Bill C-13 (Historical)

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures

Part 1 of this enactment implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the 2011 budget. Most notably, it
(a) introduces the family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependent relatives;
(b) introduces the children’s arts tax credit of up to $500 per child of eligible fees associated with children’s artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities;
(c) introduces a volunteer firefighters tax credit to allow eligible volunteer firefighters to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit based on an amount of $3,000;
(d) eliminates the rule that limits the number of claimants for the child tax credit to one per domestic establishment;
(e) removes the $10,000 limit on eligible expenses that can be claimed under the medical expense tax credit in respect of a dependent relative;
(f) increases the advance payment threshold for the Canada child tax benefit to $20 per month and for the GST/HST credit to $50 per quarter;
(g) aligns the notification requirements related to marital status changes for an individual who receives the Canada child tax benefit with the notification requirements for the GST/HST credit;
(h) reduces the minimum course-duration requirements for the tuition, education and textbook tax credits, and for educational assistance payments from registered education savings plans, that apply to students enrolled at foreign universities;
(i) allows the tuition tax credit to be claimed for eligible occupational, trade and professional examination fees;
(j) allows the reallocation of assets in registered education savings plans for siblings without incurring tax penalties;
(k) extends to the end of 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector;
(l) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment;
(m) extends eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year to flow-through share agreements entered into before March 31, 2012;
(n) expands the eligibility rules for qualifying environmental trusts;
(o) amends the deduction rates for intangible capital costs in the oil sands sector;
(p) aligns the tax treatment to investments made under the Agri-Québec program with that of investments under AgriInvest;
(q) introduces rules to strengthen the tax regime for charitable donations;
(r) introduces anti-avoidance rules for registered retirement savings plans and registered retirement income funds;
(s) introduces rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for individual pension plans;
(t) introduces rules to limit tax deferral opportunities for corporations with significant interests in partnerships;
(u) extends the tax on split income to capital gains realized by a minor child; and
(v) extends the dividend stop-loss rules to dividends deemed to be received on the redemption of shares held by certain corporations.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures and related measures. Most of these measures were referred to in the 2011 budget as previously announced measures. Most notably, it
(a) accommodates an increase in the annual contribution limit to the Saskatchewan Pension Plan and aligns its tax treatment with that of other tax-assisted retirement vehicles;
(b) clarifies that the “financially dependent” test applies for the purposes of provisions that permit rollovers of the assets of a deceased taxpayer’s registered retirement savings plan or registered retirement income fund to an infirm child or grandchild’s registered disability savings plan;
(c) ensures that the alternative minimum tax does not apply in respect of securities that are subject to the election under section 180.01 of the Income Tax Act;
(d) clarifies the rules applicable to the scholarship exemption for post-secondary scholarships, fellowships and bursaries; and
(e) amends the pension-to-registered retirement savings plan transfer limits in situations where the accrued pension amount was reduced due to the insolvency of the employer and underfunding of the employer’s registered pension plan.
Part 2 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to implement the softwood lumber ruling rendered by the London Court of International Arbitration on January 21, 2011.
Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff in order to simplify it and reduce the customs processing burden for Canadians by consolidating similar tariff items that have the same tariff rates and removing end-use provisions where appropriate. The amendments also simplify the structure of some provisions and remove obsolete provisions.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff to introduce new tariff items to facilitate the processing of low value non-commercial imports arriving by post or by courier.
Part 5 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to make the additional amount of a Canada Education Savings grant that is available under subsection 5(4) of that Act available to more than one of the beneficiary’s parents, if they share custody of the beneficiary, they are eligible individuals as defined in section 122.6 of the Income Tax Act and the beneficiary is a qualified dependant of each of them.
Part 6 amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act and a regulation made under that Act respecting payments relating to children under care.
Part 7 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide that the maximum aggregate amount of outstanding student loans is to be determined by regulation, to remove the power of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development to deny certificates of eligibility, and to change the limitation period for the Minister to take administrative measures. It also authorizes the Minister to forgive portions of family physicians’, nurses’ and nurse practitioners’ student loans if they begin to work in under-served rural or remote communities.
Part 7 also amends the Canada Student Loans Act to authorize the Minister to forgive portions of family physicians’, nurses’ and nurse practitioners’ guaranteed student loans if they begin to work in under-served rural or remote communities.
Part 8 amends Part IV of the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. An employer whose premiums were $10,000 or less in 2010 will be refunded the increase in 2011 premiums over those paid in 2010, to a maximum of $1,000.
Part 9 provides for payments to be made to provinces, territories, municipalities, First Nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements.
Part 10 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act so that funding for the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Part 11 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to extend in certain circumstances the period during which wages earned by individuals but not paid to them by their employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership may be the subject of a payment under that Act.
Part 12 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to repeal certain provisions that provide for mandatory retirement. It also amends the Canada Labour Code to repeal a provision that denies employees the right to severance pay for involuntary termination if they are entitled to a pension. Finally, it amends the Conflict of Interest Act.
Part 13 amends the Judges Act to permit the appointment of two additional judges to the Nunavut Court of Justice.
Part 14 provides for the retroactive coming into force of section 9 of the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act in order to ensure the validity of pension regulations made under that section.
Part 15 amends the Canada Pension Plan to include amounts received by an employee under an employer-funded disability plan in contributory salary and wages.
Part 16 amends the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to replace the reference to the Treasury Board Secretariat with a reference to the Chief Human Resources Officer in subsections 10(4) and 38.1(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Part 17 amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to include a definition of dependant and to provide express regulation-making authority for the provision of certain benefits in non-institutional locations.
Part 18 amends the Canada Elections Act to phase out quarterly allowances to registered parties.
Part 19 amends the Special Retirement Arrangements Act to permit the reservation of pension contributions from any benefit that is or becomes payable to a person. It also deems certain provisions of An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act to have come into force on December 14 or 15, 1994, as the case may be.
Part 20 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to allow residents of Canada to temporarily import a rental vehicle from the United States for up to 30 days, or for any other prescribed period, for non-commercial use. It also authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting imported rental vehicles, as well as their importation into and removal from Canada, and makes other changes to the Act.
Part 21 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify the legislative framework pertaining to payments under tax agreements entered into with provinces under Part III.1 of that Act.
Part 22 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the residency requirements of certain commissioners.

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the tax credit for caregivers and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an issue we have discussed quite a bit. By talking about the caregiver element of it, we can actually get to the nub of the issue by saying that if someone is providing a healthy amount of caregiving in his or her home, that is less time for the individual in the workplace.

My question surrounds this. There are two types of tax credits here to consider. There is one that is refundable and one that is non-refundable. An individual would get the non-refundable tax credit but that credit is income tested. A person must make above a certain amount of income to get the full realization of that benefit. If it is a refundable tax credit, an individual can receive the full amount. So if someone does not make any money, that person can still receive a cheque or refundable tax credit for the services provided. That goes just as well for volunteer firefighters but it is particularly acute for caregivers.

I am wondering why this is a particular non-refundable tax credit. Should it not be a refundable tax credit for the vulnerable?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that no good deed goes unpunished and I suppose that one could welcome great compliments for a tax credit that would encourage people to be liberated from their work at home and that would help families take care of an infirm person. One might therefore expect that members across the House would not only support that measure but support the act as they vote this evening, and I hope they will. However, sometimes there is a tendency in public life for us to look at the glass as being half empty rather than half full and to say that it was a good thing but wonder why we did not do an even better thing.

As our government tries to control deficits and debts, we will be looking at these tax credits and other measures that would encourage Canadians to do the right thing to strengthen families, but we are also ensuring that what we can do is sustainable for the mid-term and the long-term.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member, I had the opportunity to also look at the summary that is outlined in Bill C-13. I would like the member to respond a bit more about the tax credit advantages.

In the summary we talk about the tax credit for children in artistic, cultural and recreational programs. We talk about tax credits for students in post-secondary education. There are different tax credits or treatment for accelerated capital cost allowance, treatment for investments in machinery and equipment, and in the mining sector.

Could the member explain a bit more about the benefit of these tax advantages and how they empower Canadians and job creators in making our economy stronger?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the tax credits would be a specific inducement to get people to do the right thing. We as a party and government consulted widely across the country. As the Minister of State knows, as he was directly involved in those consultations, Canadians asked us to do certain things. Canadians asked us to make it easier, for instance, for someone to stay at home and care for an infirm relative.

Canadians said that they liked what we had done with the sports tax credit in the previous budget. They asked that the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance provide a similar inducement on the arts side. What about volunteer firefighters, these incredibly gallant people, supported by everyone in this House? What could we do to make it easier for them to do what they do, which is get up in the middle of the night? They are not paid, but perhaps if they could receive a tax credit then that would at least acknowledge the enormous benefit they confer upon all Canadians.

Our government listened and it brought in these specific tax credits which would have great results.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking as the vote is quickly approaching. I have been a parliamentarian for about 20 years now and never before have I seen a government take such strong action to prevent members in a chamber from being able to participate fully in what is one of the most important bills that we will debate in the House. This is a bill that allows us to talk about our priorities, what it is we would like to see, and where we could make a difference. I look at this bill as one of the major pieces of legislation that needs to be debated.

We have to remember that this is a thick bill. I am not sure exactly how many pages are in the bill itself as I do not have it in front of me, but it is a thick bill. The government brought it forward for second reading and then a couple of hours later brought in time allocation. By bringing in time allocation, it has limited the ability of the chamber to have appropriate debate and discussion, questions and answers on one of the most important bills we will deal with in any given session.

This is a change in attitude by the government and it is because it has a majority now. It feels it can do whatever it wants. There is an issue that is very important to me, in fact I would suggest is important to all Canadians, but has a very significant impact in the Prairies, and that is the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason I bring it up at this point in my comments is because it is a reflection of the attitude of the government. As I say, we have a government that brought in time allocation within hours of bringing the bill forward. Then we have the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

The government is obligated in law to bring forward a plebiscite when it makes any sorts of changes to the degree it is proposing to make. It has an obligation to do that and it has chosen not to do it. The Canadian Wheat Board itself took on the responsibility that the government had and conducted a plebiscite. In that plebiscite there were tens of thousands of prairie grain and barley farmers who voted and sent a very clear message to the government. The message was very clear. It was to keep the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not want the government to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is about as clear as it can get.

I raised the issue in question period and questioned the Prime Minister and I heard the Prime Minister's response to the plebiscite and to the prairie farmers who took the time to vote, the prairie farmers he claims to represent. His response to the plebiscite is that it does not count, it does not mean anything. In fact, he went out of his way to discredit the way in which that plebiscite was conducted. He does not like the results.

The other day we heard the Prime Minister say that it does not really matter what prairie farmers want, that the government is getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board whether they like it or not. I am going to suggest that attitude is going to hurt the government. It is going to hurt the government because a majority of prairie wheat farmers, and we are talking well over 20,000 farmers, did not want the government to get rid of the CWB. Its actions to date have been disgraceful. To completely ignore what it is that Canadians and prairie farmers—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must admit that as my friend across the way was going on I drifted in and out of attention to what he said. However, it seems to me that we are here today to debate the budget implementation act and what he is talking about is totally irrelevant to it. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the member across the way to maintain relevance to the debate at hand and stop his comments on irrelevant matters such as the Wheat Board.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will give some latitude to the member to come back to the bill at hand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite does not like what he is hearing but I can assure the member that it is completely relevant to the debate. Had he been listening in terms of the comments and looking at the book, and I can appreciate it is a fairly thick book, he would find that there are many expenditures that deal with our agricultural community. The actions of the government and the profound impact that it would have on the Prairie farmer is worthy of debating today. I suggest that in time the government will regret taking the actions that it has decided to take on the Prairie farmers.

The title of Bill C-13 is “keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. I have had the opportunity to question members and one of the things I raise constantly is the fact that back in August 2008 there were actually 14,631,300 jobs. Today, there are 14,106,100 jobs. We all know that statistics can be used for all sorts of arguments but the point I am trying to get at is that over the years we have lost half a million full-time jobs.

Let there be no doubt that the biggest concerns Canadians have today is the economy and the need for jobs. I believe that this budget document could have done a lot more in terms of being able to create the jobs that Canadians want to see. With a little more imagination, we could have seen a budget that was fairer and that could have generated the type of jobs that Canadians believe government has a role to play in terms of providing the necessary incentives to have an impact on providing those jobs.

In fact, one of the questions I posed to one of my New Democrat colleagues was on the whole issue of housing. It is an area in which I believe the government could do so much more in terms of providing more incentives to improve our housing stock and so forth.

With so little time to speak, I want to pick up on a couple of other very important issues.

The health care accord is something that is of critical importance. Having been in a provincial legislature for a number of years, I can say that the greatest challenge a province has is that percentage of the budget, the need to deal with it, the need to provide funding and the need to look at future federal budgets. The federal government has a role to play in ensuring that there is a basic standard of health care services from coast to coast to coast. However, there is concern in terms of the government not taking the necessary action to make a difference.

I have raised the issue of seniors. Far too many seniors in Winnipeg North and everywhere else in our country are having a difficult time meeting their basic economic requirements. We need to do more to provide that support to our seniors. I would have liked to have seen more going toward senior pensions and the guaranteed annual income portion of it.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Winnipeg North. I would note that the party that formed government previously cut $25 billion from the provinces, which caused a great deal of problems.

I would also note that his party voted against many initiatives that benefit that member's riding, be it the F-35 contract, or the money for the human rights museum, or any of the great initiatives this government has undertaken that benefit Manitoba, including significant transfer payments.

The member should also reflect on the fact that his party did not win a single seat in the rural areas of the Prairies. In fact, I understand that his party did not win a single poll in rural parts of the Prairies. I think that indicates that the Conservative Party reflects Prairie values, Canadian values.

Why will the member not just come to this side of the House and support the Conservatives and the people of Canada?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can indicate to the House that the human rights museum is a wonderful project that I supported. When billions of dollars are spent, a lot of what is spent is fairly favourable toward good ideas and good projects. I do support those.

However, at the end of the day, there are some outstanding issues that are fairly significant. The member is right. In Manitoba we have 1 of the 14 seats but there was a time when we had 12 of the 14 seats. When the government takes a position, such as it has on the Canadian Wheat Board, I foresee a time in the future when we might be able to get back 12 of the 14 seats.

I would give it more of a cautionary note that the government might want to tread somewhat carefully in the current direction it is going.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague could shed a bit of light on the following. We have a government that has presented a budget, that is supposedly fiscally responsible and understands the situation, and yet by destroying the capacity of the Canadian Wheat Board to negotiate on behalf of farmers around this world and not having a feasibility study or anything on paper to show what will happen, does the member not think that this may not be quite the right direction in which we should be going?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when individuals from the agricultural stakeholders in the United States are saying that this is a good thing, and when a majority of our Prairie wheat farmers are saying that they want to keep the Wheat Board, that should be sending up quite a few red flags.

Let there be no doubt that there has been very little, if any, statistical or factual research that the government has been able to do on this issue that clearly enunciates why it is a good policy decision. The reason is that it is a bad decision. The reason that the government is moving in this direction is more so because of a philosophical, ideological twist that the current Prime Minister has. I do not know why he is so passionately against the Wheat Board. It just does not make any sense, and a vast majority of Canadian Prairie wheat farmers have recognized it and that is the reason they voted the way they did in the plebiscite.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-13. I enjoyed the last speech and the questions and comments. The very short answer to that is my relatives who live in Wainwright, Alberta should have the same rights that my relatives who live in Lucan, Ontario currently have, which is choice in terms of how they market their grains. Rights should extend across the country.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

We're not getting rid of the Wheat Board.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

That is exactly right. We are not getting rid of the Wheat Board. We are allowing marketing choice.

I also want to respond to some of the comments made about the job creation numbers. I encourage people if they question figures that parliamentarians may be using on both sides, to go to the Statistics Canada website and read it. The October 7 release says that following two months, employment rose by 61,000 in September, all full-time employment. This increase pushed the unemployment rate down to 7.1%, the lowest rate since December 2008. It is also dramatically lower than the unemployment rate of the United States, which has been a reversal over the last two to three decades and has occurred under our government. As the Minister of State for Finance has said today, one person who is looking for work and is unemployed is too many and that is why we are continuing to work and introduced this budget implementation act.

For people following the debate, we introduced the first budget in March. The election occurred so we reintroduced the budget in June. However, following a budget there are typically two implementation acts that take all of the measures in the budget and puts them into legislation. We had the first implementation act in June, which passed Parliament, and now we are debating the second budget implementation act.

I will read some of the highlights of the bill which introduces the family caregiver tax credit, the children's arts tax credits making it eligible for artistic, cultural, recreational development activities, the volunteer firefighters tax credit. It removes the $10,000 limit on eligible expenses that can be claimed under the medical expense tax credit.

There are many other things including the accelerated capital cost allowance, which I will speak about at length later. Qualifying environmental trusts for the Canadian pipeline sector is something that many of us from Alberta have worked on. This ensures that those in the pipeline sector set aside some money to ensure the land is returned to the condition it was in before when the pipeline is removed. I know the member for Calgary Centre has worked very hard on that initiative as well.

There are measures in terms of RRSPs.

The bill also proposes to amend the Canada Student Loans Act to authorize the minister to forgive portions of family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners, guaranteed student loans if they begin in underserved rural or remote communities.

It also proposes to amend the Employment Insurance Act to provide a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. This is the hiring credit and something the member who spoke previously should be very interested in and should support. This measure was proposed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to assist small businesses in hiring more Canadians, because they are the primary employers of Canadians.

The bill also proposes to amend the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to extend in certain circumstances a period during which wages earned by individuals but not paid to them by their employers who are bankrupt or subject to receivership may be the subject of a payment under that act. That is certainly a good measure and I encourage parliamentarians to look at that seriously.

Another measure is the amending of the Canadian Human Rights Act to repeal certain provisions that provide for mandatory retirement. This is another very good initiative in this legislation. That is why I am standing strongly in support of the bill.

I want to talk at length about the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments and machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector for an additional two years. This was a recommendation that came from our industry committee. In 2006 the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and others even in the labour movement came forward at committee and said that manufacturing was facing some very severe challenges. They said that they were facing a dollar that had rapidly appreciated in a short period of time. They were also facing some energy costs and challenges from emerging economies such as China. They wanted Parliament to look at ways in which we could address these challenges. It was a very co-operative and collaborative approach. The committee studied it through 2006. I would commend members of all parties for their work in that area.

The report was tabled in Parliament in 2007.

In March 2007, the Minister of Finance, to his credit, took the first recommendation we made, which was the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, and put that in the 2007 budget. Now it is being extended for another two years in this budget. Essentially this would allow companies across the country to invest in their machinery and equipment.

I would encourage members of all parties to go to manufacturers in their own ridings or across the country and ask the plant managers or the CFOs as to how this has impacted them directly. When I did a walk-through with a manufacturer in Edmonton, he pointed to specific pieces of equipment and said, “This piece of equipment cost $1 million. This one cost $1 million. Because of the accelerated capital cost allowance which allows us to write it off at a faster pace, we can afford it. If that was not in place, we could not afford it.”

It allows that company to be more productive. In fact, from an environmental perspective, it is using the most up-to-date technology. That means it is more environmentally efficient as well.

This is one of the reasons the committee obviously supported this in 2007 and it is the reason the government is continuing to extend this type of accelerated capital cost allowance.

Again, I would encourage members to talk to manufacturers in their own area as to whether they do support this measure or not.

I will point to a couple more companies.

Argus Machine in Nisku in my riding was very straightforward with us. I think the member for Westlock—St. Paul was with me when we visited that facility. Representatives of that company said there are some very specific things our government has done to assist them, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance and the work-share program. In the work-share program the government covered part of the cost of an employee and the company covered the other part. This enabled companies to retain employees through the downturn. One of the biggest challenges, in fact, perhaps the biggest challenge in an area like mine, in Alberta, is ensuring there are enough workers, both skilled and unskilled, who can satisfy that labour need. In fact, this allowed companies to retain those people for when their orders picked up, and they did not lose them to another company, or a company in another part of the country or, in fact, a company in another country. It enabled them to retain them.

The other thing they pointed to was the investments our government has made in things like the industrial research assistance program, which especially assists small- and medium-size enterprises, if they want to make some innovative investments.

Another thing that the IRAP does is it provides good mentorship to businesses, especially businesses in our area, that have gone from $1 million to $7 million in sales. It provides very good mentorship to companies that are expanding in that way.

Another program they point to is the SR&ED program, the scientific research and experimental development program. As parliamentarians know, we received the report today. We were very thankful for the input in that report because it is a very generous program. It is one that works generally very well, but there certainly could be improvements. I would like to thank them for their work in that area.

In terms of the accelerated capital cost allowance, I would like to quote from the March 22 press release by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters:

The extension of the two-year write-off for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies announced in...budget [2011] is critical to sustaining Canada's economic recovery.... “In an era of economic uncertainty, this tax measure gives manufacturers the confidence to invest in their future by boosting purchases of productivity-enhancing technologies”....

Another area I would like to turn to is loan forgiveness, especially as it pertains to rural areas, on portions of student loans to family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners if they begin to work in underserved rural or remote communities. The Canadian Medical Association stated:

The initiative to address the shortage of primary care physicians recognizes the particular challenges of providing health care in rural and remote areas of the country.

It is important to point to these specific initiatives because a lot of rhetoric flows when a budget is introduced. However, these are the specific measures that are in this budget implementation bill that members on the other side of the House should think very carefully about before they vote yea or nay to this measure.

Another initiative I want to point to is the extension by one year of the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors to support Canada's mining sector.