the Canadian economy, such as manufacturing, by providing tax relief for new investments in manufacturing equipment. We would provide better support for job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada by indexing the gas tax fund and would keep taxes low for hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses.

I want to expand on a few items I just mentioned as well as some additional items in Bill C-60.

The adoption expense tax credit is a great measure included in Bill C-60. It would better recognize the costs associated with the adoption process.

I am the father of an eight-year-old son, and it is a privilege for my wife and I to raise him. There are many others in this country who have chosen to expand their families through adoption. I think of my own family and friends who have done that. I think of the member for Essex, who has been a national leader on the importance of adoption and the recognition of the expenses families incur when they choose to make that addition. No value can be placed on what a new child brings to each family, but we want to make sure that we recognize the costs earlier in the process. This would be a great measure that would apply to adoptions finalized after 2012.

The first-time donor super credit is something we would bring in to encourage young Canadians, primarily, and those who have not given before to a non-profit organization, to do so.

I think of some of the great local charities in my riding of Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, such as the Meadow Rose Society, which provides care for single moms in low-income families who do not have the necessities, such as formula and diapers, to provide for their young babies. Some of us may take these for granted, but they represent a significant cost. The Meadow Rose Society is there to help those moms in Chilliwack. This is an example of an organization that people who have not given before may want to use that first-time super credit for. They would get a little extra bang for their buck when they made that donation.

Another opportunity in Chilliwack is the Ruth and Naomi Foundation, which helps the homeless and the at-risk homeless in Chilliwack by providing them with a place to sleep and a warm meal. It is supported by local churches and organizations across the spectrum in Chilliwack. It is another great charity that would benefit from this super credit.

I wanted talk about something else near and dear to the people of Chilliwack. A number of veterans have chosen to make their homes in my community, in large part because CFB Chilliwack was a place people used to come through for their basic training. Unfortunately, CFB Chilliwack was closed during the decade of darkness in the 90s under the Liberal government. However, a number of veterans have returned at the end of their military careers to make Chilliwack home. That is why I was pleased to see that Bill C-60 would include tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers deployed on international missions. It would streamline the process for approving tax relief for those members who are deployed on international moderate-risk missions.

There are a number of veterans in my own family. Both my grandfathers served, one in the air force and one in the navy. I have a cousin who returned last year from a tour in Afghanistan, so this is an issue that hits close to home for me. That is why I was pleased that we would be improving veterans' benefits for low-income veterans of both the Second World War and the Korean War as well as their survivors.

We would provide assistance to additional veterans and their survivors. Under the current program, a veteran's total calculated income includes a disability pension provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. That pension is automatically deducted from the amount of benefits available to veterans and survivors under the war veterans allowance. Under the proposed amendments, to better assist those veterans who have served their country, the government would no longer take the disability pension into account when determining eligibility and calculating benefits under the war veterans allowance program.

Improving services for veterans is part of the pattern of our government. In the main budget, we doubled the amount available to the Last Post Fund. We have streamlined the veterans independence program to provide benefits directly to recipients of that program. Also, we have recently invested and promoted the helmets to hard hats program. That is just one more measure we have included in this recent budget.

I was at Hope Secondary School in Hope, B. C. this weekend and spoke to the graduating class there. It is a diverse community. There were a number of first nations graduates at Hope Secondary School. That is why I was pleased to see in the bill that we would provide $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students. That is something that would be welcome news to the over 30 first nations in my riding and the over 10,000 individuals in my riding who are first nations.

I was speaking with Chief Robert Hope of the Yale First Nation at that graduation. He had two members from his first nation graduating there. I could see the pride he had on seeing those folks walk across the stage to get their diplomas.

Our economic action plan is working. We have had record numbers of jobs since the depths of the recession. We have cut taxes over 150 times, resulting in savings of over $3,000 for the average Canadian family of four. We continue to have the best banking sector in the world. We continue to lead the industrial world in economic growth.

Our economic action plan is working, and that is why I would ask all members of the House to support Bill C-60 so that we can continue to promote an economic plan that is working for Canadians.

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

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

I am pleased to ask him a question today about an issue that I raised earlier in my speech, namely the tariffs on hundreds, if not thousands, of goods entering Canada. Tariffs are going up.

My question is simple: when a company increases its tariffs, whom does that affect? Who will absorb those costs, the consumers or the company? Does he think that consumers should pay the extra $8 billion that these tariff increases will cost?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the youngest member in this House, and I am youngest member from British Columbia. This tariff regime we are talking about has not been changed since 1974, and that is 4 years before I was born and probably 14 years before the hon. member was born.

I think it is time we recognized that those economies the tariffs were designed to help, economies like China and India, have grown up a lot since 1974, as have we. For developing nations, this was a form of foreign aid.

We no longer need to provide those extra breaks to those countries. They are standing quite well on their own two feet. We should be looking to advantage Canadian manufacturers, Canadian businesses, and that is exactly what we would be doing with Bill C-60.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. member's comments with respect to how this budget would purportedly help veterans, and the measures that are in it with respect to the War Measures Act.

The member would undoubtedly know that those measures are a direct result of a five-year court battle that the government waged against disabled veterans. Those amendments should actually be called the “Manuge amendments”, because they are in the budget only because of Dennis Manuge.

While these amendments would stop the clawbacks as the court ordered, they would continue to claw back welfare payments, other payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, old age security payments and CPP payments. That is how far this would go. It would go only as far as the court said it had to.

The member stood and said he is proud of what this budget would do with respect to veterans in the last post fund; however two-thirds of all applications to the last post fund were rejected before this budget and would continue to be.

He talked about the investment in the helmets to hardhats program; however the Government of Canada's investment into the helmets to hardhats program is $100,000 to a website. That program is pretty much totally funded by private industry.

My question is for the member. Is he generally proud of what this budget would do for veterans, considering that all the changes in the budget with respect to veterans were forced on the government by the court in the Dennis Manuge case?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am proud of the steps we have taken for our veterans. It was the right decision to take, and we have committed the almost $800 million that that court case will cost Canadian taxpayers. That is something that has been implemented, and we are proud to bring it forward in this budget.

The question I have for the hon. member is whether he is proud of his government that sent our troops to Afghanistan with green uniforms, into a desert theatre. Is he proud of sending them there with Iltis jeeps? Is he proud of sending them there without the equipment they needed to do the job?

We stand up for our men and women in uniform while they are serving and after they leave the forces, and members can bet I am proud of that.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House to discuss and debate the issues of the day. I enjoying listening to the opinions of the members opposite, even though I do not always agree with them.

Every time I rise, I get a sense of déjà vu. Here we are, for the umpteenth time, debating an omnibus bill filled with measures that are in no way related to the government's fiscal policy. As with the other bills, our debate is subject to time allocation that was imposed by the government, of course.

The government likes to brag about its accomplishments and achievements, but it does not like to talk too much about its record-setting use of time allocation. Yes, these former Reformers who swept in from the west promising clean, open government and respect for the taxpayer have instead become what they professed to hate the most.

The scandals of the past month have proved this, complete with senators entitled to their entitlements, $90,000 worth of hush money and the Prime Minister doing his best to avoid answering the real questions.

Limiting debate and trying to run away from transparency is disturbing enough when it is done by trustworthy, competent managers, but it is much worse when it is done by a government that has proved itself to be as ethically lacking as this government has.

Once we wade through this massive document, we can see why the Conservatives would try to keep people from knowing what is in the budget. The bill contains many measures that concern many Canadians and have no place in a budget bill. A government that was confident in its ideas would simply introduce these measures as its own stand-alone pieces of legislation, instead of hiding them away in an omnibus bill.

Given that they have a majority in both chambers, we would think the Conservatives would have the confidence already, but a bill like the budget puts even that into question.

What are the Conservatives hiding in these bills?

Let us start with taxes. This budget contains hundreds of tax hikes on everything and anything, including hospital parking, bicycles, baby strollers, credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour-sponsored investment funds. These increases will cost Canadians almost $8 billion over the next five years. That is a lot of money for Canadians who are having trouble making ends meet. What is even worse is that the Conservatives are trying to hide these tax hikes in a huge bill.

Like many Quebeckers, I am a member of my local credit union. Credit unions provide important services and are active in our communities. Thus, I am personally affected by the changes that the Conservatives are proposing in this budget, which will increase taxes on these organizations and hinder their ability to compete with major banks.

The Conservatives and the Liberals have done enough to help major banks over the years. Every day in the business section of the newspapers, we read that banks are doing well and do not need the Conservatives to prevent credit unions from competing with them.

What else would Bill C-60 do? The bill would introduce changes that would allow the government to require a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by Treasury Board when entering a collective agreement with a union.

The Treasury Board could impose any requirement on a crown corporation respecting the terms and conditions of employment on its employees. No crown corporation that is subject to such a government order would be allowed to enter into a collective agreement without Treasury Board's approval, and the bill would also give power to the Treasury Board, on orders from the government, to fix the terms and conditions of employment for non-unionized employees.

The bill is a direct attack on the right to free collective bargaining, while also infringing on the independent arm's-length operation of these crown corporations.

Crown corporations have this independence for good reason, and the Conservatives know this, but in this case they have decided to simply ignore those reasons. This is a dangerous precedent that should concern Canadians of all walks of life.

In this bill, we also see that the government is continuing to take steps to create a securities commission without the consent of the provinces. Although the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have all said that they do not want the commission, the government plans to continue to fund an office whose sole objective is to try to make this happen.

NDP members urged the government to co-operate and to work more closely with the provinces on all types of issues. However, the Conservatives have systematically ignored their suggestion. Instead, they continue to use the “take it or leave it” approach, which has only led to failure in the past. The government must work with the provinces instead of burying such measures in an omnibus budget bill.

Speaking of lack of consultations, let us talk about how the bill would affect aboriginal peoples. We in the NDP have been calling on the Conservatives to make aboriginal issues a priority in this budget. Unfortunately, the budget fails to address the major challenges facing aboriginal peoples in Canada or help move Canadians toward a new relationship with aboriginal peoples.

We have a couple of stark examples of how the budget fails. The budget would provide, for instance, Indspire with $5 million in funding post-secondary scholarships and bursaries. On the surface, that sounds nice, but when we read the fine print of this initiative we see where the other shoe drops. In the budget it states that this money would be for students who are registered as Indians under the Indian Act and for Inuit students.

Indspire offers all aboriginal students funding, yet the government has deliberately left Metis and non-status students out in the cold. This was one of the few places were Metis and non-status students could get some federal government support for their post-secondary education, but the government would take that away.

To its credit, Indspire has stated that it will continue to offer funding to Metis and non-status students out of the money it raises itself, but the fact remains that the Conservative government would put Metis and non-status students at a further disadvantage than they already face.

In this budget, the Conservatives have also allocated funds to build 250 housing units in Nunavut over the next two years. That is a good thing for the people of Nunavut, and I have nothing against that, but there is a problem with this part of the budget.

According to Statistics Canada, overpopulation plagues my Nunavik constituents more than any other group of Canadians. Right now, they need 1,000 housing units. In 2012, over 90 cases of tuberculosis were reported in the region, and the epidemic has not let up. We know that tuberculosis develops in overcrowded dwellings.

Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to help the people of Nunavik. Worse still, when the president of the Makivik Corporation asked for a meeting with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to discuss the situation, his request was denied. The minister's chief of staff sent him a two-line note saying that the minister was very busy and would not be able to meet with him, as though the problem could wait.

Although the people of Nunavut are getting a little of the help they need, I want to emphasize that the people of Nunavik cannot even get a meeting with the minister, let alone any money to address this very serious crisis. This is unacceptable, and it is yet another example of how the government is shying away from the need to create a new relationship with Canada's aboriginals.

I could go on at length about this budget's shortcomings, but I know that my time is almost up. I will therefore conclude by saying that Canadians need to hear that their government is practising good governance. We are part of the G8, and we are a strong democracy that expects a lot from its elected representatives. When the Conservative government passes bad bills, like this omnibus bill, by using time allocation, it insults this country's democratic principles.

It is clear from the people's reactions to scandals associated with this government that these expectations have not gone away. People will not let their government try to hide all of this. These insults to democracy have prompted my colleagues and me to reject this bill because of its contents and the process used to pass it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an interesting speech in the sense that the member talked about the 100 or so pages of the budget being too long but then started listing a number of items that we wants to see in the budget. So what has become clear is that it is only too long because he does not actually approve of some of the items that are in there, but if we did have the things he approves of, then maybe it would not be too long.

Opposition members talk a lot about the process of the bill and I have been waiting all night and have asked constantly this same question. Can the NDP members point out what they would do? They keep talking about the fiscal responsibility, but what would they specifically do to bring the budget into balance, especially in light of the fact that they have said they would not cut spending? This leads me to believe the only way they could balance the budget would be through increasing taxes. However, they have the opportunity. They talk about limiting debate, yet not one speech tonight has given one concrete example of what they would do to cut and to balance the budget—

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

The F-35, the Senate; a hundred million bucks a year is wasted on your cronies.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'll accept the member from British Columbia screaming that they would eliminate the Senate. Okay, I will take their $90 million, but they still have a long way to go. So where are they going to do this and what piece of legislation have they brought forward with respect to the Senate, because I have not seen any of it?