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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

moved that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In order for the hon. parliamentary secretary to split her time, unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent to allow her to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today at third reading of the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

Before continuing, I thank the House of Commons finance committee for its timely consideration and adoption of this important legislation. It represents an ambitious and positive response by our government to today's economic challenges, an approach that gives Canadians confidence that we are on the right track. Canadians know that our government is focused on what matters, and that is jobs and the economy.

Both the IMF and the OECD agree that Canada will have one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7 in 2011 and 2012. Approximately 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009, and over 90% of these new jobs are full-time. Canada has the highest rate of employment growth in all the G7 countries. While the government recognizes that there are still too many Canadians looking for work, Canadians are doing relatively well when the difficulties other countries are having are taken into account. We must continue to implement our low-tax plan to protect the economy and create jobs, and this legislation will help us to meet our objectives.

Our plan has given Canadians more flexibility to improve their quality of life, even when times are tough. It leaves more money where it belongs, which is in the pockets of taxpayers. That is why the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would provide targeted tax relief where it would be needed most to help Canadians.

For example, volunteer firefighters play a critical role in our communities and often put themselves at great risk to keep their neighbours safe. Almost 85,000 volunteer firefighters provide their services to protect the lives and property of Canadians living in both urban and rural communities across Canada. This bill recognizes their courageous service by introducing a new 15% tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for volunteer firefighters who perform at least 200 hours of service for their communities a year. Eligible volunteer firefighters who currently receive honoraria in respect of their duties will be able to choose between the new tax credit and the existing tax exemption of up to $1,000.

As a member of the finance committee, I have had the opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses as we have studied the bill. Indeed, John deHooge, fire chief for the city of Ottawa, told the committee:

“Canada's Fire Chiefs have been advocating for tax relief for the Volunteer Fire Service since 2003. The proposal adopted by the Government of Canada in Budget 2011 was the proposal that the CAFC had presented to the federal government...In our view, tax relief for Canada's volunteer firefighters is a key part of the solution to addressing the recruitment and retention challenges facing Canada's Volunteer Fire Service.

We would like to recognize the government for its commitment to pass this initiative into law....This measure will help with the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters across the country, which will in turn help protect Canadians and our communities”.

I want to take a moment to thank him for his service. I know he has put many decades into protecting the interests of Canadians.

This goes to show that our government is actively listening to the concerns of Canadians. While the Liberals and the NDP voted against this program, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs have told us that this is a crucial measure to ensure the retention of volunteer firefighters, which will keep Canadian communities safe.

That is not all we have done to support Canadian communities and the families that sustain them. The keeping jobs and economy growing act recognizes the often daunting expenses facing parents trying hard to provide their children with the best possible opportunities for growth and development.

The arts are an important part of a well-rounded education that all too often are out of reach for hard-working families. Recognizing this challenge, the legislation contains a children's art tax credit, which provides parents with up to $500 per child in eligible fees for programs associated with arts, cultural, recreational and developmental activities that are not eligible for the existing children's fitness tax credit.

I am especially pleased to tell Canadians and members of the House that the age limit is extended to age 18 for children eligible for the disability tax credit and provides an additional $500 to acknowledge the additional costs of these programs for children with special needs. This measure builds on our government's strong record of helping parents and their children.

The 2007 children's fitness tax credit, which provides tax relief for fees paid for children's physical fitness activities, has already become a very big hit. Close to 1.4 million children benefit from the children's fitness tax credit each year. I am pretty confident that the children's arts tax credit will have the same positive impact on Canadian families.

So far Canadian parents, who pay hundreds of dollars for music lessons each year across Canada, have expressed their support for this program, not to mention the local small businesses that provide the lessons. It is really helping to give an extra push to encourage the arts.

In the words of Sam Mills, an Edmonton dad, “I would do it anyway but maybe definitely we would do it for the whole year instead of just half the year”.

Listen to Regina to what music teacher, Bob Mossing, whose School of Music will really be positively impacted by the credit, has to say, “This is could be the life saver of our program”.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan provides even more support for families. Overall, families have gained from the tax relief our government has provided to all Canadians since 2006. Those tax relief measures include the GST reduction to 5% from 7% and popular personal income tax relief measures like the tax-free savings account.

Through our strong record of tax relief, the average family saves over $3,000 a year; however, our Conservative government recognizes that some Canadian families need more help.

That is why the next phase of Canada's economic action plan includes a number of key measures to help Canadian families, in particular, a 15% family caregiver tax credit on an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives, including, for the first time, spouses, common-law partners and minor children.

I am proud that caregivers support this measure. The Canadian Home Care Association said, “In introducing tax credits for family caregivers and improving the medical expense tax credit, the federal government is responding to the reality that Canadians want to remain independent at home for as long as possible.”

In conclusion, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act helps to support Canada's economic recovery. Our government is focusing on the issues that are important to Canadians: job creation and economic growth.

I urge all members to support this vital legislation in order to ensure the success of our economic recovery for Canadians and their families. I look forward to questions from my colleagues across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government implemented this through a ways and means motion a few months ago. What the member has said, although I respect her right to speak in the House on the bill, is simply not true. What we have seen over the past few weeks is considerable economic hardship for an increasing number of Canadian families. In the month of October, as members well know, 72,000 Canadian families lost a full-time breadwinner. That is a catastrophic figure. The finance committee was told that by some of the economists who visited a few days ago. They said that the loss of jobs was at recession levels.

The government has created less than 200,000 jobs since May 2008. The unfortunate fact, as members are well aware, is the labour market actually grew by 450,000 job seekers. Therefore, the government is actually 250,000 jobs behind from just standing still.

Given all that, will the government change its orientation from what is an austerity budget, which would cut services from middle class and poor Canadians, and rethink its economic agenda, because it is clearly not working?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my colleague is absolutely wrong on all counts. He talks about catastrophes. If we look at what has happened since the recession, had the government not put in place all these measures that helped to produce jobs in our country, measures like the accelerate capital cost allowance that helps businesses create jobs, there would not have been 600,000 jobs created.

If it were up to the NDP, there would have been major catastrophes. It would have taxed corporations $10 billion more, which would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would have increased the GST from its current 5% to 7%, or even more. That would have cost Canadians more money for everything, from groceries, to clothes, to all of their personal needs. If we had listened to the NDP, we would be looking at a doubling of the CPP. Even for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is a big producer, representing small businesses that create jobs, its CPP costs would have increased by 60% to 70% . It would have been catastrophic to our country and we would never have survived the way we have.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. The fact is, and it states so in a November 17 article in the National Post, that federal spending has been up 22% since the Prime Minister took power. However, the spending watchdog says, “the large increase in expenditures over the past five years can be attributed to the economic downturn but also to a minority Parliament for most of that time”, meaning the Conservatives are trying to buy an election. “You've had a lot of instability and historically, [governments] spend like a drunken sailor in minority”, says the federal director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Given all that spending, what worries me is that the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, and it shows through in everything the government does.

The member went on at great length about the volunteer firefighters tax credit, but it is not a refundable tax credit. If a person does not have money, then the tax credit does not apply to him or her. Why not be fair? Is a firefighter who is—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank my colleague for the question this time because it is about the third time the Liberals have asked this very same question. It just brings up the hypocrisy of that party. The hypocrisy exists because firefighters have been asking for years to have this very tax credit put forward. The 13 years that the Liberals were in power, they did absolutely nothing to address the concerns. In fact, the fire chief, who was in committee, said very clear this was exactly the tax credit for which they asked. Where the Liberals denied them year after year of any kind of tax benefit, not a single measure, we are doing it exactly the way they asked us to and we are going to be proud of it.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-13 and sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary this morning.

It is a privilege to contribute to this debate and speak in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, which is the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. This bill will support Canada's economic recovery and promote job creation. It will support communities and invest in education and training. It will help Canadian families and respect their hard-earned tax dollars.

The bill is a low tax plan for jobs and economic growth. It is a continuation of the sensible fiscal policy that remains at the heart of our Conservative government's economic agenda. Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians, creating jobs and promoting economic growth.

While we see so much financial instability in governments around the world, Canada has become a leader on the international economic stage. We have the strongest job creation record in the G8. Close to 600,000 net new jobs have been created since July 2009. We have renewed our triple A credit rating, and according to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, we will have the strongest economic growth in the G8 and G7 over the next two years. Forbes magazine has ranked Canada as the best country in the world to do business. I can assure the House, one of the most important things to the people of my riding is to be gainfully employed.

The Canadian economy is intimately connected with the economies of the world and we must remain aware of the fragile economic situation in Europe and the United States. We are not isolated from potential economic problems that remain outside our borders. That is why we must stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Bill C-13 will promote Canadian job creation and economic growth. The hiring credit is precisely what small businesses have been calling for. The one time credit of up to $1,000 will be the catalyst for additional hiring, not only in my riding of Nipissing--Timiskaming but for small businesses throughout Canada.

Not only are we creating new jobs, we are enhancing programs to help businesses keep the workers currently employed through initiatives such as the work sharing program, the wage earner protection program, and the targeted initiative for older workers.

Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country and our Conservative government is delivering results to them. Our Conservative government is also supporting the Canadian manufacturing sector. We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, so that companies can write off investment in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. This will allow them to grow their businesses and to procure top of the line equipment that will bring them to the forefront of international technological innovation. In an era of economic uncertainty, this tax measure gives manufacturers the confidence to invest in their future.

Bill C-13 is also doing more to support local communities. We are putting into law a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund in order to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. This is something municipalities have been asking for year after year. They want to know they have the source of funding to do the many projects that are necessary to provide the infrastructure for continued economic growth. Making this investment permanent and annual will benefit the many towns and communities in my riding of Nipissing--Timiskaming and in the ridings from coast to coast to coast.

Our Conservative government is also enhancing the wage earner protection program, so that workers are covered and protected from employer bankruptcy and receivership. This is a program that has been very well received and utilized.

Our Conservative government also recognizes the economic benefits that come with investing in education and training. We are supporting universities, colleges, skilled trades and apprenticeship programs.

This legislation forgives student loans for new doctors and nurses in underserved rural and remote areas. A portion of the federal component of their Canada student loans, $40,000 for doctors and $20,000 for nurses, will be forgiven so that these doctors and nurses can practice and support the rural communities of our country that need them the most.

This will ensure that rural and remote communities, such as those in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming get the adequate medical services they deserve and require.

This is a plan that will support Canada's economic recovery and promote job creation. It is a plan that will support communities and invest in education and training. It is a plan that will help Canadian families and respect their hard-earned tax dollars.

This is a low tax plan for jobs and economic growth, and I support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

As I have already said in this House, job creation is of great concern to me.

The government can trot out raw numbers and brag about them, but the fact remains that when we take a closer look at the numbers, there are some disparities. The raw numbers do not necessarily reflect the quality of those jobs. When I look at the job creation measure for small businesses in the government's bill, I see another measure that, unfortunately, is missing the mark. Instead of applying to every job created, this measure can apply to companies that fail to create any jobs and just tweak their employment insurance contributions.

I would like the hon. member to tell me why the government is not trying to integrate our job creation proposal into this bill, because it would apply to every job created, instead of allowing companies to get money illegitimately.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot get picayune about this. We have to look at the broader economic picture and our record. The proof is in the pudding: 600,000 net new jobs have been created.

The IMF indicate that we are among the best in the world. Forbes recognizes that Canada is the best place to do business. The NDP plan would simply add $10 billion in taxes to Canadians. If we were to follow that course, we would be in the shape of Greece, or possibly Italy or Spain.

Clearly, our plan is the right plan and our plan is working.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary who spoke previously took a lot of liberties when she was responding to questions. The Liberal Party has always stood for volunteer firefighters. I had private members' bills in the House many times on that issue.

I have to ask the member who just spoke, is this Conservative member suggesting, on the volunteer firefighters bill, that a volunteer firefighter who does not have the income, who does not meet the threshold, is less deserving of a refundable tax credit than someone with money?

If the service is done, a firefighter deserves the refund. Is the member saying that lower income volunteer firefighters should be disregarded, that their service is not as valuable as those with money? Is that what he is saying?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all volunteer firefighters deserve this tax credit. The hon. member said he had a bill. I guess his caucus did not support it.

As I mentioned, this is part of a full package to get our economy working. It is working. The first phase of this work generated all kinds of jobs. It generated accolades from all over the world. We cannot get picayune on this.

Our plan is working. It is the right plan for Canadians. We are proud of our plan and we are going to move on to the second phase of Canada's economic action plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by referencing the previous member's comments about the economic action plan.

No one on the Conservative side of the House should deny that the job loss figure that we saw in the month of October of 72,000 full-time jobs should not be a source of worry. That eviscerated the Canadian economy, yet Conservative members have been patting themselves on the back.

The reality is that the jobs that have been created over the last three years under the Conservative government's plan actually pay much less than the jobs that the Conservatives lost. Tragically, we are now seeing an acceleration in the number of jobs lost. Some 72,000 jobs were lost in a single month. That is more than 2,000 jobs a day and we are seeing a continuation of that in the month of November.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer talked about 100,000 jobs evaporating out of the Canadian economy in the coming months. The Governor of the Bank of Canada talked about a huge slowdown. The government must be looking through rose coloured glasses and pretending that everything is just fine. That is simply not true. Conservatives who doubt it should talk to small business people and to workers right across this country from coast to coast to coast.

Canadian families are worried. They are dealing with historic debt loads that we have not seen in our country's history. We are talking about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the last few weeks. Nearly two million Canadians are looking for work across this country. One million Canadians have to rely on food banks to make ends meet. Maybe everything is fine and rosy in the Conservatives' Ottawa bubble, but the reality is that Canadians need action. Our role in the House is to put forward powerful solutions to deal with the economic malaise that we are experiencing.

I need to comment on the government's actions around Bill C-13. The budget bill is a 650-page document. It is not the same budget bill that was presented last spring, even though the government does have ways and means orientation on it. We are talking about a 650-page bill and the government's refusal to accept any amendments.

Beyond the government's refusal to accept any amendments, last week it invoked closure. The Conservatives will rise and say it was not closure but time allocation. It is the same thing. They should not try to play with Canadians in that respect. They invoked closure before one second of debate could happen in the House on amendments that had been brought forward.

The Conservatives did allow some discussion on one amendment and then they used their sledgehammer and removed any possibility of even one second of debate on other amendments on a 650-page budget bill that most Conservative MPs have not read.

The government has refused to allow the kind of debate that has been a democratic tradition in this country since well before 1867, even prior to Confederation, but certainly in the House of Commons since 1867. We have not seen closure used to this extent. The government has used closure 7 times in 35 sitting days. It is a record that even the Liberals, at the height of their arrogance, were unable to match. It is appalling.

To tell Canadians that they have no right to hear debate on a 650-page budget bill and that they have no right to hear what amendments were brought forward on the budget bill is doing a disservice to Canadians and showing profound disrespect for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That really is the setting of what the government has done around Bill C-13.

When the Conservatives campaigned last spring, they put on their sweater vests and talked about moderation and about listening to Canadians. They said that they would be a moderate government.

What has happened since May 2 is absolutely the contrary. The Conservatives use closure in a way that we have never seen in the long democratic tradition in this country. They shut down debate not only on a wide variety of bills that could have been better served with more debate and discussion in the House of Commons, but on budget bills as well.

It is a very disturbing development. Last spring the government promised moderation and respect for democratic tradition. However, now that we are getting into the crux of the matter with a vigorous debate on behalf of the 102 members of the NDP official opposition, the government resorts to closure every single time. Why is that?

The government is resorting to closure because it loses the debates. As we bring forward our ideas, we talk about the content of what is being brought forward by the government. The Conservatives realize that their arguments, the talking points from the Prime Minister's Office, simply do not hold weight. The government could extend sitting hours or use a number of alternatives to allow for a democratic debate to take place, but it chooses the sledgehammer of shutting down that debate.

I just came back from British Columbia and I certainly heard great and growing concern on the part of Canadians that our debate and our rights as democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons are systematically being shut down. It is something that is increasingly worrisome to Canadians.

Let us examine the context of the bill that the government refuses to debate and has invoked closure on. As well, any discussion at the amendment stage and debate at third reading will be shut down within a few hours.

Before the government brings the sledgehammer down at the end of this afternoon, the reality is that this is an austerity budget brought forward at a time when we are experiencing economic slowdown. There were 72,000 full-time jobs lost in the month of October alone--this at a time when nearly two million Canadians are looking for work.

Over the last few years, we have seen a steady erosion in the quality of jobs available in the Canadian economy. We reference this point in the House continually. Conservatives can deny it, but Statistics Canada is very clear that the jobs the Conservatives lost paid more than the few jobs they managed to create.

The Conservative government created less than 200,000 jobs over the course of the last three and half years, since May 2008. This was at a time when the labour market grew because our population grew by 450,000. The government created barely 200,000 jobs, but lost 72,000 full-time jobs last month alone. The Conservatives were a quarter of a million jobs short even from just maintaining the level of employment that we had in the labour market back in May 2008. We have seen an erosion both in the quantity of jobs and in the quality of jobs. It is a doubleheader.

Also, the Conservatives like to make stuff up. They will throw out a figure from the back of a napkin and say that they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. These arguments thrown out by the Prime Minister's Office, as happens so often, do not hold water. When we go to the actual Statistics Canada figures since May 2008, we see quite the contrary. Fewer than 200,000 jobs were created, but the labour market grew by 450,000. The employment percentage has gone down by 2% since May 2008. In terms of quality, the jobs created paid $10,000 less than the jobs the Conservatives have thrown away through what I can only call economic mismanagement.

That is the context of the budget, the 650 pages that the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know about. The context of Bill C-13 is that it is a time of economic slowdown.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and many economists agree that we are in a slowdown. The Conservatives can deny the Statistics Canada figures for the month of October, but they have been disastrous. There is no other way to put it. For Conservatives to rise in this House and say that everything is fine and rosy and not to worry about a thing simply belies the reality that is happening on the ground and across this country.

What did the Conservatives then bring forward? They brought forward an austerity budget that, aside from a few small tax credits, will continue massive, significant and ongoing corporate tax cuts. What it means is that for middle-class and poorer Canadian families from coast to coast to coast is that there would be significant cutbacks in the services that they enjoy.

On the one hand, we are talking about billions of dollars in corporate tax cuts for this year, and then, on January 1, even more corporate tax cuts going forward. The Conservatives' only economic strategy is shovelling money out to what are very profitable industrial sectors, but for middle-class and poorer Canadian families, it is cutbacks in services, getting less and having less support. We can talk about a whole range of things, but the reality is that it is an austerity budget.

Was that appropriate last spring? I do not think so. The government promised that it would be listening to Canadians. It is profoundly inappropriate in the fall, as we go through a profound economic shutdown with the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, for the government to say, “That is quite all right; we're just going to continue and give more corporate tax-cut spending. We're going to spend another $4 billion on January 1, but we're not going to address the fundamentals underlying the Canadian economy”. Nothing in this budget does that.

What are the fundamentals? We have talked about the job loss. We have talked about the poor-quality jobs that the Conservative government has shepherded in to replace the better-quality jobs it lost. The government has lost family-sustaining jobs and replaced those with low-wage jobs, often part-time, often temporary, though we will never hear Conservatives rising and actually talking about the fact that most of the jobs they are creating are part-time or temporary. They try to put the temporary jobs in with permanent full-time jobs, and that way, on the back of a napkin, they try to mislead Canadians about what is actually happening. However, Canadians are aware of what is happening, because they see the economic slowdown occurring right across the country. They see the layoffs and they see the small businesses having to struggle now.

In British Columbia, one of the biggest problems that our small-business sector has had to contend with over the last few months was the HST imposed by the Conservative government on British Columbians. Thankfully, British Columbians rejected handily the HST in the summer referendum that we forced. We can be thankful for that, because the HST imposed by the Conservatives was just another nail in the coffin for the B.C. economy. As a long-time member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce and as a proud member of the Burnaby Board of Trade, I can tell members that this single action led to significant job loss in British Columbia.

The Conservatives' imposition of the HST should never be repeated; however, it is in the same context. They refused to consult with British Columbians in the same way that, on this budget bill, the Conservatives are refusing either to consult the opposition or even to consult Canadians on an austerity budget that is profoundly inappropriate.

What is the other context of what we are going through as a Canadian economy? Far from the pretensions we have heard in the few minutes of debate we have had thus far today on finance and budgetary matters, the IMF has actually said that Canada is among the worst among all industrialized economies--doing worse than Spain and Italy, the economies that are in trouble--for the current account deficit on balance of payments. As members well know, that deficit means that we are importing finished goods, job-creating goods, and exporting raw materials. In their so-called economic management, Conservatives have made a hallmark of shipping raw resources out of this country like there is no tomorrow. They would just ship them out and import finished goods.

Now our current account deficit on balance of payments, which is a key indicator of the health of the Canadian economy, is going to be among the worst in the industrialized world. It is because the government does not understand that shipping raw resources out and importing finished products, value-added products, means over time an erosion in the strength of the Canadian economy. It is worse than Spain and worse than Italy.

Not a single Conservative will address the issue, because they are scared about Canadians finding out the truth about their shipping out raw materials and what that has meant to the overall health of the Canadian economy. In this bill, nothing addresses that fundamental weakness. There is nothing that addresses the fundamental weakness of industrial sector after industrial sector.

I come from British Columbia, where the softwood lumber industry hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs after the government signed the softwood lumber agreement, which we have called the softwood lumber sellout. What that did was, again, give priority to the shipment of raw logs out of British Columbia and other regions right across the country. When we look at the forest industry generally, we see that raw log exports have increased substantially. That has happened because the government signed, yet again, an agreement that would facilitate the shipping out of our raw materials. What that means, again, is that our ongoing current account deficit is getting worse and worse.

When we look at the overall economic health of the Canadian economy on the eve of the government's invoking closure in just a few hours on Bill C-13, we see that we have hemorrhaged tens of thousands of jobs in the last few weeks, we have millions of Canadians looking for work and we have poorer quality of jobs. Every job the Conservatives lose, if they replace it, is replaced by one paying much less: almost $1,000 less a month, almost $10,000 less a year.

We have a crisis in exports. The Conservatives love to stand in this House and say that they signed a bunch of agreements and did some ribbon-cutting. That is not an export strategy. They have clearly failed. When we look at the current account deficit on balance of payments, we see that they have clearly failed, and failed worse than any other industrialized country.

Those are figures that tell the truth about what the government has done and what it has not done in dealing with the financial and economic challenges that the country faces.

What is in the bill, what we have, are austerity measures that are not in keeping with our current economic situation at all and that will hurt middle-class and poor Canadian families.

What we have includes the one big initiative that the government has not chosen to reference so far: the elimination of the democratic voting subsidy. As we all know, this per-vote subsidy was a tool in the hands of every single Canadian. They could choose the party that they voted for, and one dollar per vote would basically go to the party of their choice between elections. It is a very democratic, very pragmatic approach to democratizing our political system.

There are also a huge range of tax credits and supports that exist, and the Senate is used as a home of patronage. The Conservatives are not cutting any of those elements. What they are doing in this bill is bringing an end to the one element of political subsidies that actually is democratically distributed. The cost is $30 million, but the government is continuing with nearly $400 million in subsidies that mainly go to the Conservative Party. For shame.

I imagine that is why the government is invoking closure. It is because the only significant budgetary measure that it has is the elimination of the per-vote subsidy. There are a few measures that we support, but the significant one, the elimination of the per-vote subsidy, is another nail in the coffin of democracy under the Conservative government. That is why we are speaking against and voting against Bill C-13.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was quite a list of accusations. I am impressed when I hear all these plans and solutions to the problems.

At the outset I want to say that we in the Conservative government never said that we were not immune to what is happening in the world. However, if we look at the figures, we have 600,000 net jobs of which 80% are full time. I challenge the hon. member to compare that to our closest trading partner, the United States.

The member also talked about the need to increase corporate taxes and the need to address those problems by taxing the corporations.

We sit on the same committee and have heard from a number of these organizations, small and medium businesses from the mining sector, the extraction sector, the banks and the insurance companies. Does the member know of anyone within those sectors who would support the NDP's job-killing plan of raising taxes? Does he have the support of those people who he claims he would be helping by doing these things?

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

Mr. Speaker, given that 72,000 full-time jobs were lost in the month of October, one can only say, when looking at Bill C-13 and at the Conservatives' strategy, that they are job-killing plans.

I like the hon. member, and know that he is not preparing the notes. It is the Prime Minister's Office that puts out a figure and then pretends that the government has created x number of jobs.

StatsCan states that from May 2008 the Conservative government has created less than 200,000 jobs and that the labour market grew by 450,000 job seekers. That is not a line from the Conservative Party or the NDP but from StatsCan, the judge that is right. Therefore, the number of job seekers, the unemployed, grew. The reality is that the government was a quarter of a million jobs short from just treading water, from just standing still.

Rather than more corporate tax cuts, we need an intelligent approach that does not cut services to the middle-class and poor Canadian families. That is what we stand for on this side of the House.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the corporate tax cuts for a second.

In the year 2000, the corporate tax rate was 38% and the Americans' was 36%. Under the Paul Martin government, it was lowered from 38% to 20%, which put us in the middle of the G20 and, in fact, in the middle of the G7 among tax rates.

The present government has dropped it from 20% to 15%. That is taking $16 billion a year out of the fiscal capacity of the government to address the problems that we have today and the problems that I see every day relative to seniors.

We made the proposal to cancel the January 1, 2012, tax cut. We hear all this talk about tens of billions of dollars in costs. Companies are already paying that $3 billion to $4 billion right now. This is not a new tax. Let us talk about the present time. The present time says that we should cancel that because there are things that need to be done.

The government needs a manufacturing strategy going forward to address the infrastructure alone of $130 billion.

I ask the member to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has been a strong advocate for seniors in the country. I commend him for all of the work that he has done on behalf of seniors.

What the Conservatives are saying is that the tens of thousands of seniors living in poverty in the country need to continue living in poverty because it wants to bring in more corporate tax cuts. It is saying to the one million Canadians who rely on food banks just to get through the month that they will need to keep going to food banks because it wants to bring in more corporate tax cuts. It is saying to the 72,000 Canadians who lost full-time jobs in the month of October, almost half of whom will not have access to employment insurance, that it needs to cut their benefits so that it can bring in this further corporate tax cut.

I could go on and talk about prisons and the F-35s.

Speaking as a financial administrator, which is what I was before I came to the House of Commons, I have never seen such appalling bad judgment on spending as we have with the Conservative government. It is more prisons, the F-35s that are untendered and the massive corporate tax cuts.

It is the middle-class and poor Canadian families who are paying the price for the government's irresponsible attitude when it comes to fiscal policy in the country.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster is from the city and I am a member for British Columbia from the interior. I have the fifth largest lumber company in the world in my constituency. I constantly speak with the CEO of that company and he tells me about what our government has done to benefit his corporation to be competitive and also all that we have done to help it find new markets for its products. Where it used to send 70% of its product to the United States, now it is sending it to China, with $170 million that our government put forward to help the lumber industry in British Columbia.

The lumber industry in British Columbia right now is at a peak. All the mills are up and running with more than one shift. How can the member say that our policies are not the right policies for British Columbia when that is happening?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am just flabbergasted. The member should know that we lost 50,000 jobs after the government signed the softwood lumber agreement. The exports to the American market have plummetted. For the member to stand and say that everything is rosy in the B.C. forestry industry, I am absolutely amazed that he is that out of touch with his own riding.

I will tell the House about my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, which he referenced. I am very proud to represent the riding. There were 2,000 jobs lost in Burnaby--New Westminster as a result of three mill closures that occurred right after the member's government sold us out and signed the softwood lumber sellout. There were 2,000 direct jobs which means thousands of additional indirect jobs lost when the Conservatives signed the agreement. We told them that would be the impact and just the same they threw away tens of thousands of jobs in the softwood lumber industry. That was probably one of the most irresponsible acts of what has been a very irresponsible government.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member earlier say something in relation to value added to jobs. I want to talk particularly about refining and upgrading capacity in our country. He mentioned that he had ideas and thought that we should add more jobs to Canadian industry. As he knows, refining and upgrading is one of the most unprofitable sectors of the oil and gas industry. In fact, most of the technology today found throughout North America is 50 years old or more.

I know the NDP always suggests that it stands up for environmental concerns, but if we are going to add more jobs to what is the number one industry in Canada right now, which is oil and gas, we need to do so by upgrading and refining. I wonder how we can do that being that it takes 8 to 10 years to build one of these facilities at a cost of $8 billion to $10 billion and they are simply not profitable. That is why in North America very little upgrading or refining capacity has been done in the last 50 years.

I wonder what rules the member would suggest we bend, where he would put these refining and upgrading capacities and how we would encourage companies to build them through tax credits or through ACCA. How would he suggest we do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member asked me that question. What we have seen over the last seven years is the increasing number of New Democrats on this side of the House because we have been talking about a green economy and the development of green jobs. We have put together very specific proposals.

What has happened is that more and more Canadians voted, first 19 seats, then 36 and now 103 ridings are represented by New Democrats, in part, because people have responded very positively to what we have said we will do, in building a green economy and putting those green jobs together that many other countries around the world are already prospering from.

However, what we would not do is put in place and try to fast-track in the way the government has the Keystone pipeline. That would lead to a net loss, as the member well knows as he did an economic evaluation of it, of 18,000 jobs that would be shipped over the border, and that is not even the environmental impact. When we look at that, people can see that we stand for green jobs and a green economy and the government stands for shipping jobs across the border.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-13, the second implementation bill for budget 2011.

I want to speak to some of the unfair elements of this bill. We think it is wrong that the Conservatives continue to exclude the lowest income Canadians from budget measures that are designed to help Canadians by introducing programs, like the tax credits for family caregivers, volunteer firefighters and children's arts activity, and then only making them available to some Canadians while completely leaving out those who are most in need: low-income Canadians who will not qualify for these measures because these tax credits are non-refundable. We think that is wrong and that it will weaken Canadian society by increasing the already growing gap between the rich and the poor in Canada. It will contribute to a reduction in the equality of opportunity that is so fundamental to Canadians and Canadian values.

I will speak today to some of the economic challenges facing Canadian society and how measures introduced by the Conservatives will actually serve to reduce economic opportunities for some Canadians who are already disadvantaged during these difficult global economic times. I then will provide some examples of how a Liberal government would do things differently.

There is a rising income gap under the Conservative government. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing in Canada. A recent study by the Conference Board of Canada shows that income inequality is rising even faster in Canada than in the U.S. The Conference Board's July 2011 study helps to provide some context by discussing why growing income gaps are a problem. It pointed out the following:

—high inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice.

Again, that quote was from the Conference Board of Canada's July 2011 study.

Lower incomes can also lead to shorter life expectancies. A 2010 report from McMaster University found that the life expectancy of someone living in the wealthiest neighbourhood in Hamilton, Ontario, is 21 years longer than someone living in the poorest neighbourhoods of Hamilton, as an example. Rising income inequality, in terms of economic output, will increase costs in health care at a time when we already have a demographic bubble, or time bomb as some refer to it, in terms of the aging of our population and the commensurate increases in health care costs that will bring.

In 2008, in terms of economic output, a group of economists, including Don Drummond, estimated that poverty costs Canada between $72 billion and $86 billion per year in higher costs for health care, the criminal justice system and lost economic productivity.

One of the largest contributors to growing income gaps in Canada is the persistently high levels of unemployment and underemployment facing low-income Canadians. The reality is that we have almost 600,000 fewer full-time jobs than three years ago in August 2008. There is a significant gap geographically in Canada in terms of how individual economies are doing. If people happen to live in Saskatchewan or Alberta, resource rich provinces, provinces where people had the vision, foresight and wisdom to put oil and gas under the ground and, in some cases, smart enough to put potash under the ground as well, their economic situation is very different from that of places in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

We are seeing In this global economic restructuring the type of recovery in Canada that does not benefit all Canadians. In fact, a commodity led recovery, which is driving the Canadian dollar, for all intents and purposes, increasingly an oil and gas or commodity-based dollar, higher and, at the same time, as a result of that higher dollar, crowding out value-added jobs in other regions. While high commodity prices can disproportionately benefit some parts of Canada and some sectors in Canada, it is driving out a lot of manufacturing jobs, value-added jobs.

We just had an announcement of a permanent closure in my riding of the Fundy Gypsum Company. Part of the reason for that was the higher Canadian dollar in recent years that made its exports to the U.S. less competitive.

We have seen a lot of manufacturing jobs lost in my riding, food processing jobs, such as at Canard poultry and Larsen, close to my riding. We have seen a lot of losses in jobs in my riding. I latest information if have if that in Kings county, Hants county and Annapolis county, which is my riding and part of the riding next door, have 6,400 fewer jobs than in August 2008. The unemployment figures for Annapolis, Kings and Hants counties reached 7.8% in October 2011 compared to 5% in September 2008. That is almost a 3% increase in unemployment in my riding and half of the next riding, the riding of West Nova.

We are seeing it in our communities. We are seeing it in the small business community. The owner of a restaurant in Windsor, Nova Scotia told me recently that it had the worst year in 20 years. When people have lost their full-time jobs and have seen them replaced with part-time work, they cannot afford to take their families out for breakfast on a Saturday morning or for supper on a Friday night.

We have a responsibility in the House of Commons to evaluate how the economy and families are doing across Canada, not just look at the macro numbers, but look across the country and consider the plight of families in some of the regions. One of the realities is that during this technical recovery, this statistical recovery, many Canadians are still facing a deep human recession.

The other thing to realize is that before the markets tumbled back in August 2008, 17,366,000 Canadians had jobs. In October 2011, and these are the latest figures available from Stats Canada, that number stood at 17,402,300 jobs. However, that includes almost 600,000 net fewer full-time jobs lost in Canada over the last three years.

This issue has contributed as well to the growth of household debt. We are now at record levels of household debt in Canada, largely because Canadians are trying to replace their lost income from losing their full-time jobs with income from part-time jobs. They are having a lot of challenges making ends meet. They are seeing their costs going up on an ongoing basis and their pay going down as they are replacing full-time work with part-time jobs.

The reality is the household debt levels in Canada is $1.51 for ever $1 of annual income in Canada right now. That is actually higher than the family indebtedness in the U.S, record highs for Canadian households.

Canadians are worried about how they will pay the bills next month and they are petrified about what will happen at some point in the future when interest rates start to rise, which they inevitably will.

Within the context of rising inequality, the Conservatives have gone ahead and introduced a number of tax measures in budget 2011 that will actually worsen the situation by deliberately excluding low-income Canadians. We have repeatedly asked, both at finance committee and in the House of Commons, that the Conservatives make a family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighter tax credit and the children's arts tax credits refundable so all Canadians can qualify, but the Conservatives have steadfastly refused.

I want to be clear. We support a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In reality, it was the Liberal Party that proposed both of those before the Conservative Party. We proposed those tax measures because we felt a lot of families were struggling with aging and ailing loved ones, trying to keep them in their homes, and they needed the help.

Many communities, including my own communities in places like Summerville and Brooklyn, Hants county and Wolfville and Kentville, have a lot of volunteer firefighters. It is harder and harder to attract volunteer firefighters. Frankly, they are paying a financial cost. They are risking their lives and struggling to keep the fire departments viable.

We believe very strongly in a family caregiver tax credit and a volunteer firefighters tax credit. In our platform, we had both of those, but we had made them refundable. The reason they need to be, and ought to be, refundable is that by making them non-refundable, as the Conservatives have done, it perversely means that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers will not receive benefit. There is no way we can defend, economically or morally, that the lowest-income volunteer firefighters and family caregivers would not benefit from these measures. It is fundamentally wrong. I see families struggling to take care of loved ones now.

It is one of the issues I hear from constituents on an increasing basis, as we have an aging population, and the rural communities in the Maritimes are aging disproportionately. We have lost a lot of young people who have gone to other parts of the country for work. Therefore, in many cases, we have fewer young people to help out mom or dad, or granddad or grandmom stay in their homes. The burden on the people who are left behind, the family members and the caregivers, is immense. The VON does an extraordinary job helping a lot of people in my riding in Nova Scotia, but it can only do so much.

My mom and dad have a home care person who comes in a couple of times a week. She does remarkable work in helping my parents stay in their own home. My dad is 88 and my mom is 82 and she has Alzheimer's. I see how hard the home care workers are working and the difference they are making.

I see the sacrifice my sister makes. She is, for all intents and purposes, the family caregiver to my parents. There are three sons and then there is my sister. I can tell members that, disproportionately, the burden goes to the daughters in a family when it comes to these situations. That is unfair, but I see it. I know my sister would qualify, based on her income, for the family caregiver tax credit. However, it is not fair that some other person's sister or some other person's daughter, who takes time away from her work to take care of an elderly mother or father, would not benefit. That is fundamentally wrong.

I would like to see other family caregivers benefit from this measure, particularly, low-income caregivers. In my sister's case, she has taken time off work so she can help mom and dad in their home, so she is seeing a decrease in her income. That is happening to a lot of families across Nova Scotia and Canada. It is wrong that the caregivers in those lowest-income families would not benefit from this program designed to help caregivers and to help seniors and people who face long-term illness stay in their own homes longer.

Frankly, it would take a lot of burden off the provincial health care system if we could help people stay in their own homes. In most cases, the cost of putting people in nursing homes or long-term care families is a lot more than keeping them at home. Therefore, from the perspective of long-term fiscal policy, it is important for both federal and provincial governments to do everything they can to help people stay in their own homes.

I focused a lot on the disparity and unfairness of making these tax credits unavailable to low-income caregivers and volunteer firefighters. It is unfair, but it is also nonsensical from an economic perspective. It makes no sense socially, economically or morally.

Susan Eng, vice president of CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, has said:

We...encourage (the government) to put forward a refundable tax credit, particularly for the more narrow segments of caregivers who perform 24/7 care. Those are the people who have had to quit their jobs...to look after families. They are not going to be in a position to benefit from a non-refundable tax credit.

That is from one of the largest organizations representing senior citizens in Canada.

Nadine Henningsen, president of the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, told the finance committee:

—convert the non-refundable credits to refundable credits, so that all Canadians with caregiver-related costs, regardless of income, will benefit from these tax measures.

Again, there is broad-based support for making these credits refundable from the people who understand caregiving the most, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, and from the biggest organization representing Canadian seniors, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

At some level the Conservatives must recognize that there is a moral imperative to make these tax credits refundable so they are available to all deserving Canadians.

In their last election platform the Conservatives promised to make the Canadian fitness tax credit refundable so that low income Canadians could also qualify. However, they have only promised to include low income Canadians once the budget is balanced.

We know from the minister's latest oops moment, kind of like Governor Perry, with his budget number that it is going to be 2015 or 2016 by the time the budget is balanced. That is based on their latest numbers, but the minister has missed every target he has set. In fact, he inherited a $13 billion surplus and spent Canada into a deficit even before the downturn. He increased spending by 18%, three times the rate of inflation, and put Canada into a deficit even before the 2008 crash. He promised a balanced budget in the fall of 2008 and a few months later delivered a record high $56 billion deficit.

Therefore, it is hard for us to count on the minister's projections, but for low-income Canadians who are being promised some tax relief once the budget has been balanced, it is very hard for them to count on or wait for that inevitable balancing.

I also want to speak on the EI payroll tax increase of January. The minister confirmed that EI premiums would be increased by $600 million in January. With stubbornly high unemployment in many parts of the country, it makes no sense for the government to be increasing payroll taxes at this time. That is why we called for a payroll tax freeze and EI premium freeze at this time. It does not make sense to increase what is effectively a job-killing payroll tax at a time of high unemployment.

We also believe that we have to take a serious look at the Conservatives' plan that they introduced to force the EI system to self-balance over a short period of time. What that means is that it perversely actually increases EI premiums at times of high unemployment. It makes no sense to increase job killing payroll taxes at exactly the time when we need to either freeze them or potentially even decrease them. We need to have a longer horizon for self-balancing.

I also spoke with Jack Mintz, who spoke to a group of us recently. Jack Mintz says that we need a focus on overall tax reform in Canada. We need to simplify and streamline the Canadian tax code. My leader, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, has called for the same. We need to have a long-term focus on building a fairer and more competitive Canadian tax system, streamlining and simplifying the tax system, not making it more complex with boutique tax credits that do not benefit the lowest income Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague was in the House when the infamous fiscal update was delivered at the beginning of the largest recession since the Depression. The Minister of Finance said that Canada was not in debt, but according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer we were already starting to slip into billions of dollars in debt. The Conservatives' solution to the threat of Canada joining a world depression was that they would sell off public buildings and have no stimulus. That, of course, precipitated the situation where the other parties expressed clear lack of confidence and the Conservatives were forced to turn around. Within a month, they came back and we were suddenly $30 billion to $50 billion to $60 billion in debt. I do not think anybody in history has spent money as fast as they have done.

Why should we have any faith in the Minister of Finance who one month said Canada was not going to be in debt at all, that we were going to ride out the crisis, and within two months the Conservatives were spending what they said was $10 billion but they wracked it up to $50 billion in about six months? The Conservatives still have not explained how they are going to get us back to an economically fiscal plan. Their numbers seem to be in contradiction to everything we hear from the Parliamentary Budget Officer or anything we hear from the private sector.

Could my hon. colleague explain?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been very active on the G8 and G20 spending file, perhaps one of the greatest misappropriations of public tax dollars in the history of the country.

I remember that now infamous fall 2008 economic statement where the finance minister claimed there would be a $100 million surplus. In a federal budget, $100 million is almost a rounding error. The only way he was able to reach that minuscule little baby surplus was to sell off $10 billion of assets. I remember day after day we asked the minister to produce a list of the assets that the government was going to sell. He never presented that list of assets because there was no list of assets. The government had effectively created this notion that there was going to be an asset disposal. It never created a list.

As a minister of public works in the past, I know it takes about two years to go from having a list of assets to actually implementing a sale. The government made up those figures to try to pretend it had a surplus and in fact it did not.

The member is quite right. It is very hard to have faith in the government's budget numbers or projections.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's remarks because we actually heard some facts. The member expanded on the tax credits. We have long supported the firefighters' tax credits and other tax credits. The government continues the message on them as if they are going to benefit all people, when really they do not apply to low-income people who provide the same service.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on that. Just what does the government have against assisting people with lower income, and are there other examples?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque also represents rural and small town communities like mine. He knows that a lot of the volunteer firefighters in rural and small town Canada are people who are not making a lot of money. They are people who are struggling barely to get by. They are people who, in a lot of cases, are raising families on less than $20,000 a year and will not benefit from these non-refundable measures.

Again, anyone in this House, regardless of the politics of his or her party, has to understand that it is fundamentally wrong that low income Canadians would get less of a benefit than middle class or higher income Canadians. This applies to the volunteer firefighters and the caregivers. It also applies to children playing sports. Let us think about this. We all know that the cost of hockey, soccer, and any other sport has gone up. Kids need to have good activities to have healthy minds and bodies and to have a good and productive life. These tax credits are designed to help kids in sports, music and the arts, but they will not benefit children of low income families. That is particularly wrong. It increases the inequality of opportunity that is so menacing to a lot of Canadian families.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regularly in this House we hear the Conservatives talk about the stable majority government. Some 60% of Canadians voted against the government. One of the reasons I think a fair number of them did was that in our election platform, and in the Liberal platform, there was mention of a $700 million increase to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. In our case it would have applied to 300,000 seniors who take in less than $15,200 a year. The response from the Conservatives was $50 a month. That is about what the HST has taken out of people's pockets already.

I would like to hear a response from the member. Our suggestion was $200 a month to at least get these folks up to the poverty line.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two types of measures: those that are done by political parties for politics, and those that are done to really help people.

I have to hand it to the Conservatives because sometimes they will take what seems like a good idea, in some cases proposed by the NDP or the Liberals, to help low income seniors or to help volunteer firefighters, but instead of funding it in a way that can really help people, they malnourish the proposals. They get all the bang for the buck out of the announcement. They get all the politics in the short term when people think they are going to get help.

There is a lot of after-sale disappointment when people realize their lives have not changed a bit, and that they have been duped. They have been sold a bill of goods by the Conservatives during an election, who said that they were going to help volunteer firefighters, or low income seniors who need help with the GIS. The Conservatives are counting on Canadians to not really do the math. They are expecting to get away with it, and they do quite frequently.

The reality is that if they are serious about helping people, they have to make sure the programs and the tax measures that they commit to are delivered substantively. Thee have to ensure that the funding is there to actually make a difference in people's lives. Otherwise it is just politics and it is not about helping people.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Willowdale.

It is my pleasure on behalf of the people of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke to speak in support of the legislation before us, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act.

The decision by the people of Canada to vote in favour of a strong, stable, majority government was our mandate to get on with the job of providing Canadians with good government.

My constituents recognize that providing sound financial leadership means making the right decisions to keep Canada on track as the best place to live in the world. If Canada is to maintain its standard of living in today's world, we need to anticipate tomorrow's economy and the jobs that will be required for that.

Energy to power our needs in the future is recognized by our government as where we need to be proactive. Our budget continues to provide significant financial investment in the Canadian nuclear industry.

Bill C-13 contains elements of restructuring efforts of AECL dating back to 1993. The process is recognized as ongoing, which is where I would like to focus my comments today.

The Chalk River laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited represent the retained assets of the crown corporation in our restructuring efforts to strengthen, diversify and support the thousands of jobs associated with this industry.

Our government has provided financial support to AECL that was necessary after many years of neglect by the old government.

Just like a car that needs service and proper maintenance to keep it running smoothly and safely, the same is true of Canada's nuclear assets. For example, even though corrosion on the containment vessel in the NRU, Canada's research reactor, had been observed, the former government decided to follow a policy that would have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs and the hollowing out of an industry in which Canadians are recognized as world leaders. It viewed Chalk River laboratories as nothing more than an isotope factory, when in fact the science of nuclear medicine is but one of the lifesaving discoveries that have been made on site.

On November 16, 2011, Dr. Robert Walker, president and CEO of AECL nuclear laboratories, was pleased to report that we have a new five year licence at the Chalk River site. That is a demonstration of Canadian confidence in the nuclear labs at Chalk River.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act means supporting science, research and development for the jobs of tomorrow.

The former government did not foresee the increased demand for clean, affordable, sustainable energy.

The possible use of nuclear energy for electric power production was discussed in the early years of the nuclear research program, but the first definitive key decision came early in 1953 when it was stated in this very chamber:

Here in Canada we believe that the time has come to undertake the development of atomic power in this country, and discussions are going on as to ways and means of bringing about that development. We feel that the production of power is the concern of those who distribute power, organizations like the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, or the major privately-owned power companies.

Half a century after Rutherford demonstrated for the first time the existence of the atomic nucleus, Canada launched into the 20th century of high technology.

The pursuit by W.B. Lewis, an outstanding scientist of world stature, and his colleagues at AECL Chalk River laboratories of the neutron economy resulted in low fuel costs for Candu, which stands for Canada deuterium uranium reactors, and this became a significant factor in their success. In 1987, the centennial of engineering in Canada, the Candu reactor was ranked as one of the country's top ten engineering achievements.

The former government did not recognize the achievements of Chalk River laboratories, such as in its role in radiation therapy.

In 1951, at the Chalk River plant in Ontario, a group of scientists isolated a source of radiation even stronger than X-rays. It was, and still is, widely used to treat cancer patients. The source of this radiation was the radioactive isotope cobalt-60. The production of this radioactive isotope and the required nuclear activity was carried out in Canada four years before it was repeated in any other country.

The Canada Student Loans Act is assisting young scientists who are studying neutron scattering. The former government forgot about the pioneering work conducted by Bertram Brockhouse, which laid the foundation for the field of inelastic neutron scattering, and for which he shared the 1994 Nobel prize in physics.

A beam of neutrons can be directed onto a specimen of material. By measuring how the beam is reflected, scientists can learn a great deal about the structure of a specimen at the atomic level.

Using the technique that Brockhouse pioneered, the NRC Canadian Neutron Beam Centre at NRU today enables scientists from across Canada and around the world to investigate new materials with neutrons. In fact, after the tragedy with the space shuttle Challenger, NASA commissioned the Canadian Neutron Beam Centre to determine whether or not it was a seal that caused the accident.

Dr. Dominic Ryan, president of the Canadian Institute for Neutron Scattering, outlined that the NRC-CNBC in Chalk River is Canada's scientific hub for research using neutron beams as probes of materials. Since everything is made of material, even our own bodies, materials research using neutron beams has a broad range of applications.

With regard to spin-offs from Chalk River, the Chalk River Laboratories act as a science and technology catalyst for innovation contributing to industry success both domestically and internationally. It has mastered the transfer of bench-top science through to practical applications, on to commercialization and manufacturing. That means jobs.

Another aspect of Chalk River is the security. In addition to maintaining and growing Canada's capability in the nuclear energy industry, improving reliability in the supply of medical radioisotopes and improving the understanding of the effect of radiation on human health, Chalk River Laboratories is ensuring the safety and security for Canada.

A key technology developed at AECL is used by United Nations inspectors to verify that countries are complying with the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and are not developing nuclear weapons.

Known as the Cerenkov viewing device, it allows the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, safeguard inspectors to examine nuclear fuel to confirm it is not being diverted from civilian to military purposes.

AECL Nuclear Laboratories recently patented the state-of-the-art advancement of this technology which allows for total automation of this vital task for the very first time. With millions of shipping containers around the world and over 45,000 trucks crossing North American borders every day, one of the significant challenges for port and border inspection agencies is the detection of illicit nuclear material in transportation containers.

Accurate and expedient results are not only vital to ensure the security of our borders but also ensure the efficient flow of goods and services between the two trading partner nations.

AECL Nuclear Laboratories, in collaboration with Defence Research and Development Canada, the Canadian Border Security Agency, Health Canada and several Canadian universities have recently patented a detection technology similar to CAT scan machines used in hospitals.

Instead of producing an internal image of a patient, it indicates the presence of nuclear material such as uranium and plutonium that may be hidden in shipping containers.

In parallel, AECL is currently working with a Canadian company developing low powered, inexpensive, pocket-size radiation detectors for infield use for practical radiation detection of nuclear materials. That, in addition to 3,300 AECL jobs, spells more jobs.

Chalk River Laboratories is also improving nuclear and related technology safety. It has developed technology to absorb the excess hydrogen and reduce the risk. It is called the passive autocatalytic recombiner. The technology uses no moving parts and is making our reactors safe here in Canada and around the world.

The domestic Canadian nuclear industry has specifically benefited from this technology and it is addressed as a requirement that the federal nuclear regulator placed on the industry to address the hydrogen hazards. AECL technology is also mitigating nuclear accidents.

I see that I am out of time, so I will answer any questions.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, for sharing her time.

It is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. I am proud to stand to speak in support of our government's record.

Last May Canadians elected a strong Conservative government, a government that has earned the trust of Canadians. Our government worked hard in two minority governments to achieve this. For too many years before that, Canadians had a government that lacked accountability and transparency, a government that treated taxpayers' dollars recklessly. In May, Canadians spoke loud and clear, and chose a government that has earned their respect and confidence.

Our government has steadfastly provided good economic policies that have allowed this great country to weather the global slowdown better than many other industrial countries. It is our task to continue on and support the policies that have allowed Canada to remain strong.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. While Canadians are keenly aware of this, the G7 countries are also aware of our economic position. The International Monetary Fund has projected that Canada will be among the strongest in economic growth of the G7 for the next two years. This is a time to continue with the sound policies of our 2011 budget which does this.

It is our duty as a government to look beyond this moment and work to create positive successful policies that will provide for our future generations. Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, is about precisely that. With the support that is provided to communities by legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities and enhancing the wage earner protection program, we are looking to the future and working beyond today's economy. Canadians expect that and we are delivering it.

In my riding of Willowdale, a very urban riding, we recently announced a new partnership between Seneca College with small and medium-sized businesses, enterprises that will help conduct research and bring innovative ideas to market, bringing innovative ideas to commercialization.

Commercialization is the engine for job creation and employment for young entrepreneurs and students who are coming into the job market. This is due to investment from the Federal Economic Development Agency. Our government is working to make the most of our opportunities to innovate, adapt and grow, and secure a prosperous future. I was proud to share in this announcement. It is policies like these that have Canada moving in the right direction, a direction that has been envied by many countries in the world.

We are continuing to help families by introducing the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives. We know that families are the pillars of our communities. We want them to have the resources they require to have the best opportunities and sound futures. By removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can now claim under the medical expense tax credit, we are assisting those who are financially dependent on relatives. We understand the pressures that Canadians face.

Furthermore, the child arts tax credit is one of that many parents in Willowdale will want to utilize. We understand the benefits of these programs to children and families, and we know that supporting these artistic, cultural and recreational activities will benefit our future citizens in many ways.

Our government has shown respect for taxpayers. The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act phases out the direct subsidy of political parties. Political parties should not be directly subsidized by Canadian tax dollars.

The Toronto Board of Trade has said that the 2011 federal budget achieves a prudent balance of taxability and deficit reduction measures while pointing to long-term infrastructure investment opportunities. This is a good plan for both Toronto and Canada.

Our government believes in low taxes. We want to leave more hard-earned money in the pockets of Canadians. My colleagues across the floor continue to have a high tax agenda that would increase taxes on job creating businesses to pay for billions and billions of reckless spending and bloated government programs in Ottawa. Canadians spoke against such policies last spring.

We have cut taxes 120 times since 2006, reducing the overall debt burden to the lowest level in nearly 50 years.

I think we are one of the most competitive low tax jurisdictions in the world.

Under our government, Canada has had seven straight quarters of economic growth and created nearly 600,000 net new jobs since July 2009, of which over 80% are full-time positions.

Our government is enhancing our guaranteed income supplement. Eligible low income seniors will now receive an additional benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples, helping more than 680,000 seniors across Canada. We understand the challenges that some seniors are facing in these tough economic times and the GIS will put more dollars in their pockets.

Recently, the Royal Bank of Canada released its economic survey suggesting that Canada's economy is set to pick up despite volatile global financial markets. The RBC has indicated that it is expected that the Canadian economy will rebound. I am confident that the sound fiscal and sometimes difficult choices of the government have paved the way for this.

On this side of the House we also understand that families want to lower their heating and electricity bills by making their homes more energy efficient. That is why we are extending the eco-energy retrofit homes program. This program has been a success. Until March 31, 2012, homeowners are eligible to receive grants of up to $5,000 to make their homes more energy efficient. I know many of the residents of Willowdale will want to make energy-efficient improvements at home and this program will help them.

Our government understands the importance of this program to Canadians. It has the added benefit of creating a green economy, the precise economy that we are looking for to meet the challenges of the 21st century and to help the new economy on its path to conserve jobs and to build new jobs. There has been much discussion with respect to new technologies and the new green economy.

Our government understands that Canadians are worried about the quality of the air we breathe, along with pollutants and chemicals affecting our environment. Canadian families deserve the best air, water and cleanest environment possible.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan maintains our Conservative government's strong record of supporting a cleaner and more sustainable environment. I will outline some of the measures that we have put in place to do this.

Indeed, for 2011-12, our Conservative government is investing more to protect the environment than in 2010-11. Investments include: $400 million for the eco-energy retrofit homes program to support Canadians in making their homes more energy efficient, $252 million to support regulatory activities to address climate change and air quality, nearly $200 million to help address the health and environmental risks posed by dangerous chemicals through the chemicals management plan, $97 million to develop and promote clean energy technologies, $86 million to support clean energy regulatory actions, $68 million to clean up federal contaminated sites, $48 million to develop transportation sector regulations and next generation clean transportation initiatives, $40 million to support new climate change and clean air projects under Sustainable Development Technology Canada, $35 million to support climate and atmospheric sciences research, and the list goes on.

Our government is moving in the right direction on the environment. I am confident of the results of these initiatives for today and for future generations.

We are focused on what matters to Canadians, which is to create jobs and promote economic growth. We have taken strategic measures to help weather the global economic slowdown. However, we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

I urge my colleagues across the floor to support this legislation, which is a continuation of sound policy that has made Canada the envy of many countries.

We have worked hard as a government to assist our entrepreneurs and we are continuing this in budget 2011. The new hiring credit for small business will provide up $1,000 against small business EI premiums for new hires.

The World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the strongest and safest in the world. The policies of our government have not gone unnoticed. The Economist magazine has named Canada the best place to invest and do business in the next five years.

Having indicated all of these policies are in place, I urge my colleagues across the way to support these measures, the continuation of sound economic ideas that have proven to be sound and comprehensive.

Our Prime Minister and finance minister are working hard to keep Canada on track. I am proud to work with them on these vital programs in budget 2011.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my hon. colleague across the way comparing Canada, as the government often does, to other G7 countries.

The U.K. just announced that over one million young people in the United Kingdom cannot find a job. Thirty per cent of the young people in Italy cannot find a job. It is a bit rich for the government to be comparing Canada with economies that are in dire need.

I know the member opposite is a businessman himself. He understands these issues. He comes from the GTA. How many of these mythical jobs that the Conservative government has created are jobs that come with pensions, jobs that come benefits, jobs that we could see raising a family with, especially within the GTA?

Can the member opposite confirm that we can raise a family on a $10-an-hour job, with no benefits, with no pension, with no job security? I would like him to answer that question.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in small business for over 25 years. All I can say is that a low tax regime where the government does not take away from my cashflow would help me to hire new students and would help new entrepreneurs entering business. These people come with the vigour and the will to work hard in order to make our economy a success.

What I would like to know from the member opposite is what kind of business is he looking at? My business requires research, innovation and commercialization. These are the permanent jobs that we need to meet the economy of the 21st century and the need for green technology, and that would build our new economy for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member actually think it is fair and just to have tax measures in the budget that would not benefit low-income Canadians?

Does he think it is tenable, in any way, that low-income volunteer firefighters, that low-income families with children, and that caregivers from low-income families would not benefit from these measures? If he believes it is unfair, will he work to change that and to ensure that these measures are made refundable and as such, would benefit low-income Canadian families who need them the most?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member's riding quite well, as my wife is from the same riding. She lived in Kentville.

I must say that in that riding a lot of wineries are being established. Let me tell the member that if he were to speak with those people, all of them would tell him that the low tax jurisdiction is the best way to create jobs and hire people to work in those wineries.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the opposition not only continues to filibuster priorities to grow our Canadian economy, when it comes to private members' bills and the opposition's priorities, the member for Windsor West introduced a bill about labelling for cat fur in products.

I know the government's priorities. I wonder if the member can comment on the difference between the priorities that we have of growing this economy through lower taxes and other initiatives and the priorities, like labelling products that contain cat fur, from the New Democrats. Would he speak to those priorities?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding those priorities, I think they are best left to businesspeople. I am sure that business would find the best strategy.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to the third reading of Bill C-13. This is not the first time I have encountered Bill C-13. In the Standing Committee on Finance we reviewed it reasonably thoroughly and I am critic for finance in the area of pensions, although I will speak in broader terms here today.

On this side of the House, we believe that Bill C-13 is a major missed opportunity. The obvious question that follows is: What would we do in the official opposition if we were making the same decisions that the government is facing at this point?

New Democrats have been proposing job creation types of proposals such as shelving the planned corporate tax cut for January 1, 2012. This would create $3 billion to $4 billion a year that could be used in job creation. We hear from the other side that somehow this would raise taxes. No, it would not. It would be a continuation of the tax that exists at the present time.

Next, we would have offered a new-hire tax credit for every new hire who stays in the job a full year. New Democrats would also help small businesses by providing a 2% tax cut for them, to encourage job creation. The previous speaker just talked about the environment needed for small business. Considering the dire warnings from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for at least the last five years regarding the huge deficit of infrastructure needs in this country, we would put aside moneys and set forth a plan to address the $130 billion in infrastructure deficit.

It is very important to have long-range planning and that is what seems to be missing here today. New Democrats believe Canada should be in the lead in investing in green infrastructure and renewable energy, but we lag far behind the United States and other countries. The message from this side of the House is that it is time for the government to invest now.

Workers from the boomer generation are retiring. Canada has a zero birthrate. We must invest in skills training for current workers, for those workers who will replace the ones who retire and for the future needs of this country in leading-edge industries of tomorrow.

During our finance committee's recent pre-budget hearings for the 2012 budget, I stressed the following.

Canadians are too indebted to stimulate the economy. Business is holding on to some $500 billion in cash because of the fear of another freezing of bank lending as happened in the last recession. This leaves only the governments to stimulate our economy. The government should seriously consider the options put forward by New Democrats.

At our pre-budget hearings, Glen Hodgson, senior vice-president and chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, at one of our public meetings, stated the following:

We believe we're severely under-invested as a country in infrastructure. We haven't done the numbers, but others have, including engineers and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and I think their number going back five years was of a deficit of about $130 billion in terms of infrastructure investment.

He went on to say:

That tells me there is huge scope for realigning government spending priorities and making sure we're making adequate investments in roads, ports, and bridges to ensure that the Montreal economy, for example, works well. Could you imagine if the Champlain Bridge actually broke...? That would be a huge loss to Montreal's GDP and to Canada's GDP.

Sylvain Schetagne, senior economist, social and economic policy department, Canadian Labour Congress, said:

Corporations benefit from the kind of infrastructure they have around them. So a bridge that is falling apart is not good.

That is an understatement. He further said:

Having enough workers who have skills and education needed in order to provide productive work is also needed.

That is in line with the suggestion that came from the New Democrats. He said:

There are other things we can do. For instance, in social infrastructure we are facing an aging workforce, and we would like to see more Canadians working... more women and more aboriginals working. There are programs such as child care that we can put in place to allow more women to go back to work, to improve labour force participation, and to make sure that companies have workers when they need them.

Glen Hodgson said:

As part of our globalization, sadly inequality is growing in most countries around the world and in Canada. The rate of growth of inequality, as we measured it, was actually greater than in the United States, which is a bit of a surprising result.

He closed his statement by saying:

We are asking questions about whether we're doing enough as a country to ensure that all Canadians are benefiting from the economic growth--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member at this time. He will have 15 minutes remaining in his speech when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has 15 minutes left to complete his remarks.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind you that I am sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I will continue with what Mr. Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada said with regard to our situation. He said:

As part of globalization, sadly, inequality is growing in most countries around the world. In Canada the rate of growth of inequality as we measured it was actually greater than in the United States, which is a bit of a surprising result.

He closed his statement before the pre-budget hearings by saying:

We were asking whether we're doing enough as a country to ensure that all Canadians are benefiting from economic growth. Whether we're talking about the lack of job security or about people retiring with insufficient incomes, ongoing poverty is kind of a festering sore within an economy, and I think it does drag down your ongoing growth potential.

I reiterated that part because that is a very significant point. The poverty that has been created in the country over the last five to ten years is a horrendous burden.

I will now return to my theme of Bill C-13 being a missed opportunity. I will speak for a moment about the government's recently announced pooled retirement pension plan, PRPP. This plan shows how the government does not seem to understand, very clearly at least, the real problems facing working Canadians today.

The government in its opening remarks for the PRPP said that 60% of working Canadians have zero savings and no pension. That is one point on which we do agree. The PRPP does not begin to address this problem though. It is simply similar to an RRSP and is open to market fluctuations. In addition, the PRPP potential fee structure favours the institutions and would draw down on workers' savings in what we believe is blatantly an unfair manner.

On behalf of the New Democrats I have put forward a plan for a seven year phase-in of increases to the CPP which would double benefits in about 35 years.

We should keep in mind that the Canada pension plan lost 1% during the market downturn of the last few weeks, while the remainder of the market lost 11% during the same period. That clearly shows that the CPP is the best vehicle to secure seniors' retirement.

I will speak for a moment about the increases that we are proposing to the Canada pension plan. I want to make it very clear that they would be phased in and they would be minimal. We hear all kinds of numbers from the government side. For a worker earning $47,200 or more a year, the initial cost of gradually doubling the CPP works out to 9¢ an hour, or $3.57 a week. Hopefully, the government side is listening. For a worker earning $30,000 per year, the initial cost would be 6¢ an hour, or $2.27 a week.

It would be minimal and would allow Canadians to put money into their retirement. It would not be a huge cost to them. The reality is that otherwise they would have nothing.

I see that I am down to my last minute of debate, so I will condense my comments.

In the administrative fees for the CPP and mutual funds, there is a difference of 0.5% and 2.5% respectively. One is five times more than the other.

We need to consider carefully the need for a Canada pension plan increase to benefit those workers who today have nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, pensions for Canadians is a concern of our government. That is why we introduced the pooled pension plan.

Could the member make some suggestions as to how that plan could work well for small and medium enterprises? To make the change to the Canada pension plan that he refers there has to be an agreement with the provinces. How would it work for provinces that did not agree to work through the Canada pension plan? Has he sought their opinion?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question regarding the PRPP, we are not saying it is a complete failure. We are very concerned about the fee structure and how that might draw down the savings of Canadians.

With regard to the Canada pension plan, going into Kananaskis six provincial finance ministers wrote a letter to the federal finance minister endorsing an increase to the Canada pension plan. It is my understanding that Alberta was opposed to it and that Quebec was raising concerns. Clearly, a majority of Canadians supported it. We were on the right path. Instead of moving forward, the government decided to stop at that point and move to the PRPP. Essentially, that was a poor choice. It should still put together a committee with the provinces to go forward on the Canada pension plan. Hopefully it will do that in the near future.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about poverty earlier. When it comes to corporate bankruptcy, the workers' pension plan is at the bottom of the list of creditors.

How does my colleague feel this could hurt the financial security of seniors?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that very topic I have introduced Bill C-331 which would move the assets of a pension plan ahead of unsecured debt in bankruptcy, insolvency and CCAA. We had the situation of Nortel and a number of pulp and paper mills across the country that closed. In some instances, the assets of the pension plan were used like a separate pool to pay down debt when in fact they belonged to workers. In addressing that, we have to change the priority in bankruptcy. In fairness, I have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance about this very issue, and what I understand from the government side is that it is going to take a fair look at this.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask about the environment.

Recent research has shown that it is a very good thing the Montreal protocol was agreed to and implemented. Without elimination of CFCs, most of the ozone layer would be destroyed by 2065. The UV increases would be extreme with the average July noon UV index reaching about 30. A value of 11 is considered to be very high. DNA-damaging UV would be increased by 550% leading to a large increase in skin cancer.

Does the hon. member think that the government should reverse its cuts to ozone monitoring?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly the proposed cuts are beyond the point of ridiculous. The first thing people are told when they visit Australia is to stay off the beach at certain times because Australia's incidence of skin cancer is quadruple that of the rest of the world. I agree with the member that the ozone needs to be tested. We would vote against any cuts to the monitoring of our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor. I would like to thank the hon. member for sharing his time with me.

Before I begin to speak about Bill C-13 specifically, I would like to take this opportunity to express my disgust at the current gag orders and reduced debate in the House of Commons. I sometimes get the impression that, for the Conservatives, democracy comes down to 35 days of debate once every four years and that Parliament can be shut down in the interim because there is no real need for it.

In the time I have left, I would like to say that what I find unbelievably disappointing in the Conservative government's policies and decisions is the lack of certain ideas, certain concepts. Earlier an hon. member spoke about science being real. Yet the Conservatives, in their economic decisions, generally ignore other things that are also real, and those things are inequality and poverty. The Minister of Finance accomplished the amazing feat of tabling a budget where the word “poverty”, unfortunately, appears only once. But that does not mean that it is not real.

In 2009, 3.2 million people were living in poverty in Canada. As my colleague and neighbour to my left reminded us, these people are not always unemployed. Sometimes these are people who work. As we know, earning minimum wage amounts to living in poverty. Of the 3.2 million people living in poverty, 634,000 were children.

I find it unacceptable that, in a G8 country, so many people are being abandoned and we cannot take care of one another.

The Conference Board reminded us a few weeks ago that inequality is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. Thus, we are moving in the wrong direction. The Americans have a much more unequal society than we do, but at this rate, and with this government's neo-liberal conservative policies, we will catch up with the Americans in no time.

Equity or equality per se is not simply a good and moral objective that we are striving for; it is also more effective.

Last summer, the IMF—which is by no means a socialist organization—released a study on inequality that should be required reading for the Minister of Finance and the entire government. The IMF concluded that more equitable distribution of income translates into longer and more stable economic growth. This is good not only for people trying to get out of poverty, but also for our country as a whole, for the entire country will experience longer periods of growth with fewer upheavals. This is therefore something we should try to achieve.

An inequitable society has more social problems, more crime and more illness. Indeed, poverty has an impact on health, education, productivity, creativity and civic engagement. It is estimated that 20% of health care spending is due to socio-economic factors such as the income gap, for example.

Unfortunately, this government has chosen to give gifts to the banks and the oil companies and cut taxes for the Canadian corporations, which, generally speaking, do not need it. In the first quarters of this year, the six big Canadian banks earned $22 billion in profits. They are not the ones who need help. People who use food banks every month because they are having a hard time paying their bills and making ends meet are the ones who need help. There are solutions and, as New Democrats, we are proposing solutions to truly help workers and their families and truly help people living in poverty.

I want to talk about this government's choices to help those who deserve our respect, those who built the society we live in and to whom we owe everything: seniors.

The previous speaker talked about this. Certain things need to be done with regard to pension plans. I will come back to that. The NDP proposed lifting all seniors in Canada out of poverty by injecting money into the guaranteed income supplement. The answer we got from the Conservative government is woefully inadequate. Its solution was to come up with a parallel system. Indeed, it plans to give an extra $600 a year, or $50 a month to every senior living in poverty, but we must realize that it has created new criteria and new scales: a person is entitled to $50 a month if their income does not exceed $2,000 a year. Once a person has reached that threshold, they do not receive the full $50. They end up with peanuts, maybe an extra $4 or $5. I am not sure who this is going to help. That is not what it means to take concrete measures to help people.

There are so many things to do and so many problems to solve. There are so many people living in difficult situations that have an impact on everything from health to access to post-secondary education.

This government has decided to saw off the very branch on which it is sitting, or to dig the deficit hole. It tells us that it is a real problem that has to be solved. It should stop lowering taxes for banks and oil companies. It has created the problem itself. It is creating a situation where, in Canada, we now have a structural deficit, not a cyclical deficit. Why would they willingly give up revenue? It seems that the Conservatives are governing a state that they basically detest. All their efforts are focused on shrinking government programs, except for those involving the military and corrections, of course.

What could be done with this money that the Conservatives have voluntarily given up, and made us all give up? We could restore investment in social housing. The government's present contribution to affordable social housing is just about nil, and has been for many years. This has created extremely difficult and unacceptable situations for people. In the riding that I have the honour to represent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, 2,000 people are on a waiting list for social housing and 5,500 households spend more than 50% of their income on shelter.

This is not the way to build a just, strong and equitable society. These people have problems every day. They are unable to pay their bills. This creates a great deal of tension for couples, families and individuals who cannot make ends meet.

What does the Conservative government do? It gives them tax credits that are worthless if they pay no tax. It is just great to say that they provide tax credits for youth, sports associations, access to this and that, but people have to pay tax to be entitled to them. Once again, it will help some people, but not those who need help the most. We must remember this.

Also, why is it that 1.4 million people are officially looking for a job in Canada and do not have one? This number is growing. We saw that another 72,000 jobs were lost last month. Half of the people who pay into the employment insurance fund do not have access to it when they lose their jobs because they did not work a sufficient number of hours. So, they are paying a tax or insurance premium but they are not entitled to receive benefits when they find themselves in a situation when they might claim them. The NDP is arguing in favour of re-establishing greater access to employment insurance benefits. By so doing, the government would truly provide tangible help to Canadians in their everyday lives.

Investment in infrastructure is insufficient. Clearly, the government has not stopped harping about Canada's economic action plan, but it is also important to remember that, without the threat of a coalition government, the government would never have introduced this plan. The ideas came from this side of the House. We then put an end to the plan to form a coalition, but the entire deficit has not been overcome. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that Canada is currently facing a $123 billion infrastructure deficit. As a result, overpasses are collapsing and there are problems with the Champlain Bridge and others. That means that our critical infrastructure has been left to crumble: our bridges, our highways and our water systems. This creates problems and then the price must be paid. We must reinvest in infrastructure.

We must also reinvest in research and development because it is the future and Canada has a terrible record among the OECD countries in this area. By making this investment, we will be able to stimulate the economy and create good jobs.

I can give another example. What else could we do to help people? What direction could we take? Think about the cost of medications. Last year, it was estimated that three million Canadians did not take the medications they needed because they could not afford them. That is unacceptable. That is why people continue to be sick and get sicker. Then, they become a burden on the health care system because they did not have the means to take care of themselves. In Quebec we have a drug insurance plan. The NDP thinks this is a good example. With asymmetrical federalism, Quebec could maintain its public drug insurance plan, and we could still create a Canada-wide one at the federal level.

There are many other things, such as household debt, for example. The government is not doing anything to lower credit card interest rates or ATM fees. Two-thirds of Canadian workers do not have a retirement pension plan through their employers. We must improve public pension plans. We must double them. We agree with this because it is the most effective way of doing things. That is what will help the most people once they retire, when they stop working and leave the workforce. We could also talk about Internet connections in the regions or renewable energy. There are tons of things that the federal government should invest in, such as green transportation, high-speed trains or electric monorails.

There are so many things to do and, unfortunately, the only thing this government does is lower taxes. That does not work. That is not how we will help each other and create a fair and just society.

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

Mr. Speaker, tax cuts were important to the 85,000 seniors who were taken off the tax rolls since we became government.

Then there is the working income tax benefit. We provided tax relief introduced in 2007 by $580 million for 2009 and subsequent years, effectively doubling total tax relief through the working income tax benefit.

I wonder if the member realizes there are programs specifically targeting those lower income people who were paying taxes? Our infrastructure, which the member talked about, we did have a vision in our building Canada fund. We took the historic step of investing $33 billion in a long-term plan. I just want to know if the member is up to speed on some of those investments that we have made?

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

Of course, Mr. Speaker. But when it is not enough, something needs to be said. When it is not working, something needs to be said. Promises were made, but they turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors—the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for seniors will help hardly anyone.

That is not how we will get our seniors out of poverty. Seniors will not rise above poverty if they have their promised assistance cut when they bring in more than $2,000 or $3,000 a year. It will not help people if we ignore the issue of public sector pension plans.

The Canada pension plan works. It is effective and is doing very well. More money needs to be put into it. That is how we will really help people, not by giving useless tax credits to families who do not pay taxes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada participated in the eighth meeting of the Ozone Research Managers of the Parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer in May 2011. There were no indications in Canada's presentation that the Minister of the Environment was planning to effectively wipe out Environment Canada's ozone group and severely curtail ozone monitoring activities.

Also notable in the presentation is the slide entitled, “An Arctic Ozone Hole”. This means that Environment Canada was aware of severe ozone depletion in the Arctic well before the government began to announce its cuts to ozone monitoring and science in June. This is a shocking revelation.

Does the hon. member think that the government should reverse its cuts to ozone monitoring?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. We should be talking about the environment, climate change and problems with the ozone layer. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not dealing seriously with these issues that will affect more than one parliament, the work we will do here during our four-year mandate. We are talking about the future, about our children. The Conservative government has a short-term vision. It is making decisions that will harm the people living on this planet in 10, 20 or 30 years. Cuts to Environment Canada for monitoring the ozone are troubling and worrying. Once again, the Conservatives are going in the wrong direction.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's last, very fast minute, he touched on the issue of credit cards. In the election campaign, the NDP suggested putting a cap on credit card interest rates. Could he tell us how this could help families that have huge debts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Hochelaga for her question. Her riding is next to mine on the island of Montreal. I was beginning to address the topic of household and family debt, which is extremely worrisome. We in the NDP are not the only ones who are worried. A study conducted by Moody's said it does not make sense that Canadian families have a debt-to-income ratio of nearly 150%. That is huge. It seems to us that the Conservative government finds the debt problem staggering. However, our debt to GDP ratio is 32%, which is half the debt in OECD countries. We are doing relatively well here.

The government should worry a little less about the debt and make fewer cuts to public services, and instead help families that have huge, real debts that could bankrupt our economy if those people can no longer support consumer spending because of their debt. That is a very bad thing, in both the short and long term. Action must be taken and the NDP has made some suggestions, particularly the one my colleague just talked about.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to argue in favour of Bill C-13, which is the government's plan to keep Canada's economy growing and the job creation machine going.

It is very important that we take a step back and look at the government's overall economic action plan. We have been talking about specific elements in this plan, tax credits and other specific measures, but sometimes it is useful to take a step back and look at our overall plan, because every individual initiative in this plan is part of a much bigger plan to steer Canada's economy through what has been an unprecedented economic crisis that the world has been facing over the last 36 months.

Before I go on, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my colleague, who sits with me on the official languages committee, the member for Ottawa—Orléans.

Just over three years ago, which I remember well because we were in the middle of a federal election campaign, we witnessed some pretty unprecedented events that I have never been through in my lifetime, the kind of events that our grandparents talked about when they lived through the depression of the 1930s and the stock market crash that took place in the late 1920s. I felt like I was reliving the experiences of a generation that had gone before us. I do not think we have fully realized the results of this crisis and I think it will continue to unfold, not just in the coming weeks and months but in coming years. By the time this decade is out, I think we will be facing a very different global economic order.

The government has done a fantastic job of steering the Canadian economy through the last three years. When the recession and global financial crisis hit some 38 or 39 months ago, few could foretell the way things would unfold in the following months and years. Yet the government very quickly showed that it could be not only pragmatic but flexible. In the following six months, it worked with the provinces and our other partners in the federation to come forward with what is, arguably, the biggest investment plan since the end of the second world war. That plan, as we all know, was the first phase of Canada's economic action plan.

We delivered in some 24 months an unprecedented $60 billion in stimulus spending across this country, which played a critical role in ensuring that Canada did not slip into the kind of severe recession that we have seen in other countries, like the United States and Europe. Through the stimulus plan, we also delivered long-lasting benefits and record investments in universities and colleges across the country. As an MP from Ontario, I can say that the investments we made in Ontario's community colleges were the biggest made in that system since William G. Davis was minister of education in the 1960s and created the community college system. In the subsequent 50 years, we have never seen such a huge wave of investments into that community college system. That was delivered through the government stimulus plan, specifically through the knowledge infrastructure program.

We also ensured that the banks had credit facilities to swap out their mortgage portfolios with credit that the government would provide to ensure that the banks continued to lend throughout that time. We delivered fiscal stimulus through other measures, like enhancing the employment insurance program and introducing work sharing, which ensured that employers would not have to lay off workers in industries that had experienced severe slowdowns. We also extended a major loan and equity investment in General Motors and Chrysler, which ensured that the manufacturing industry in the heartland of Ontario would still be able to rely on the auto industry as a key component of that sector.

Those are some of the measures we made fiscally. We worked closely with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney. We gave the bank new legislative powers to expand its mandate so that it had all the tools available to respond to any monetary threats the country would face.

Over the last 36 months or so, the results are evident. We have created over 600,000 net new jobs in the country. Our unemployment rate in our country is significantly lower than in many of the other major advanced economies in the world. Our budget deficits are significantly lower than in many of the other major developed economies, both in North America and in Europe. These are some of the successes to which we can point.

Sometimes it is useful to look to outsiders outside of Canada to get a perspective on how well we have done in the last 36 months. Sometimes we can be pretty provincial in our country. We tend to not have the perspective that others who live outside of Canada might have, others who have seen what has gone on not just here but elsewhere.

I will quote what Standard and Poor's said recently when it reaffirmed Canada's triple-A credit rating. It said that our credit rating was due to our, “superior political and economic profile and strong flexibility and performance profile”. Other rating firms, such as Fitch and Moody's, have also reiterated our credit standing in the world.

The World Economic Forum, the very well-respected organization, has ranked Canada's banking system, for four years running, as the soundest in the world. As we all know, the banking system is the foundation for our economy. We just have to look at the banking crises that have taken place south of the border, in the United Kingdom and currently in continental Europe to realize how important it is that we maintain and regulate our banks properly.

However, we are not out of the woods. The fact is the crisis from outside our shores, both in the United States, which is failing to resolve its deficit and debt conundrum, where Congress has recently failed to come to an agreement through its congressional committee, which will trigger a default plan, and the events that are currently taking place in Europe, where the contagion in Greek sovereign debt markets is now starting to spread to Italy and possibly beyond to countries like Spain and France.

All these events show that we are not out of the woods yet and there remains significant risks to the downside. That is why it is incredibly important that we stay the course and that we implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. That is precisely what Bill C-13 would do. It would continue with the government's prudent, flexible and pragmatic approach to steering Canada's economy through this global crisis.

We have put specific measures in this budget. For example, we have implemented the hiring credit for small businesses, a commitment we made during the last election. We have put in place in this bill the regime to help simplify the collection of customs tariffs in order to facilitate and enhance cross-border trade. We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance deductions for the manufacturing sector, which has been especially hit because of the global recession. We have also put in place measures to eliminate the mandatory retirement age for workers who work in federally regulated sectors.

These are some of the things that we have put in the bill that will allow us to build on the successes that Canada's first economic action plan have put in place.

We have also made permanent, in this legislation, the gas tax transfer to Canadian municipalities, some $2 billion a year to help them with their aging infrastructure and to ensure that they can continue to maintain the infrastructure that they have built over the last number of decades. We have enhanced the wage earner protection program to help workers affected by bankruptcies or receiverships.

These are some of the additional measures that we are putting in place because we remain focused on creating jobs and economic growth.

I want to finish by making this point. In the last election, our party, our candidates, our Prime Minister campaigned on one issue and one issue over every other issue. That was that we needed to stay the course economically, that we needed to keep implementing Canada's economic action plan, building on the successes of the first plan by putting in place the second phase of the plan so we could create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families.

This bill does exactly that, and I ask all hon. members of this House to support it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government did run on that platform and that is why most Canadians voted against it.

I want to read a small quote from one of the member's colleagues about closure. He referred to closure when he said, “It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken”. That was a quote by the Minister of Public Safety around closure.

Why is the government so afraid of debating this bill? I would argue that in part it is because we have the largest deficit in Canadian history. Perhaps the government does not want to focus Canada's attention on that glaring fact.

On another glaring fact, youth unemployment in our country is double the national average. Young people right across Canada are protesting that very fact. Yet we never hear the Conservative side of aisle talk about young people and employment. We hear about jobs, jobs, jobs, but the government never says whether the jobs are sustainable, whether one could raise a family—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would encourage all members when they are asking questions to look to the Chair for guidance in terms of what an appropriate length is for a question.

The hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if it is relevant to talk about time allocation. We are on the debate on Bill C-13, which is the budget act. Therefore, I will focus on the latter two comments that my colleague posed regarding youth issues.

The government has been focused on addressing the challenges that Canada's youth face. In fact, it is the reason why we have invested record amounts of money into Canada's post-secondary education system. As I mentioned earlier, and I know the member is a proud Torontonian, a proud Ontarian, the amount of money that we have invested in community colleges to help those students who want to enter skilled trades and other sectors of the workforce has been an unprecedented investment not seen since the Hon. William G. Davis created the community college system in the 1960s.

As for the deficit, I would clarify a point. It is not a record deficit in terms of the real deficit. If we measure the deficit in terms of a percentage of GDP, the deficits that we have experienced in the last three years are substantially lower than they were in the early 1990s. Measured in simple absolute dollar amounts, yes, they are at the highest number, but that is not a fair measure. On that measure, the average worker today is making about a thousand times more money than the average worker did some decades ago. We need to compare apples to apples. On the real measure of deficit to GDP, this is not a record deficit. In fact, it shows the government's prudence in this regard.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with health.

I strongly believe stem cell therapies represent a tremendous opportunity to improve and/or alleviate human suffering, reduce the economic burden of health care costs for Canadians and create new long-term jobs in the delivery of regenerative medicine. It is key to ensure that Canadians are the first to benefit from this Canadian discovery and have access to these new therapies in a safe, fair and timely manner.

Does the hon. member think that the federal government should increase financial support for stem cell research from basic science to early phase clinical trials to globally competitive levels?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, we are investing record amounts into higher education in our country. In fact, if we look at the OECD measures on this file, the higher education research and development measure, which the OECD tracks for all member OECD countries, Canada ranks second only to Sweden in terms of the amount of money that we invest in Canada's universities and into research and development at those universities.

In answer to the member's question, any allocation of money through SSIRC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Council, NSERC and all the other bodies out there should be done on a peer reviewed basis. I do not think elected officials should be getting into the business of deciding which specific research projects should go ahead. That should be done by the scientists and researchers involved and done on a peer reviewed basis. That is the best way for the government to proceed.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my distinguished and hon. friend from Wellington—Halton Hills for sharing his time.

During the 41st general election, we all recognized that the economy continued to be a major issue for Canadians. In fact, this was the crucial reason for our success. The economy needs to be among our country's key priorities.

Despite this period of global economic uncertainty, Canada has one of the strongest fiscal positions of the major advanced economies of the world. While many countries' economies are slipping, Canada can say that it is creating employment. Here in the nation's capital, many jobs have been created in the past 12 months.

In October 2010, 505,400 Ottawa residents had work and the unemployment rate was at 6.9%. Helped by vibrant businesses in our solid and credible economic action plan, Ottawa is now turning the corner.

According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, more than 13,000 jobs were created in Ottawa over the past year, resulting in a 1.3% drop in the unemployment rate.

Right now, our region is reaping the benefits of the current government's initiatives and efforts.

Ever since Canadians entrusted us with managing the nation's affairs 2,129 days ago, we have reduced the tax burden over 120 times. We have cut income taxes to 15% of the lowest income earners. We have taken more than one million Canadians completely off the tax rolls.

We have increased the amount that Canadians can earn without paying taxes and the average family in Ottawa—Orléans is saving over $3,000 through the current government's tax reduction plan.

Last Thursday I attended the People's Choice Business Award gala sponsored by the Orléans Chamber of Commerce to recognize outstanding businesses as chosen by their customers. Several award winners eloquently pointed out that Orléans was a vibrant and positive environment for small, medium and large businesses.

The actions taken by the Government of Canada have certainly played a key role in the economic vitality of our beautiful corner of this country.

However, the work is far from over. The strength of the global economy is threatened by unwise choices made beyond our borders. The next phase of Canada's economic action plan is designed to ensure our economic recovery for the good of all Canadians, both today and in the years to come, through a number of targeted measures.

Seniors are among my biggest concerns and on countless occasions I have visited these Canadians with invaluable experience at Club 60, le Rendez-vous des aînés, the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre, the Gloucester Senior Adults' Centre and many other places. They will certainly be pleased to see what their government will be doing for them.

The government will implement a new tax credit of up to $2,000 for caregivers.

The GIS will be enhanced. Eligible low-income seniors will receive an additional annual benefit of up to $600 for single seniors and $840 for couples.

Finally, we want to remove the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim for their financially dependent relatives under the medical expense tax credit.

Seniors living in Ottawa—Orléans are very involved in their community and they volunteer their time. The district that I have the honour to represent here includes more than 300 community organizations and they will greatly benefit from our super volunteers.

As a servant of the people of Ottawa—Orléans in this place, I am pleased to note that the government wishes to invest an additional $10 million to promote volunteerism, mentorship and social participation of seniors. This amount will also help expand awareness of elder abuse, of which they sometimes fall victim.

Our young people will not be outdone: Ottawa—Orléans is an excellent place to raise a family, with young people aged 19 and under making up almost 27% of the population of Orléans.

Many of our brilliant young people attend well-established institutions, such as the University of Ottawa, Carleton University, Algonquin College and La Cité collégiale, which recently added a new campus in Orléans, just to name a few.

Two important organizations—the College Student Alliance and the Council of Ontario Universities—welcomed the 2011 budget.

On March 22, 2011, the Council of Ontario Universities wrote in a news release that it:

--applauds the federal government's 2011 budget, and its commitment of continued support and new investments which will help to sustain a robust pipeline of research. We are pleased in these tough economic times that the government continues to invest in university research as a critical driver of Canada's future prosperity and economic recovery--

The Council of Ontario Universities adds that this budget makes it clear that the Government of Canada believes strongly in the important role that research plays in driving positive economic and social outcomes for Canadians.

As well, I am sure that the Ottawa Police Service will be delighted with our $20 million investment to promote programs that help young people from joining street gangs or that help them quit. Ottawa, like many other major Canadian municipalities, is not immune to this terrible reality.

The young people of Ottawa—Orléans and I are deeply attached to the arts. Families will be pleased to see that their government is providing a 15% non-refundable tax credit on the first $500 of eligible fees for arts, cultural, recreational and child development activities.

As for our cities, I am sure that Ottawa City Council will be pleased that this government is putting into effect the annual investment in municipalities with the gas tax. Ottawa receives roughly $50 million per year from this annual investment of $2 billion.

Thanks to this money, the City of Ottawa can continue to improve services provided by OC Transpo. This should help reduce traffic on Highway 174, and the environment will ultimately come out the big winner of this investment.

In closing, I wish to point out that the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, tabled by our friend the hon. Minister of Finance, is a credible and sustainable plan that will provide an added boost to the families of Ottawa--Orléans.

In this period of global economic uncertainty, I am convinced that the people of Orléans, like all Canadians, will have the tools to prosper.

Although we are faced with major challenges, the residents of Orléans, and the people of Canada, have shown that they are able to step up to the plate and keep moving forward. My maternal grandfather, the late Omer Lacasse, participated in the community work project that built the St. Joseph's church in Orléans 90 years ago.

The St. Isidore de Prescott arena was built in 1957 by volunteers from that police village over which my uncle, the late Raymond Galipeau, presided. Do members know how much that arena cost? It cost $3,001. That is less than 1% of the cost of arenas in those days.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was right when he said that “Forced labour is less opposed to liberty than are taxes”.

There is an old saying, “Good workers have good tools”. With this plan, Canadians will have the right tools to build a strong, united and prosperous Canada.

I thank the House for its kind attention. I assure the House that I will hear my colleagues' questions with the same respect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker referred to a number of elements in Bill C-13. I will mention a few, such as support for volunteer firefighters. Now that is a smokescreen. It is a measure that makes no tangible contribution, except to a Conservative speech about how they are popular, are doing the right things and are helping volunteer firefighters. There are 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada. Only 55,000 will have access to this tax credit, which totals $15 million. Divided by 55,000, this amounts to less than $300.

Is that help? Is that support? Will that provide them with trucks, equipment or training? Will they be part of a national public safety plan? No.

This is also the case of family caregivers. They are being thrown crumbs. Will there be a policy for maintaining people in their own homes? No.

How can the member say that this is a good budget when all it provides is smokescreens?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it regrettable that the members opposite are engaging in demagoguery. That is probably why 70% of Canadians voted against them on May 2.

When the Government of Canada invests in programs, the money comes from taxpayers' pockets, not the government's. We must make prudent investments and that is exactly what Canadians are seeing. That is why, on May 2, they endorsed the budget we presented in March.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2008 Massachusetts signed legislation that would set aside $1 billion toward biotechnology over 10 years to turn the state into the second largest with regard to stem cell research in the United States.

Governments are investing because regenerative medicine represents an enormous economic opportunity, a conservative $2 billion to $3 billion range over the next three years. Canada's stem cell researchers need more money. For example, diabetes costs Canada $12 billion annually. As President Obama stated, “Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident”. They require investment in people, research, equipment and facilities.

We need to invest in our world-class stem cell researchers and their work. Does the hon. member support more money for stem cell research?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been paying attention to the questions by the hon. member this afternoon. It seems that she is not aware that we are discussing Bill C-13. She thinks we are discussing stem cell research. Therefore, her questions, which are coming out of left field, are probably a testimonial to the fact that 82% of Canadians voted against her and her party. That is why she is stuck in the corner there today.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not resort to the math here, but there is a reason why substantially more Canadians voted for our government in the last election than any other party.

The economic action plan has many moving parts. Is there a single element or characteristic of our approach that he can attribute that would explain the fact that Canadians voted overwhelmingly in support of that plan?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are very safe and prudent incrementalists. They listened to our budget last March and they liked many of the elements in that budget.

However, when I was knocking on doors, I found out specifically that they liked what we were doing for families. They liked that we were introducing a family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirmed dependent relatives. They liked that we were removing the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers could claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives. They liked that we were introducing a new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Jean, Personal Debt; the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, Health; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

I am glad to speak today and address some of the problems with the budget implementation act. My initial concern with a bill like this is its omnibus nature, a theme we have seen from past Conservative budgets. There is so much packed into the budget that it becomes the single most important piece of legislation we will have to debate in a year. I must remind the House that there are close to 650 pages in this budget and what we have to debate is an overly complex document peppered with supportable items, but one that also goes about preparing the ground for much of the dirty work the government intends to do.

The end result is forcing parliamentarians to vote to do the least harm, which means to vote against the more imposing items and sacrifice the lesser and often imminent supportable items in the process. This leads to a predictable parade of Conservative members saying, “We didn't support this item or that item without ever acknowledging the context”. I guess it makes for great TV, but I cannot imagine many Canadians would be impressed if they were given the complete story. However, we will not hold our breath waiting for that kind of development. It is the most partisan and disrespectful group Canada has ever elected.

It is safe to assume that everyday Canadians expect Parliament to buckle down and get to work examining the bill since it is so wide ranging and important. They would rightly expect a parliamentarian to ensure the budget is sound and that the measures will do what Conservatives have said they will do. In short, Canadians expect us to do our jobs, but the government does not see the value in that. Instead, it put time allocation on a bill yet again.

Parliament is barely getting going and we have seen the government use this heavy-handed measure on every major piece of legislation, six times so far. It has gone so far as to use time allocation on a bill before an opposition member has even spoken on it. How is that for democracy? It is not very good, if one asks me.

In fact, when it comes to democracy, the only concern from the government bench is making certain it uses every tool at its disposal to ensure there is not much of it. It has used its majority to cut off debate on nearly every significant piece of legislation and to ensure committees are not doing much of anything.

We have to ask ourselves, what is the rush? Why is the government moving every significant piece of legislation at breakneck speed? Is it afraid of the criticism for items it knows to be overly partisan? Is it trying to get everything out of the way so it can prorogue Parliament again?

I can imagine that the idea of avoiding Parliament altogether is very appealing to the government, no question period and less probing from the press gallery. It must look pretty good to a government that acts more like a king's court than a parliamentary democracy. We will see. Right now there are only questions.

There are a number of themes repeated in this debate. Of greatest concern to me is the way this budget does so little to address inequality in Canada. It is among the greatest of our pressing needs, yet there is not even the smallest of attempts to address the winding gap in incomes here in Canada. This is not just by observation, either. This is a fact.

We only have to look at the occupy movement. It recognizes the inequality in Canada. The Conference Board of Canada released a report recently that placed Canada 12th out of 17 comparable countries when it comes to income disparity. It is a trend that is growing. That is no way to run a consumer-based economy, which is what we have in Canada to a large extent.

The most disturbing trend in the Conference Board's numbers was that the average income of the lowest earning Canadians is shrinking. For those at the bottom, there is no growth, only negative trends. Here are some numbers to consider. For the years 1980 to 2005, earnings increased by 16.4% for the top income group, the middle-income group saw no change, and the earnings fell by 20.6% for the bottom income group.

What do we get from government after government? We get tax cuts for corporations with the misguided belief that this will improve employment numbers and not be siphoned off as executive bonuses. It is trickle-down economics and it has not been working for 30 years or so.

New Democrats proposed a better option in the last election. We are the ones developing budgets. There would be performance-based tax incentives for corporations. We would reward those good companies that invest in Canada whether it is for the nuts and bolts of their operations or creating jobs. Those are the tax breaks we would happily make room for.

Ultimately, New Democrats want to lower the tax rate for small businesses. They are the real job creators. We want that rate to be lowered so we can create jobs in our communities. Small businesses in northern Ontario would welcome that development. That is not partisan. That is smart.

The Conservatives stand in this place and try to tell Canadians that we are the ones who would raise their taxes.

In reality, the Conservatives are the ones increasing taxes on Canadian families, such as the recent increase in employment insurance premiums for employers and employees, or the HST, which is cutting into household budgets in the north.

We would put an end to the kind of corporate welfare that sees companies like John Deere stick around just long enough to line their pockets with tax breaks and then move to a jurisdiction where the labour conditions and environmental laws are substandard. I have yet to hear a single Conservative say a critical word about that.

We see it when companies go bankrupt. If a country were really looking out for its citizens first and foremost, it would ensure that pensions were the first thing taken care of with what money remained. Does the government believe that? Hardly. Does the budget do anything to address the problem, given the high profile cases we have seen lately, like the pensioners who were robbed as Nortel foundered and was ultimately carved up and sold off? No, it does not.

More and more Canadian seniors are living in poverty and are being forced into making terrible decisions on whether to pay for food or heat. When the government refuses to protect pensions, pensions that only exist in the first place because of deferred wages from a company's employees, it is showing full and well what it thinks of Canadian workers and retirees. They are an afterthought, at the back of the line. They get something only if everything else works out first. These are terrible priorities. These are priorities that lead to policies that entrench poverty.

The budget has a number of tax incentives in it, things which New Democrats have called for, such as an extension of the eco-energy retrofit program and credits for home caregivers and for families that enrol their children in cultural activities like dance or music lessons. These are supportable items that need some tweaking, but they are generally good ideas.

I heard from a number of constituents about the eco-energy retrofit program when it was reintroduced. They are happy to go ahead and do this work which has spinoff benefits for our local economy as well as helping Canada conserve energy and reduce our environmental footprint. There are some problems, though. In Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing there are fewer contractors, few inspectors and also less time in the year to do some of the big jobs that are eligible for the credits. Without enough inspectors, people have to wait to get the green light. Then they have to find a contractor who can do the work needed in the short timeframe available. In northern Ontario, that gives people eight or nine months tops for big jobs like replacing windows that really cannot be done in the heart of winter.

If I were to have one suggestion, it would be to make the eco-energy retrofit program multi-year at a minimum to address the inequality of opportunity in areas that have limitations like the ones I have described.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week two members of the NDP went to the U.S. and proceeded to try to destroy part of the Canadian economy. Was that an NDP-sanctioned trip, or was that just two rogue NDP members?

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

Mr. Speaker, we were there doing the job that the Conservatives should have been doing there, but were not.

On that note, it shows again that the Conservatives are clearly out of touch with the needs of Canadian families.

I would add that when I spoke about the tax credits a while ago, for tax credits like those available for cultural activities and for caregivers, the fact that they are not fully refundable means that only Canadians who pay enough taxes can take advantage of them. In that respect, they are incomplete incentives, and that is a shame.

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue spoke about this last week. Her background gives her a unique view into the situation. She told us that when individuals become caregivers, they often have no choice but to cut down on their hours of work. As a result, they do not earn enough money to benefit from this tax credit. She also told us that the majority of family caregivers cannot take advantage of these tax credits, because they do not pay enough tax because of lost income.

These are real problems that could be fixed if the government cared to listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not get an opportunity during her 10 minute speech to put on record the impact the cuts to the public service are going to have going forward. It is obvious that one of the major fronts on which the Conservatives are going to fight the deficit is on the backs of public servants.

I sit on the human resources committee with the member. The member has a pretty good appreciation for the impacts. Six hundred employees were sent home from EI processing centres across this country. We already see backlogs of five to seven weeks. People are waiting for their employment insurance cheques.

Perhaps my hon. colleague would like to comment on the government's choice of jets and jails over people delivering services to Canadians who need them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true. We are hearing over and over again in our communities that people are having a hard time accessing their EI benefits. MPs' offices are becoming Service Canada offices.

Instead of helping people who are most in need, the government has decided to add another tax for employers and employees. This is really shameful given the fact there was a lot of money in the employment insurance pot way back when. Unfortunately, as my Liberal Party colleague knows full well, the government took that money and put it somewhere else. It should not have happened, because it was actually the workers' money.

If the Conservatives want to serve Canadians instead of dictating to them, they could start by breaking up these omnibus bills, allowing Parliament and committees to do their work, and stop thinking the worst of everyone who has a different opinion or idea on how to achieve the same goals. That would be to the betterment of Canada and all Canadians.

We need to fix EI, but we also need to fix Parliament. If the government is absolutely serious, it will continue to work. It will not prorogue Parliament, and it will continue to work on committees and give these bills a chance to go through the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, in an earlier speech, I spoke in detail about everything that does not belong in omnibus Bill C-13, for example, the inappropriate use of non-refundable tax credits. People who do not have to pay taxes will never be able to benefit from these tax credits. This means that people who stop working to take care of a sick child or an aging parent will not have access to the tax credit for family caregivers. This also means that the 85,000 volunteer firefighters in Canada will have to share $15 million, which is a bit of a stretch.

In their bill, the Conservatives have decided to exclude all volunteer firefighters who already work for a municipality, including blue-collar and white-collar workers as well as first responders. They decided to exclude all those who do not work at least 200 hours. This means that 55,000 of the 85,000 will share the $15 million, which comes out to $300 each. They call that a policy to support volunteer firefighters? It does not give them the equipment to fight fires. It does not give them the training they need to stay safe. It certainly does not give them the support of a national civil security policy.

We could also talk about culture. The government is offering a $500 tax credit to give children access to culture. Unfortunately, once again, this is a non-refundable tax credit. Children from poor families who are receiving social assistance or employment insurance benefits and those from families who do not have enough money to pay taxes will not have access to this tax credit and will therefore not have access to culture. This is the Conservative Party's remarkable achievement: it is rewarding the wealthy but failing to support those who need it, those who need this culture so that they can then contribute to Canada.

This omnibus bill also contains elements that should never have been included, such as a reform of the Canada Elections Act related to party financing, and the creation of a securities commission. These two components of Bill C-13 should have been carefully examined not quietly buried in a budget bill that is more partisan than economic in nature.

In this speech, I especially want to point out what is not found in this bill. Despite a huge number of calls from every corner of Canada and every element of society, such as BMO, the Certified Management Accountants and the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies-Canada, the government continues to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the deterioration of the economy. And these stakeholders cannot be accused of being champions of socialism. No. They are neutral observers who see that the economy is severely deteriorating and that the government is failing to take action. They are asking the government to urgently intervene but the government is not doing so.

First, it is completely outrageous that people who are entitled to receive the guaranteed income supplement are unable to access it unless they submit an application. That does not make any sense at all. This is a measure that the government could easily implement: group people by age, use their income tax returns to identify those who do not have sufficient income and give them this income supplement. But no. They have to apply for the it. Unfortunately, almost 150,000 of the most elderly and isolated Canadians are unable to receive financial support because they did not submit an application.

The government's laziness is responsible for the unnecessary hardships and suffering of what we call the generation of builders, those who made this country prosper.

Second, since the beginning of the recession in 2008, Canada has created only 250,000 jobs in three years. We have learned that, in the month of October alone, we lost 72,000 jobs. That is huge, especially because, since 2008, our country has lost 350,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, a sector that creates wealth and value added.

These jobs have not been recovered. They have been replaced by jobs in other sectors, by lower paying, precarious and often part-time jobs.

This employment weakness is the reason why more than 1.7 million people in Canada are either unemployed or underemployed. In light of this crisis, there is nothing in Bill C-13 capable of kick-starting the job market in Canada.

In short, we are allowing our manufacturing sector to disappear and the government is doing nothing. Bill C-13 does not have a recovery plan to kickstart job creation. Once again, it contains only smokescreens in the form a series of minor measures that will not have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. The Conservatives are doing nothing. They are only making speeches. The budget has a grand title, but it is nothing more than paper.

I must point out that Statistics Canada data clearly shows that Canadians' debt makes increased spending impossible. There can be no national growth without growth in spending. However, more than $500 billion in capital is being stored up by businesses and they are not investing this money. It is said that Canada is the best place to do business, but obviously it is not the best place to invest, because investments are not being made. The Governor of the Bank of Canada and all stakeholders have confirmed this. With the productivity rate at an all-time low, the balance of payments deficit hitting peak levels and the manufacturing sector disappearing, this money could be of more help to those looking for work if it were invested.

In this situation, what is this government doing? Nothing. There are no incentives in Bill C-13 to make businesses use their $500 billion to create jobs. Absolutely none. The Conservatives still believe in divine intervention. Perhaps it is the theory of seven lean years and seven fat years. Does that amount to structured economic reasoning? At any event, that is our government's economic vision.

Statistics Canada has already indicated that this $500 billion was in the financial sector, and the Bank of Canada continues to indicate—in all its economic reports—that this money is not being invested.

Last night, Peter Mansbridge said on CBC television that currently, with fears of recession all around us, the worry is that the private sector may keep billions sitting on the sidelines, money that could create new jobs. That is what was said on the CBC.

The more uncertainty there is, the less investment there is; and the less investment there is, the more the government needs to encourage businesses to invest that money. The government is still doing nothing. It is waiting.

It is clear that, choosing between the actions of this government and the proposals of the official opposition, the best party for Canadian families who are worried about their jobs and the economy is truly the NDP. The Conservative Party is doing absolutely nothing.

This same government is so obsessed with the zero deficit that it has completely forgotten to consider the infrastructure deficit. We want to invest in infrastructure projects to deal with the deficit there, to make us more economically competitive and improve life for Canadians. What is more, the interest rate is so low that now is the best time for investing.

This government is set on freer trade, but all the new projects in the north and in British Columbia require infrastructure immediately. The government is not investing in it. How can we export coal if there are no ports?

The government seems to want to destroy the public service, but we need public servants to assess projects and monitor and guarantee the quality of the products we consume.

The list of things missing from Bill C-13 could fill a library. Unfortunately, neo-liberalism has become an intolerant religion. Such is the Conservative government.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the ozone layer is one of those things that is truly important. Life on earth would not exist in its present form without the ozone layer. Monitoring the health of the ozone layer in the name of self-preservation is a sensible and responsible thing to do.

Canada is already receiving intense international criticism on its stance leading into the climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. We must not fail the world at the ozone meetings in Bali as well.

Does the hon. member think that Canada should reverse its cuts to ozone monitoring?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a typical example of inappropriate cuts. Our public service is being cut. They want to make it disappear. They want to take away essential expertise that Canada needs both now and in the future. This expertise cannot be replaced by private business, nor can it just simply not be replaced.

The fact that the government is hiding its head in the sand and hoping that the hole in the ozone takes care of itself is more proof of its wilful ignorance. It is refusing to look at the country's real issues and deal with them.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my friend for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

When the previous speaker, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, was speaking, she reminded me of when I was on my tour listening to seniors. When I was in Elliott lake, which is a retirement community, I had woman come up to me who was living on $1,140 a month. She had old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. She showed me her hydro bill and, as I recall, it was about $2,100 a year. She was wondering when she was going to get the HST of $160-some a month.

Here we have a situation where the Conservatives have given $50 a month to help seniors on the guaranteed income supplement, which they tout regularly in this place, but the reality is that the poverty line is $22,000 and these people are making about $15,400. What impact does the member think that has in his region in Quebec?

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

And yet, Mr. Speaker, the solutions are within our reach. This government has an obligation to produce results. We cannot be satisfied with measures that make only 10% to 15% of the population happy. We need to provide all Canadians with a generous, reliable pension plan. The money provided by this pension plan must be enough to keep them living above the poverty line. Nothing could be easier. We have the Canada pension plan; it already exists. It just needs to be increased and doubled. It is not hard to understand. But instead of doing that, they are inventing new financial structures that do not guarantee that people will have enough pension money not to live in poverty once they retire.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government insists on trying to pay down the deficit as quickly as possible by cutting 5% to 10% from all departments, for example. Does my colleague think that, given the uncertain economic times, this could have the opposite effect and harm the economy instead of helping it?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what we call the Greek syndrome. To meet the financial demands of certain banks, Greece made massive cuts to its government spending. One of the immediate effects of these massive cuts was that Greece was pitched headlong into a recession and sunk deeper into deficit. That is a major problem. When government spending is cut in an unreasonable manner during a period of economic uncertainty, it only encourages more economic uncertainty.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-13, the budget implementation bill.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Oxford.

I appreciate this opportunity to once again rise in the House and talk about our government's track record on economic issues, on which, despite the worldwide economic recession, we have been leading the world.

I want to remind the House of a few things that we accomplished prior to my being elected here in May. I do believe one of the reasons I was elected to this place in May was because of the strong economic and fiscal leadership that was provided by the previous Conservative government.

The government has cut taxes for Canadians 120 times since getting elected. We cut the personal income tax rate paid by the lowest income people in this country to 15%. We removed one million Canadians from the tax rolls. That is unprecedented. We increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. The major initiative that we did was to keep our promise to cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We brought forward the universal child care benefit, which is widely popular in my riding because it gives families a choice as to the type of child care that is most appropriate for their family.

A lot of young families live in the riding of Mississauga--Streetsville. When I went door to door, I listened to their challenges and I listened to the issues that were of concern to them. They told me to keep on with the good work that our government was doing and to keep focusing on the important issues.

This government, through the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, has done a lot, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We must keep going.

I heard some opposition members refer to the fact that we are still debating a budget bill on November 21. We need to remind Canadians why we are debating a budget bill on November 21.

This budget was first introduced in the House on March 22 but the opposition parties decided it was more important to have a $350 million election campaign than it was to pass a budget bill back in March or April. That was their choice. I benefited because I am here now, so it was an election that I was happy to have happen.

However, here is the fact. Parliament very rarely is still debating a budget bill in the 11th month of the year in which the budget bill is supposed to be implemented. That is unprecedented around here. One of the reasons that we need to get on with the job and one of the reasons that we are at third reading today is because we still need to send the bill to the Senate and it still has to take time to get it done.

It is ridiculous to suggest that this budget bill is getting rammed through the House. There has been a tonne of debate on this legislation. There was a huge debate on May 2. It was called an election campaign. I talked a lot about what was in the March 22 budget in my election material and most, if not all, of those actions are contained in the bill today. I can stand here and very clearly tell the House that I have a mandate from the people of Mississauga--Streetsville to see this budget implemented, and that is why I am speaking to it today.

Let us talk about some of the highlights of this good bill. Our government is bringing forward a hiring credit for small businesses to encourage additional hiring.

During the summer, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism toured my riding. The Streetsville Improvement Association, right in the heart of the old village of Streetsville, is a very vibrant business improvement association. There are close to 300 businesses and merchants up and down Queen Street, the main street in Streetsville. I had a chance to visit people in their businesses with the minister. I did not just call a round table and hope for people to show up. I went with the minister and we did some mainstreeting. We went into those businesses and asked them what their priorities were. They asked us to keep on with the job, keep lowering our tax rates and help us out with tax credits that encourage us to hire and invest. That is exactly what this budget would do.

Some of us do go back to our business constituents and residential constituents, and ask them again and again what we could be doing, how we could be making things better, how they could grow their businesses and what the federal government could do.

The other credit that we are enhancing is the accelerated capital cost allowance for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery.

I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to visit one or two businesses in the riding. I like to spend an equal amount of time visiting businesses as well as conducting residential town hall meetings and going to community events. I especially like to hear what emerging businesses are saying. What they are saying is that if they could have greater incentives, they would invest in new technology and new machinery.

I am finding that while some of the large-scale manufacturing plants are having challenges, smaller businesses in niche manufacturing are actually doing fairly well. They have innovative products, innovative technology that they can sell, not just domestically but also around the world. However, they need a bit of help. We are there to support those emerging businesses. Measures in this budget help predominantly small- and medium-size businesses do even better.

We are also investing in families and communities. I am delighted that this budget would make the gas tax revenue to the municipalities permanent. The mayor of Mississauga, Mayor McCallion, and I have spoken about this. She was pleased to see this gas tax transferred to municipalities made permanent. Why? Because now the municipalities would not have to wait every budget year to find out whether the money was coming. They could budget for it each and every year, to support transit and transportation infrastructure.

We would give the municipalities some flexibility to use that money. We would not dictate from on high. We would say to municipalities, “Here is our federal contribution from the gas tax to you. You know what is best for your communities. You know what is best for your cities. Here is some money, paid for by people who are pumping gas into their cars in your community. We are giving some of it back to you so that you can have the flexibility to invest in the priorities of your communities.”

That would be a tremendous step forward and a great new relationship, a permanent relationship, between the federal government and our very vital municipalities.

We are enhancing the wage earner protection program, which would cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership. We know there are companies out there that have challenges, that are doing their best. Nobody wants to declare bankruptcy. Nobody wants to have difficult times. Everybody is working hard. However, we do know that some businesses fail. We have a responsibility to try to support, and we have been supporting, those workers who have, through no fault of their own, lost a job.

We are investing in families.

I just want to end on these two notes, because they are particularly important in my riding.

I am delighted, as a former board member of the Mississauga Arts Council, to see the children's arts tax credit in this budget. This is a phenomenal initiative. I was at the visual arts centre in Mississauga with the Minister of National Revenue this summer, where we made the announcement of the tax credit. We saw many children participating in wonderful arts programs and the program directors said they have capacity for more children. If this arts tax credit would get more children to experience different arts programs in the city of Mississauga, it would be great news for us. As a father of 12- and 8-year old daughters, I am particularly pleased. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to encourage our children to be more active in the arts.

I am delighted with all the provisions in this budget. I have highlighted just a couple of them for the benefit of the House. This is a budget that would move us forward. It is modest and responsible in difficult times, when we are trying to continue to move the economy forward. These are very important tax credit initiatives. I am pleased to be part of a government that is putting people first.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the children's arts tax credit. Yes, it is an interesting prospect for those who can afford it.

I have worked in the arts for over 30 years. I worked a lot with young people, using arts as a means of helping them connect with themselves and find ways through some of their issues.

A lot of the people I worked with cannot afford the kind of programs that this tax credit targets. I developed two programs for people who cannot afford the arts but should have access to them.

Could the hon. member speak to how this tax credit in particular helps those people?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my experience, as someone who has been involved in the arts and recreation community in Mississauga for quite some time, is that most of these programs are delivered at the municipal level. The municipal governments decide what the registration fees will be. Non-profit groups run these programs and there is often a subsidy at the local level that helps keep the cost down.

At the federal level, we can do what we are doing, which is providing the additional incentive to parents who are obviously making modest incomes. We can provide an additional tax credit to them to greater encourage them to enrol their children in artistic programs.

It is a good initiative by our government. It is not designed to help every single child, but it is designed to help millions of children who can take advantage of it across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Bill C-13, and quickly because I noted it is the 11th month, but it is not the 11th month of this budget year, because we operate the Government of Canada on a fiscal year from March to March.

I note also that the House took quick action in June to make sure the Government of Canada had the money it needed to operate, so we are debating substantive measures in Bill C-13, and many of them. It is a long bill.

Being a long bill, there are things in here with which I would agree. For instance, I agree with part 7 to provide help for students and student loans for people who are going into the medical field, but I am concerned with clause181. I am sad that when we put forward amendments to clause 181 there was a closure on debate, so I was not able to speak to my amendment.

My question for the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is, how will getting rid of the most efficient, fair and democratic part of taxpayer support for political parties create any jobs in our economy?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are of the view that political parties should raise their own money. Taxpayers should not pay for it. I just ran an election campaign. I had to work real hard, not just getting votes, but raising money, and that is part of the political process.

I do not think taxpayers want to subsidize political parties through their tax money any longer, so we have included it in the bill. We were very clear. In fact, we ran an election campaign on phasing out the subsidies. We did not snap this on the House the minute the House came back in June. We were very clear with Canadians.

I think there is actually some moderate support among opposition members. They may not say it publicly, but a fair number of opposition members probably support phasing out taxpayer subsidies to political parties.

We were very clear. We campaigned on it. We won a majority government. We are implementing. We are getting on with the job.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been in the House to listen to my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville. If members here listened to him, they would be happy to go to the vote and pass this budget right now. His speech was superb and I congratulate him. That is the bonus of having had that last election. Like he said, he is now here and it is better for all of us.

Our government is focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and promoting economic growth. Canada has the strongest job record in the G7 with nearly 600,000 net new jobs created since July 2009 and the International Monetary Fund projects it will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over the next two years. Yet we are not immune from global economic turbulence. That is why we need to stay the course and implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

Municipalities across Canada can rest assured that the next phase of Canada's economic action plan includes legislation to make the gas tax funding for municipalities permanent. Canada's government will be putting into law the permanent annual investment of $2 billion in gas tax funding for cities and towns to support infrastructure projects. My own municipalities in Oxford will receive a staggering sum of $25,216,242 over the next four years. That is a sizable amount of money and is certainly appreciated.

We on this side of the House understand the need for many involved in the agriculture sector to possess legitimate firearms. Bill C-13 would provide funding of $20 million to continue to waive firearms licence renewal fees for all classes of firearms. Upon the passing of the budget, until May 2012 not a single firearms owner will pay a fee of up to $80 to renew a licence. It is with sincere hope that the cost-consuming, ineffective long gun registry will soon be a thing of the past, in turn further reducing the financial burdens of those in the rural agriculture sector.

Over 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada. We did not want to stop there. We have included a new hiring credit for small business to support local job growth. The new hiring credit would provide a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to encourage additional hiring. The Canadian economy has weathered the storm of the global economic recession, but it is still very fragile. We understand that struggling businesses may need extra assistance.

The wage earner protection program has been allotted $4.5 million annually to expand the program to cover Canadian employees who lose their jobs when their employers' attempts at restructuring take longer than six months, are subsequently unsuccessful and end in bankruptcy or receivership. In light of this, we are renewing programs to help unemployed workers, meaning their best 14 weeks and participation in the EI working while on claim pilot project will be considered.

To further assist Canada's manufacturing sector, which is prevalent in my riding, we are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance to help manufacturers and processors make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment. Our government's long-term goal remains to provide the right conditions for a sustainable and viable North American auto sector in which Canada maintains its share of auto production and jobs.

A shining example of this was demonstrated in the recent funding announcement made at the Toyota manufacturing plant in my riding of Oxford to support the manufacturing of the electric Rav 4. The electric Rav 4 will be the first electric vehicle to be assembled in Canada and the first electric vehicle to be assembled by Toyota in North America. Toyota's investment in project green light is $506 million. The federal contribution of 14% of this amount is up to $70.84 million, with an equal contribution from the provincial government.

Numerous constituents have voiced their concerns to me regarding the red tape surrounding access to information and federal government services concerning small businesses. That is why Canada's government is continuing its efforts to reduce the red tape by upgrading the BizPal service and further online consulting is being made available to Canadians to continue to be a part of the process by providing their input.

I would also like to highlight the great success of the Sand Plains community development fund in my riding and across southwestern Ontario. The Sand Plains community development fund was created by Canada's current government in August 2008 with a commitment of $15 million to the region. Since its formation, there have been 202 full-time jobs created, 54 part-time jobs created, 119 seasonal jobs created and 256 jobs sustained in the southwestern Ontario area.

More specific, I would like to talk about the biomass project by Canadian Biofuel in my riding of Oxford that was partially funded through the Sands Plains development fund. The project, formerly a Cargill grain elevator and feed mill facility, will now produce roughly 1,500 tonnes of biomass per month. Low in greenhouse emissions, it can also be used to heat homes and even supplement coal in generating electricity. Initially waste wood was used to make the biomass fuel, however, the company plans to establish a local supply chain of raw materials by encouraging local farmers to grow miscanthus grass and other renewable crops that can be turned into biomass fuel. In addition, this project will create 35 new jobs.

I am very pleased to announce that Canada's government will be phasing out the unnecessary per vote subsidies for political parties. Governments have a sworn duty to use the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers wisely and only in the public interest, especially in a time of required fiscal restraint when families are struggling to make ends meet.

Specifically, Canada's government will introduce legislation to gradually reduce the $2.04 per year per vote subsidy in 51¢ increments, starting April 1, 2012, until it is completely eliminated by 2015-16. This will generate savings ramping up to $30 million by 2015-16. Our government has always opposed direct taxpayer subsidies to political parties and believes that the political parties should rely primarily on their supporters for their financing.

Since 2006, Canada's economic action plan has provided, and will continue to provide, tax relief to hard-working Canadians. Taxpayers in Ontario alone can expect to see approximately $970 million in tax relief in 2011 and the following fiscal years.

I and the residents of Oxford look forward to a speedy passage of Bill C-13. I strongly encourage all parliamentarians to seize this opportunity of unity in Parliament to give Canadians what they deserve, what they have been waiting for and in many cases, what Canadians desperately need.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech. However, in a report published on September 29, 2011, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy stated that the cost of climate change would be close to $20 billion a year by 2050.

What environmental policies does the budget contain? I have already shown that only four or five of the 600 pages of the budget focus on the environment. This is laughable, given that all Canadians think the environment is a priority.

How can the Conservatives prove to us that the environment is a priority for them, too?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I know there are a lot of costs involved in this economy. One of the costs is jobs, if we do not get the bill passed. A lot of jobs are waiting for it to be passed. A lot of jobs should be sustained.

I look at my own riding, if he is only interested in that aspect. We have Toyota manufacturing. This government put $70 million into what Toyota is doing on a RAV4 electric vehicle. It will be sensitive to the economy. Those are the kinds of things that have to happen.

I certainly wish that my colleagues across the floor would see the importance of getting this budget passed and do it quickly.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to what is not in the budget and what the government might think about going forward.

One in five Canadian children lives below the poverty line, which may lead to poor nutritional status and poor child health outcomes. Fortunately, school nutrition programs are highly effective in providing children with nutritious diets, better cognitive abilities and health. Unfortunately, Canada is one of the few developed countries without a national nutrition program. If we had a national school meals program implemented in Canada's high schools at a cost of $1.25 per meal, with the goal of increasing graduation rates by just 3%, the annual payback would be $500 million.

Does the hon. member think that we should have a pan-Canadian nutrition program?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is very important. The best way to help Canadians out of a cycle of poverty is to provide jobs. That is what this budget is about, providing jobs for Canadians. It is high time the opposition got with the program and realized the importance of passing a budget that is good for all Canadians by providing jobs.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Oxford gave a very informative speech. He is an eloquent speaker and has an incredibly strong history of protecting Canadians. He represents a region where there is a lot of industries. Those industries were struggling and they were troubled about how they would keep going. Something that has not been talked about a lot is the work-sharing program that we extended and then we continued it again in our fall economic update.

Could the member give us some insight into how that has helped industries in his riding of Oxford?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the finest Minister of State for Finance we have had in the House. He has done a tremendous job for us.

Regarding the work-sharing program in my riding, he is absolutely right. We have a tremendous amount of manufacturing. We have Toyota motor manufacturing, a GM plant and a Hino truck plant in my riding. We also have a lot of agriculture in my riding. The work-sharing program has been beneficial to all those sectors. It has been able to keep experienced, well-trained employees available for those people. As we have helped the industry come back, they have been able to help the industry by providing that expertise when they got back up to full strength in the economy. It has been a tremendous asset.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-13. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

The title of the bill is the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act. So much for growth, since the budget grants tax cuts to large corporations without setting any conditions. What a mistake. Not only are these tax cuts not contingent on the creation of new jobs, but they also do not put Canada on the right track for the future, that is, the green track, the environmental track.

I will explain why this legislation is but a drop in the bucket in terms of the challenges we will face in the coming years. And they will be significant challenges.

First of all, as I mentioned, this bill will not create any new jobs. We must continue to create jobs because there are still too many people left behind in our beautiful society. There are too many in Canada and too many in my riding of Drummond.

The huge gap between the rich and the rest of the population continues to grow. The vast movement of global occupation and protest illustrates the fact that Canadian families, and families in Drummond as well, are feeling a tremendous amount of pressure. Relief agencies and poverty assistance groups in my riding are being used by more people, which worries me a great deal. This is happening all over Canada, but I am most concerned about what is happening in my riding. I have an article here from a local paper, entitled “Homelessness: organizations lament the lack of support from the federal government”. Clearly, these organizations are speaking out because there is not enough funding.

I would like to take a moment to commend the excellent work of some of the organizations in my riding, such as the Carrefour d'entraide, the Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, Ensoleilvent, Refuge la Piaule, the Maison Habit-Action, the Tablée populaire and the Maison de la famille.

The problem is that in order to properly support our population, adequate funding is needed. In that regard, the article is very clear. The problem is very serious. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Assistance provided and requests for assistance at both the Comptoir alimentaire and the Carrefour d’entraide have jumped by more than 20% over the past two years. Although the situation is getting worse, funding from the federal government's homelessness partnering strategy has not changed in 10 years.

They have seen an increase of 20% over the past two years, but funding has not changed. We can see that this is not working and that there is a problem.

However, I can already hear the Conservatives apologizing for abandoning people in need in the riding of Drummond, saying that the best way to fight poverty is through job creation. But the Conservative government is not providing enough support for people living in poverty—seniors, children and families. Every week I get a lot of messages saying that I absolutely must prioritize assistance for seniors because they are having a hard time making ends meet. It is crazy that I am getting these messages. There is a problem. There are problems with funding, but the Conservatives are also not doing anything to really help create jobs in Drummond.

On the contrary, the Conservatives' actions are so detrimental to our economy that I have received around 100 letters, which I have here. All of these letters are from SMEs in my riding. They tell me that there is a problem, that the Conservative government is not doing its job and that they are not able to support their jobs because of increased employment insurance premiums for employers and employees. The SMEs do not support this bill.

Canadians are looking for serious, tangible measures to create jobs. For example, the government could bring in a job creation tax credit of up to $4,500, as the NDP suggested. This initiative would help create 200,000 jobs that would help support families every year.

We proposed extending tax credits for investments that support employment such as the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible equipment and machinery. The government absolutely has to accept that when it comes to jobs, its plan does not work. The government has to stop thinking that simple gifts to major corporations, the banks and the oil and gas industry are measures that help create jobs. That is not true. That will not create jobs in Drummond. We need real measures to create jobs and to help the environment.

Speaking of oil companies and the gas industry, does the Conservative government really believe they are the industries of the future? Are these really the energies of the future? Does it truly believe that oil from the oil sands is ethical oil? Give me a break.

In my riding, people are increasingly joining forces to defend our environment. Recently, people in my region went to the gas production sites that are using hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania. They were completely devastated by what they saw. They came back and said it was worse than they thought. This industry is so harmful to our environment. They fear for our air quality, our drinking water, our farmland and the value of our properties and our land.

Nothing in this legislation will ensure a better environment for our children. The environment is important, as I was saying earlier. It is a priority for every constituent in my riding. But the Conservative government's current provisions risk mortgaging our beautiful planet and the quality of life of our children and our children's children even more.

Instead we could be establishing a serious plan of major investments in research and development for a green economy focused on renewable energies. I want to bring hon. members back to the NDP platform again. It has many good solutions to offer to the Conservatives. We could implement a carbon pricing mechanism using a quota exchange system, which would set ambitious emission limits for major polluters in the country, in order to ensure that companies pay their environmental bills, and provide an incentive to reduce emissions.

The NDP has another interesting proposal—to make Canada a world leader in renewable energy. Earlier, an hon. member spoke about electric cars. Fine, but they are still in the early stages; there is much more to be done. The electric car needs a lot of improvements. The money from selling emissions permits could be equally redistributed. These funds would be invested in sustainable technologies, commercial and residential energy conservation, public transit, renewable energy development and transitioning workers to a sustainable economy.

Last week I was at the Quebec energy forum in Shawinigan. The point was made that improving public transit is one of the most important factors in preventing climate change. Public transit is currently being driven by the plans of businesses and contractors. Urban planning needs to be improved in order to have effective public transit. If urban planning is done with the automobile in mind, everyone will use their cars. But if urban planning were done with public transit in mind, it would make sense and be profitable to use public transit. I could list many measures. I want to repeat that the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy reported that climate change will cost Canada $21 billion by 2050. We need to make the necessary transition, and if the Conservative government does not do it, others will have to.

We are ready to take those steps. The environment and job creation are our priorities. A responsible government must invest to encourage job creation, to fight climate change and to move toward a green economy and green energy instead of giving tax cuts to big business and big oil. We have to change how we do things.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I like to ask about things that are not in the budget, so the government can think about these things going forward. I have asked repeatedly about stem cells because they save lives, they save money and they have a critical role to play in the future of Canada.

In December 1999, the editors of Science called stem cell research “the breakthrough of the year”. Since then, there have been numerous announcements about developments in stem cell research and hints of promising treatments for diseases, such as ALS, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, cardiac damage, Parkinson's disease and type 1 diabetes.

Does the hon. member think that the federal government should increase financial support for stem cell research?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

I am not an expert on health, but it is clear that investing in research and development is vital for the future. I spoke about this especially in connection with the environment, a subject with which I am somewhat more conversant. We should not believe that the auto industry will be the one to make revolutionary environmental changes. Its research and development must be supported by a responsible government that has a long-term plan. That is also the case for public transit or health. If we want to ensure that we have better health, we must support research and innovation in this sector.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear from the other side that it is about jobs, like it is a magic bullet. Yes, jobs are important, but I think we need to look at the situation in a three dimensional way. Jobs are part of the issue but if those jobs that are being put forward damage the environment, then what is left for our children after that?

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber for his question.

At present, the Conservatives are boasting that they have created 600,000 jobs. They have actually miscalculated because, in reality, according to the figures I have here, and based on the peak in July 2008, we have a deficit of 250,000 jobs. That is the number required to maintain the same number of jobs proportionally, because there has been an increase in population since 2008.

Not only is there a deficit of jobs but, in addition, existing jobs are often precarious and part-time. Unfortunately, there is no future in the type of jobs being promoted by the Conservatives. It is not true that oil or the oil sands are the future. Renewable energy, such as biomass, wind and solar energy, is the future. That is where we have to invest and what we should be focusing on. That is why I am inviting my colleagues opposite to think about job creation that will take into consideration our society, the environment and the future of our children.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a brief question and a brief answer. The hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague think that a national public transit strategy could not only be good for the environment, but also create jobs?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. That is exactly what I think and that is what we must do. We absolutely must create a national public transit strategy. That should be made a priority immediately, and not in five or ten years. We must take care of this right away and stop planning our cities and our society around cars. As long as urban planning focuses on cars, we will continue to travel in cars. We need to rethink it with a focus on walking, cycling, public transit and electric trains. Those are the means of the future. That is what could define us and distinguish us from other societies. We have all the means to do this, so let us do it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand up in this House and represent the region of Timmins—James Bay and the people there who I have such great faith in their common sense.

I am debating a bill on the economy, which is crucial at this time when we see that 700,000 jobs have been lost. The outlook for growth that we are seeing for Canada is not nearly as rosy a picture as the Minister of Finance is presenting.

What we are seeing here from a government is a Minister of Finance who, under his tenure, has been like the cartoon character, Mr. Magoo, who continually steps outside the window and, as he is falling, manages to get onto another plank. He thinks that his rosy forecast will somehow get us through.

What I am hearing in my riding contradicts the spin that comes from the government. For example, when I was at the Tim Hortons, I met a 68-year-old man who told me that he had to go back to working underground at the mine because his Canada pension was not sufficient.

We are in a national pension crisis. The New Democrats have been raising the alarm bells about that. The government stalls, studies, stalls some more and now it has this pooled resource pension poodle plan that will do nothing to help the fact that we need to overhaul the CPP. The CPP is much more efficient, and it knows that, but it would rather that the money go to its friends in the banking sector. It will not go to help people back home.

We are hearing about the need for serious investment in doctors in northern and rural areas. Most Canadians are already realizing what the government does not know, which is that we rank 26 out of 30 in industrial countries in terms of doctor per capita and that we are looking toward a 60,000-person shortfall in terms of registered nurses by 2022 if nothing is done.

The government has no desire to invest. That is one of the commitments. Its idea is to give a tax break by moving people around. It will simply move some doctors from urban areas or small communities into rural areas and that will somehow alleviate the problem. People know that will not alleviate the problem.

What we are seeing are a series of smoke and mirror incentives. The government promised incentives that it actually never delivers on. For example, the compassionate care benefits program has a budget of $190 million annually and yet it only spends 5%. There are people back home who need compassionate care, and it is not as if they are not applying. What the government does is it promises but it does not quite deliver.

In order to keep us not focused on the economy, it throws out the red meat to its base. All day long, I have heard about how it is a principled party that does not believe in subsidizing partisan schemes with electoral dollars, taxpayer dollars, that it is the party that opposes subsidizing the electoral machine.

However, among the first two senators picked was Mr. Gerstein, the Tory bagman, and Doug Finley, who ran the Conservative campaign. The Conservatives put their people in there, people who worked for them. They get paid by the taxpayers until they are 75 years old.

I will quote Mr. Gerstein's opening speech in the Senate just so people know what a great politician he is. He said that he was proud to be a bagman, that he proclaimed it. He went on to say, “Oh, by the way, I love politics, I just never had the time to become a candidate”. He said that on November 27, 2010. He just never bothered to become a candidate. He never bothered to go out and actually participate in the democratic process. Senator Gerstein is a bagman. What he does is he collects money for the party.

I do not have a problem with him being proud of it but it is funny that he gets paid by the taxpayer until he is 75. What are Mr. Gerstein and Mr. Finley's great contributions to Canadian political life? They were two out of the four who were charged and had to plea bargain in the biggest case of electoral fraud in Canadian history.

Let us look at what they were involved in in terms of ripping off the taxpayer. They would take these dead dog ridings the Conservatives had out in the middle of nowhere where they could not get any votes and they would funnel money from the central party through those ridings. Then they would get those ridings to go and demand the rebate, so that the taxpayer was paying for this scheme.

That is not to say that all Conservatives are corrupt because a number of Conservative riding associations said that they did not want to participate in money laundering, that it was not something they were going to do. However, a number of them did.

They had to plea bargain when they finally ran out of road. Both Mr. Finley, who again we pay for until he is 75, as well as his staff and his benefits to work for the Conservative Party, and Senator Gerstein, who we will also pay until he is 75, as well as all his staff, had to plea bargain. The Conservatives have never answered the question about when they will pay back all the money they received from the in and out scheme before they were busted. That was money that went directly from taxpayers.

When we see this party get up and talk about how its members will be clean on this, when they had to plea bargain in the biggest electoral fraud scheme in Canadian history, it is a little rich. It is a little too rich for the Canadian taxpayer who is having to support and subsidize this party in its continual undermining of the parliamentary system.

We have talked about the Conservatives' lack of plan for pensions, health care and jobs. Of course they have no vision with respect to real investments, so they are making massive across the board tax cuts. In a time of recession we are seeing very large corporations sitting on their cashflow. They are not moving it.

The New Democratic plan was to actually target our investments, so that corporations would get tax incentives if they actually create jobs. If they reinvest in the economy, they would get an investment from us in support. However, if they just want to sit on that cash, then they would not get any.

The Conservatives' idea of job creation was to build a pipeline and ship raw resources to a refinery in Texas. This was such a crackpot idea the Americans did not want anything to do with it. Our colleagues over there had no clue that the Americans were not interested. They wanted to ship raw bitumen to a refinery in Texas and tell Canadians that this was somehow to their benefit.

We saw the government's lack of plan for resource development. I saw it in my own region in Sudbury and Timmins. We saw it in Thompson, Manitoba, when the now Muskoka minister allowed the takeover of Falconbridge and Inco. The first thing that they did was to start shutting down the refining capacity, just like they shut down the refining capacity in Montreal, because they didn't want the competition.

Now in Ontario we do not have any copper refining capacity left. It was shut down. The government thought that was a good idea. It thought that allowing one of the greatest mining companies in the world, Falconbridge, that had an international reputation, to be taken over by a corporate bandit like Xstrata was all right. It allowed Inco, the greatest mining giant Canada ever produced, to be taken over by Vale and have the resources stripped and high-graded.

Now what we are seeing is this lack of plan for investments. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the government would think that the best idea for job creation is to build a pipeline to ship raw bitumen to Texas where it will be refined to the benefit of Americans, and that will somehow build an economy.

We believe that we have an immense ability, with our resources, to create jobs and if we are to create those jobs, we need to develop and refine the resources here. We are not like the Conservative Party who believes that the idea of being open for business is, “Come and take us for a ride”. That is the Conservatives' notion toward all resources. That is why they rolled over on the softwood lumber deal when Canada had won trade after trade disputes at the WTO. We found ourselves completely handcuffed by the fact that they undermined our position. That was back at the international trade level.

This is a government that believes resources should be given away for free. In a country as rich as Canada is in resources that is not a long-term strategy.

We need to reinvest. We need to do it in job training. We need to support businesses that actually want to reinvest in our economy. We need to make the most out of our resources. We need to ensure that our northern and rural areas have access to doctors. We need to ensure that every Canadian has a proper pension plan; not some kind of makeshift plan that the Conservatives have come up with but something that will ensure that CPP is there for the next generation just like it was for the last generation.

I am more than proud to take any questions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the comments from my colleague on the opposite benches, I obviously disagree with them 100%. When the member tells his constituents he will vote a certain way on the gun registry and then votes the opposite way once elected, is he misleading his constituents before or after he was elected? Which is it? I am not sure what he considers ethical in his position.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Wow, Mr. Speaker, I have just been floored by one of the greatest performances I have ever seen in democratic history, or how about not. I was actually expecting Annie Oakley to ask me the question.

A member from Manitoba actually came to my riding and had maybe 15 people show up.

If the member knew anything--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Burlington is rising on a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would you remind the member what name calling an individual member can do to other members. That member used inappropriate parliamentary language when he called a member on this side of the House--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, order. In order to evaluate the point of order that the member for Burlington is trying to raise, I do need to hear what he is saying. There is too much noise in the chamber.

I wonder if the hon. member for Burlington could finish his point of order and then we will see where we go from there.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I am finished, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the report on what defines parliamentary language in reference to somebody else on the other bench.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the member for Burlington for his point of order.

If members are referring to other hon. members in the House, or in the Senate for that matter, it is good to use names that are appropriate to the case, in this case a member of the chamber, either by his or her riding name or, as the case may be, by title if he or she is a parliamentary secretary or minister.

I am sure that the member for Timmins—James Bay will confine himself to that description.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My hon. colleague has one important point. I might have said as a metaphor that she was Annie Oakley and not like Annie Oakley. I referred to someone earlier as Mr. Magoo. Referring to people as historic characters is irrelevant to the issue.

What is relevant is the fact that during the last election I talked to my constituents about the government's lack of plan for pensions. I talked about the government's complete disregard for the lack of rural doctors. The Conservatives came into my riding and the only thing they talked about was guns.

The people of Timmins--James Bay overwhelmingly voted for the New Democratic Party because they knew we were right and they supported us. The Conservative government has nothing to offer, otherwise it would have a Conservative member in northern Ontario--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cape Breton--Canso.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe some members in the chamber will not know this, and some people who may be watching at home as well, but my friend is a very accomplished Juno nominated songwriter and has written some fabulous songs. Crossin' the Causeway is one of my favourites. It is a great song.

The member would agree with me that one important aspect of songwriting is ensuring that when titling a song, the title should reflect something that is through the actual body of the song.

The title of this particular piece of legislation is “Keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. Because 40,000 fewer Canadians are working this month than last month, would my colleague agree that the government might have missed the target a bit with the title of this particular piece of legislation?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad I received such great respect from my hon. colleague.

He knows the song Crossin' the Causeway is about Cape Bretoners who had to leave to find work in Ontario. Unfortunately, the Conservatives responded by saying that if they did not like it, they could go to Fort McMurray. I have nothing against going to Fort McMurray, but I would like to see some investments in our region in terms of job training so people could stay.

I was actually surprised at what the government has called this bill. It is one of the most bizarre names it could ever come up with. I would have thought it should have been something like “Busted flat in Ottawa” or “Smoke on the water”, but it would probably be better to say “Smoke in the mirrors”. In terms of a credible name for a budget, it certainly does not pass that test. We can work on a song so maybe we can correct that.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak on our budget implementation act. I am pleased to offer my own insight into what I really believe to be a budget for the times. The strength of our economy is referenced again and again by national and international bodies such as the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. They all confirm that what we have been doing as a government is the right thing at the right time.

Clearly and indisputably, this budget is what is needed to take us on the road to recovery. However, our government does believe that one must be prudent and realistic, and recognize that challenging times are still ahead. The state of the world economy may still impact us in a negative fashion from forces beyond our control whether they be the Middle East, U.S.A. or Europe. Being a responsible government, we must do what we can and what we will do here is to manage the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' dollars. We must support families and individuals in a caring and compassionate manner.

In this budgetary process we propose and we will promote job creation and economic growth, certainly our number one priority, in a number of ways: by providing a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring; by expanding tax support for clean energy generation to encourage green investments; by extending the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through shares investors by one year in order to support fully Canada's mining sector; by simplifying custom tariffs in order to facilitate trade and lower the administrative burden for business; by accelerating the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment for two years in order to support the manufacturing and processing sector; and by eliminating the mandatory retirement age for federally regulated employees in order to give older workers the option to remain in the workforce.

We will support communities by legislating a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund to provide predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. We will enhance the wage earner protection program to cover more workers affected by employer bankruptcy or receivership and we will introduce a volunteer firefighter tax credit for volunteer firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Prince Albert.

By increasing the ability of Canadians to give more to legitimate charities, we will introduce a package of integrity measures designed to help combat fraud and other forms of abuse. We will help families by introducing the new family caregiver tax credit to assist caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives. We will remove the limit on the amount of eligible expenses caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit in respect of financially dependent relatives. We will introduce a very popular new children's arts tax credit for programs associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities.

We will certainly invest in education and training by forgiving loans for new doctors and nurses in underserviced rural and remote areas. We will help apprentices in the skilled trades and workers in regulated professions by making occupational trade and professional examination fees eligible for the tuition tax credit. We will improve federal financial assistance for students by making it easier to allocate registered education savings plan assets among siblings without incurring tax penalties or forfeiting Canada education saving grants.

We will respect taxpayers by phasing out the direct subsidy of political parties by closing tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Yes, by doing all of those things and many more, we are doing an absolutely tremendous service to a significant group across this country. We are supporting families. We are supporting seniors. We are supporting volunteer firefighters. We are supporting small business. We are keeping taxes low. We are keeping Canada on track for balanced budgets. We are supporting our farmers, our forest industry, and our manufacturers. We are investing in our environment. We are supporting students. We are protecting consumers. We are supporting Canada's charities and yes, as I mentioned earlier, we are phasing out per vote political subsidies for political parties which will support all taxpayers and which I note will negatively affect our governing party the most.

The budget implementation bill in process is a comprehensive piece of legislation covering a broad scope of Canadian society. I would like to offer some personal insight on one particular component of the budget and that is the measures for small business.

I was a small business owner for over 35 years, prior to my election in 2004 as a member of Parliament. I have extensive experience in retail, wholesale, hospitality, sports, tourism and trade. As such, I am pleased that we will implement a number of key measures to assist small businesses, which are the cornerstone of our economy. We will do it in a number of ways.

One is by a new-hire credit for small business. This is a temporary one-time credit of up to $1,000 toward a small firm's increase in its 2011 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2010. This new credit will help up to 525,000 employers defray the cost of additional hiring. That is over half a million businesses, a significant impact for Canada, particularly in the rural areas.

We are reducing the red tape by upgrading the BizPaL service and further consulting Canadians through the Red Tape Reduction Commission. I commend the hon. Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism for the work he is doing.

For our youth entrepreneurs there is $20 million to support the Canadian Youth Business Foundation activities. This foundation works with young entrepreneurs to help them become the business leaders of tomorrow through mentorship, learning resources and start-up financing.

We are extending the work-sharing arrangements to help business keep workers. We are providing $10 million in additional support to assist those employers that continue to face challenges by making available an extension of up to 16 weeks for active or recently terminated work-sharing agreements.

We are extending the accelerated capital cost allowance to help manufacturers and processors make new investments in manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment.

This builds on our government's significant action to reduce taxation for small business where we increased the small business limit to $0.5 million. This refers to the amount of income earned by small business eligible for the reduced federal tax rate where we reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%.

We are lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% by 2012, as passed in Parliament.

These reductions will help create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and communities.

We have increased the lifetime capital gains exemption. We are helping companies invest in themselves through a temporary 100% capital cost allowance rate for computers. We eliminated the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008. While the elimination of the surtax benefits all corporations, it is of particular benefit to small business corporations since the surtax represents a larger proportion of their overall tax payable.

In addition, the creation of the Red Tape Reduction Commission has helped reduce unnecessary and ineffective regulations so small business can focus on growing and creating jobs.

Our government recently released a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry in Canada to protect small businesses.

For much of my life I was very active in the sporting world. I observed that in the game of hockey there are two types of players. There are those who simply heckle and have no focused commitment and there are those who act decisively and get positive results. Our Conservative Party believes that our team must have a solid game plan in order to get that puck down the ice and in the net.

The budget implementation bill would do just that. It certainly deserves the unanimous support of the House. I am pleased to see the overwhelming encouragement and support from my colleagues across the House in support of our initiative.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker was very proud to repeat that the Conservatives have a policy to support volunteer firefighters. However, upon closer examination of the clause in question—something that I have done but that the members opposite obviously have not—we see some absurd things. Not all 85,000 volunteer firefighters are entitled to this credit. Those who work fewer than 200 hours are not eligible and neither are those who work for the municipality as blue collar workers, white collar workers or first responders.

The remaining 55,000 volunteers have to share the massive amount of $15 million, which means that they get $300 each. And the Conservatives have the nerve to tell us that this is a good policy to support volunteer firefighters. This will not buy volunteers trucks, equipment or training and it will not allow them to participate in a national public safety structure. All the Conservatives have done is talk about supporting volunteer firefighters. Nothing more. And so, I would like the Conservatives to talk a bit more about this measure and what it will really do for volunteer firefighters.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

I remind hon. members that it is a good idea to check with the chair from time to time as one is responding or questioning to see the signal so we can keep on time.

The hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be suggesting that there is no need for a tax credit, and that we should just give everybody in Canada a refund. Where does he think those kinds of dollars would come from? That would upset the apple cart so much that there would hardly be any dollars left for anything in life.

Governments have to make a decision and that decision is based on what they think will get the best results. We responded directly to the firefighters, to their organization. This is what they asked for. There are 85,000 volunteer firefighters in this country. I have talked to a number of firefighters. We attended the various sessions on the Hill and we attended their organizations. The vast majority of firefighters is very pleased with the government's approach.

There is always the hope that every bill, every option and every motion will cover every person in Canada, but that is not the case. The people I have talked to say this initiative has been very widely accepted by the vast majority of volunteer firefighters.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the remarks of my colleague from Prince Edward—Hastings.

He talked about the Conservatives having a road map and a vision. I disagree with that, of course, because the problem with their road map and vision is that they leave too many people out.

My question relates to firefighters as well. One of the shortcomings of the government's proposals in several areas is that the tax credits should be refundable. The lower income scale does not qualify for a tax credit. The tax credits need to be refundable.

My question is a simple one. Does my hon. friend really think that a low income earner who is working for a fire department is any less deserving in terms of that assistance from the Government of Canada than a higher income earner who is doing the same work and taking the same risks?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just flip that around. If there was a tax credit that the hon. member might be able to use on his farm but his income suggested it was not there, should every dollar that would be used as a tax credit automatically be sent to him as a refund?

That is not doable in today's economy, let alone in a booming economy. I would suggest to the hon. member, with all consideration, that he give his head a shake and try to be real in situations like this.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but contrast the remarks of the member for Prince Edward—Hastings and the remarks of the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Our colleague from Timmins—James Bay talked about his broken promise on the long gun registry and that his constituents were wondering about the plan, what were we doing about doctors and what were we doing about jobs and growth. I think the member for Prince Edward—Hastings answered it very articulately.

I would appreciate it if he would talk about the rural doctor issue.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly know the background of the hon. member and her years of dedication to the health field.

As a person living in a rural area, I can say that it has always been a challenge to have a family physician. We have addressed that in a number of different ways, through relocation fees, subsidy and support. The most important thing is that we are doing what we said we would do. In the March budget, we laid out the elements that we would do. To the shock and horror of the opposition we are doing what we said we would do. We are doing what the Canadian population elected us to do. Is it not refreshing to have some honesty on the scene for once?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking people on the finance committee, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State (Finance). A lot of work went into the background and creation of this great document that Canadians outright approved of on May 2 when they elected a majority Conservative government.

When we look at the budget, there are many items in it. I will mention a few. There is the volunteer firefighter tax credit, the gas tax fund rebate for infrastructure for municipalities, forgivable loans for doctors, arts tax credits, phasing out political subsidies and closing tax loopholes. That is the tip of the iceberg of a great bill and a great piece of legislation. When we all look at all that, we wonder why anybody would even debate it. All clauses of this bill should have passed at one time, in one sitting, and we could have moved on to other important parliamentary business.

Our government is definitely focused on the economy and jobs. That is our role and that is what we understand Canadians want us to do. That is what we ran on in the last election and that is what this budget is doing.

To start off, I will talk about the forgivable loans for doctors and nurses in rural Canada. When I talk to constituents in my riding, that is the number one issue. They ask where they have to go to see a doctor, why they have to drive to a major centre to see a doctor and why they cannot see a doctor in their small town or even in a little town close by.

When I grew up in Canwood, there was a guy by the name of Dr. Ed. Dr. Ed was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Everybody remembers Dr. Ed. If it was midnight, we could call Dr. Ed, and he would make sure we were taken care of. That was back in the 1970s and 1980s, and those days are gone. Dr. Ed has moved on, God bless his soul, and now people are looking for a doctor to replace him. Unfortunately, I understand doctors do not want to work 24 hours a day. They want companionship. They want to see their patients in a timely manner and do it in such a fashion that they can enjoy life with their families.

This forgivable loan would do a lot to attract doctors and nurses to rural Saskatchewan. Once doctors are taken out of the city and brought to Nipawin, Carrot River, Melfort or Tisdale, it is amazing how quickly they adapt. Their kids end up playing hockey and sports and their families get involved in the community. This forgivable loan allows us to attract doctors and nurses to rural areas and makes it a lot easier for communities. I have been told on many occasions that the communities that search for doctors feel this is a very valuable tool to help them do that.

That is not the only thing in this budget. There are also gas tax funds for municipalities. Every year I try to visit all the cities, municipalities and regional municipalities. I talk to them about their needs and see where we can work together on projects. They all thank us immensely for the economic action plan and for the stimulus that we started in 2008. They talk about how they added a water treatment plant, a sewage lift station, some culverts or a road. It seems as though every town had a need that it could not get, but under Canada's economic action plan, which the NDP and the Liberals voted against, it was done.

What they are asking now is for the gas tax to be continued. With the implementation of this bill, it will be continued. The thanks we get because of that are amazing. When I talked to the mayor of Prince Albert, that was the first question on his mind. He asked about what was happening with the gas tax dollars. He said those dollars were needed and there were still more projects to do. We are in hard times and we are being very careful and prudent, but we will not balance our budget on their backs, and they can count on the gas tax dollars to flow to them. The funds are bankable and are going to be delivered once this bill passes. That mayor and other municipalities know they have a stream of revenue coming from the federal government that they can bank on and use in their planning when they need infrastructure.

The volunteer firefighter tax credit is something that firefighters have been asking for year after year. All firefighters, volunteer or not, said this was a good program. This is what they asked for and this is what we gave them.

In my riding of Prince Albert, there is a volunteer fire department in the regional municipality of Buckland. Jim Miller runs that volunteer fire department. I took some pizzas out to the guys to say thanks. Actually, a $3,000 credit is a token when we look at the hours these guys put in and what they sacrifice, not only the firefighters but their families as well, whether in fundraising or in trying to raise capital to buy another fire engine. On an emergency call when it is 25 degrees below zero at a nasty car accident that could involve a neighbour, these guys are on the scene. They appreciate the fact that we would acknowledge them and appreciate them. They appreciate the fact that we would thank them for their hard work and service and that we are recognizing this hard work. It is another measure that every party should stand behind. There is no reason to criticize it.

Another thing that was talked about was the arts tax credit. Again, we focused on sports. I am a sports fan; that is who I am. I love hockey and I played every sport when I was in high school. However, for the kids who want to take music lessons, dance, art work or drawing, that arts tax credit is there. It puts them on the same footing as the kid who wants to play hockey. I think that is a fair, balanced and reasonable approach. Obviously taxpayers approve of it, because they showed up on May 2 and voted for it.

We want to be fair to people and make sure that everybody pays their fair share of taxes by closing tax loopholes. Getting rid of unnecessary loopholes would ensure that everybody pays their fair share of taxes, and I think Canadians are proud to take on the responsibility of paying taxes.

I come from a province that used to be a have-not province. We had an NDP that wanted to do everything it could to be a have-not province to get money out of Ottawa. In Saskatchewan we were not proud of that and we told the government that we would rather pay our taxes.

We would rather make some money, pay taxes and contribute to the Canadian economy. We would rather contribute to our local economy by paying some taxes. We appreciate the services that the taxes pay for. We appreciate our doctors and the municipal services, such as roads and water, that we get through our taxes, so we expect people to pay their fair share, nothing more and nothing less. Of course, that is something this government is doing, and we are moving forward on it in this implementation plan.

The last thing I will talk about is respecting taxpayers' money. That is something we have to do as parliamentarians. We have to recognize the fact that this is not our money, but taxpayers' money. We have to respect the fact that they work hard for that money. Whenever we can give them a benefit or a tax break, they appreciate it. It shows we are doing our job here in Ottawa. They do not want to see a whole pile of new programs; they do want to see a whole pile of schemes and mechanisms to try to tax them even more. They understand the importance of tax reduction and they understand the importance of how the economy can grow when taxes are lowered. They can see the economic activity.

In Saskatchewan alone in the last four years, through a combination of good economic planning and tax reduction, that economy has gone from an unemployment rate of around 9% to, as they said last week, 3.3%. That is good stewardship, good tax planning and good governance at both the federal and provincial levels. That is what the taxpayers want out of us and that is what we are providing.

When I look at the phasing out of the political subsidies in the budget and all the things in it that could benefit the average Canadian family from day to day, I wonder why the opposition parties are so concerned over this bill. What is the issue?

It cannot be the volunteer firefighters tax credit, even though they try to discredit it because they know it is a popular part of the budget.

It cannot be the bankable gas tax funds. They cannot be against giving municipalities their gas tax funds. They could not vote against that, but maybe they could.

They cannot be against the forgivable loans for doctors and nurses for rural Canada. That would be crazy.

Are they against the arts tax credit? Is that why they are voting against the budget? Do they not want to see kids take part in arts programs? Do they not want to support Canadian arts and culture? I cannot see that. Is that it?

One thing I could see are the subsidies for political parties. That would make a lot of sense to me. It is their own survival. Instead of going out and raising funds from their contributors and the people who support their causes and their policy, telling people what their policy is, listening to them and getting input into their policy, it is pretty nice for them to get so much per vote. Could that be the reason they are voting against the budget? Do they want to keep their political subsidies?

I looked at the budget fairly closely. It is closing tax loopholes. Are the NDP not against tax loopholes?

Therefore, it comes down to one thing: self-preservation. Can they do the job? Can they go out and actually convince Canadians to support their parties? Is that why they are voting against this budget? Again, it cannot be any of the other issues.

In closing, on May 2, as well as during and before the campaign, I talked to a lot of constituents in the riding of Prince Albert. I listened very closely to what they wanted me to do. One thing was very clear: they wanted respect for their tax dollars. They wanted proper representation in Ottawa. They wanted to see the bickering end. They wanted to see politicians work together when things made sense, and this budget makes a lot of sense. They expect us to work together.

Let us pass this budget and get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech.

I must confess, we agree on one thing. Like him, I do not like to see taxpayers' money wasted. Unfortunately, on everything else we part company.

I remember when this government introduced the public transit tax measure a few years ago. I was angry to see that it was passed because, with this measure—and I have not had a car for almost three years—I was unable to buy a new bus or hire a single new driver to improve the public transit system in Quebec City.

I think that this measure, like the measures for sport and culture, is funny money to pacify people while billions of dollars in tax breaks are given to large corporations that have created an artificial deficit.

How can the hon. member justify, without laughing, the fact that he is giving only crumbs, very small amounts each month to help families?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the colleague for his question. He is a new member, so I understand that he is still learning about the process that goes into making the budget and the budget document and the consultation that goes on through the process and how we talk to Canadians.

We go and talk to different members of the industry right across Canada, not just here in Ottawa. We do not stay here in Ottawa when we do finance budget preparations; we go right across Canada, right from Newfoundland to Victoria and up into the Northwest Territories and Yukon. We talk to Canadians about what they want to see, and that is what they see in the budget.

I suppose what scares the opposition parties is that we are doing what we promised. Heaven forbid, the Liberals never did that. Now they are faced with a Conservative government that is going to do what it promised; since they do not know how to handle it, they will vote against it, and that is what they are doing.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of my colleague with respect to the gas tax. He went on at some length about how the gas tax is now a guaranteed amount. In actual fact, this budget has capped the gas tax transfer to municipalities.

What I found interesting was how he put it into a conversation. The conversation was, “Oh, we're not going to balance the budget on the backs of municipalities”. I just wonder about the conversation he had with veterans, considering that $226 million is being cut out of the Veterans Affairs budget and hundreds of jobs are being lost. If that was the conversation with municipalities, let us hear about the conversation with veterans.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty shameful that the member would be playing partisan politics on the backs of veterans. He knows it is not a cut. He knows that that is just a change in how the process works.

Let me continue with the conversation I had with the mayor at that point in time. He was very nervous when we talked about deficit reduction, because he had experienced what the Liberals did. He experienced having to make those tough decisions on transportation. He experienced how he had to go forward and cut his staff and cut his services. He experienced that.

Under the Liberal government, the provincial governments also experienced it when they cut the number of doctors and hospital beds. My family experienced it also. When my mother was sick with cancer, she experienced those cuts and did that two-hour drive to Saskatoon.

We just said we are not going to do that. That is why he should get behind it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend, the member of Parliament for Prince Albert, to explain something to me. I have asked this question before of government members and I have to admit, with all due respect, that I have not had a satisfactory answer.

The Conservatives have said to us in the opposition benches that somehow we do not go out there and ask our supporters for support and that we do not go out there and put forward what our policies are. Speaking on behalf of the Green Party, we do, and we raise money from our supporters, but that money is easier to raise because there are very generous tax rebates, and they have benefited primarily the Conservative Party. I do not see the Conservative Party showing any interest in removing the very generous tax rebates that come from the people of Canada for the donations they receive.

I would like a response to why Bill C-13 goes after the smallest of the amounts of taxpayer subsidies to political parties and leaves aside the elephants in the room, the rebates on political party spending and donations.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the rebate is something that has been a part of it. In the American system, a congressman or a senator can raise millions of dollars from whomever they want, with no accountability back to the taxpayer. I would rather take our system, which limits what we can donate. We get a tax receipt for contributing, for participating in the political process. I think it is a far fairer and safer system.

It is fair for every party. It is not just the Conservative Party that benefits from the system in place here. If the member raises funds and gets people to donate, her people will still get that tax receipt. That is the reality we are facing right now.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, November 16, 2011, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #62

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I ask hon. members who are not staying for the adjournment debate to continue their conversations outside the House.