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

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we need to support our industrial base and we need to increase employment. We understand that.

We will hear many speakers from this side of the House talk about how the economy is very fragile, and it is. Employment is also fragile but we are working hard to change that. Let me mention a new program starting at the SIAST Wascana campus. This program teaches young people to be plumbers. It has just seen the light of day in the last couple of months. It is an attempt to promote training and education for people so that they can find employment in today's economy.

We are aware of what the member has said and we are working hard to alleviate that particular need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives and Liberals agree on one aspect of this bill, which is the volunteer firefighters tax credit. We recognize the valuable contributions our volunteer firefighters make. Where we tend to disagree is that the Liberal Party believes that volunteer firefighters at a low-income threshold should also get a tax benefit. According to the bill, the government would penalize low-income volunteer firefighters.

Does the member see the value in recognizing all volunteer firefighters, including those with a low income?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware that the bill needs some work in terms of some things that may not be totally covered. We are aware there is some discrepancy with respect to that part of the bill. We will certainly look at that and cover the bases so that all will be treated fairly.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the first phase of Canada's economic action plan was a huge success for Canada. Almost 600,000 jobs have been created since July 2009 and in the category of economic growth, Canada is the best of all the G7 countries.

My hon. colleague from Palliser knows his community well. Could he tell us how the next phase of Canada's economic action plan would impact his community and how the good things in that plan would help the people in his community and all of Canada?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we realize there are many needs to deal with, particularly in infrastructure. Canada's economic action plan has supplied funding for a number of projects. One that comes to mind and which is just being completed is the overpass on Highway 1 which ties into Lewvan Drive in Regina. This overpass is necessary because of increased traffic, particularly freight traffic that will find its way to the international terminal west of the city.

Projects that received funding in phase one of the economic action plan are now coming to completion. Those projects will alleviate a lot of problems for people and will increase productivity for our province.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-13. This bill implements certain provisions of the 2011 budget.

I am sad to see that the Conservatives are once again showing their lack of respect for our democratic institutions and for Canadians by imposing strict time limits on the debate. The Conservatives' arrogance is an insult to Canadians, more than 60% of whom did not vote for their narrow ideology that defies reason and facts.

The Liberal Party cannot support this bill because it contains a significant number of inadequacies in its current form. With this bill the Conservatives are deliberately excluding low-income Canadians from measures such as the family caregiver tax credit, the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the children's arts tax credit.

How can low-income families and individuals benefit from a non-refundable tax credit when quite often, they do not have enough income to be taxed? Why are the Conservatives choosing to exclude the most vulnerable among us at a time when the economy is so precarious?

For example, if people quit their jobs to take care of loved ones at home, how will they take advantage of a tax credit when they have no income? There are many more examples of how these proposed measures will not benefit those who need them most.

The main problem with this bill has to do with the fact that to be eligible for most of the measures, there is a minimum income threshold. The Conservatives decided to play petty politics with tax credits instead of making them refundable so that low-income Canadians could also benefit, as we proposed. That shows once again that this Conservative government is ignoring Canadians in need.

The Liberal Party wants to work with the government to improve this bill, but it also understands that the Conservatives never listen to the advice of the House or the Canadian public. This government must start working on the problems facing Canadians instead of creating conflicts. A responsible government would not choose winners and losers. It would not choose to ignore a large segment of the population. It would not choose to ignore facts and reason for ideological purposes.

A number of other measures in this bill do not serve Canadian interests and demonstrate that this government has mishandled many issues. Take, for example, the higher charges being imposed on Ontario and Quebec softwood lumber exporters. A few years ago, the Conservative government tried to buy peace with our American forestry competitors, at a cost of $1 billion. Here we are today, forced to comply with the London Court of International Arbitration ruling of January 21, 2011, and increase taxes on this sector of our economy, which continues to be targeted by U.S. trade claims despite the $1 billion already wasted.

The higher charges that Ontario and Quebec exporters will have to face is another demonstration of poor Conservative management. Why does this government prefer to placate Washington instead of standing up for the Canadian workers it is supposed to represent? More than $1 billion has been wasted already, yet the Conservatives have decided to kowtow to the United States once again.

In addition, certain credits set out in this bill are completely ineffective. For example, the small business hiring credit aims to compensate for an increase in employment insurance premiums for some small and medium-size businesses. The problem is that this credit is taxable and is capped at $1,000. To obtain this credit, the business must have paid higher employment insurance premiums in 2011 than in 2010, as long as the 2010 amount was $10,000 or less. Because of these restrictions, the credit targets very small businesses as opposed to all small and medium-size businesses.

For instance, a small business that employs 11 people, each earning $38,000, would be too large to qualify. Based on our calculations, approximately 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses could not take advantage of the credit, which is just another example of this government's petty politics that do nothing to help Canadians.

On top of all that, let us not forget that the Conservatives also announced they want to increase EI premiums by 5.6% in January 2012. Because of that increase, a business with 10 employees, each earning an annual salary of $40,000, would have to pay $800 more in EI premiums next year. In short, any amount left over from the credit will all be clawed back in taxes and increased EI premiums.

The Conservative government seems to be trying to fool Canadians by offering just a few small and medium-sized businesses a hiring credit, when it knows very well that that amount will be taken back in full. This is so typical of the Conservatives: lots of hoopla, with no real results—except for their friends. Instead of giving tax breaks to wealthy corporations that are eliminating jobs in Canada, why not give real tax credits to our small and medium-sized businesses that are creating jobs in Canada?

Another weak point in this bill relates to the gas tax fund. The provisions of that section place a $2 billion limit on annual transfers to municipalities for infrastructure projects. That very fund was created in 2004 by the previous Liberal government, which had, at the time, made provisions for that $2 billion limit to be increased in order to account for inflation and population growth, things that this Conservative government is choosing to ignore. The amount set out in this bill does not correspond to today's reality and does not provide all the help the municipalities need to address the infrastructure deficit, which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities now estimates at $123 billion.

Municipalities—perhaps with the exception of Muskoka—are suffering, and the government is not taking their needs into account. If we consider the facts that municipalities have been growing since 2004, that costs are increasing as a result of inflation, and that our infrastructure is crumbling, as we have unfortunately seen with the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, setting a $2 billion limit now is illogical.

The transfer to municipalities should have been increased in order to take demographic growth and inflation into account; instead, the government preferred to load an additional burden on the backs of municipalities in a typically Conservative manner, namely, without consultation, without debate and without a logical rationale.

Another problematic section is that pertaining to the Canadian securities regulator. The Canadian Securities Transition Office was supposed to be a temporary body set up to establish the permanent organization; however, under Bill C-13, Parliament will have to allocate additional funds to maintain this transition office. By so doing, the Conservatives are trying to force the provinces to accept what they want rather than working with the provinces to implement a functional regulatory system from coast to coast.

If the government wants to show good faith, it will take into account the proposals of the Liberal Party and Canadians. These simple and realistic proposals could easily be implemented. However, by limiting the debate on this 642-page bill to 15 seconds per page, the government is showing that it does not care about debate or about the reasonable proposals that Canadians and the opposition are making. This is an insult to Canadians who do not support the Conservative agenda. Given the current economic situation, we cannot abandon those in need.

The Liberal Party thus commits to defending those whom this government neglects. We cannot support Bill C-13 until the many deficiencies we have pointed out have been fixed.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot these days about taxing the rich and making the rich pay, and the member touched on that in his speech. I would like to point out that there is a lot talk about tax credits that are offered to people who actually do not pay tax.

In light of the fact that the top 10% of income earners in our country, which begins at $80,000, pays 57% of all income taxes, the top 25% of income earners, which begins at $50,000, pays 82% of all federal income receipts, does the member believe that when tax cuts or tax relief is offered, it should go primarily to people who actually pay taxes, as opposed to being handed out to people who do not pay taxes in the form of spending?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance in my speech to discuss taxes and the amount of taxes being paid by individuals. The only remark I made in my speech was that the large corporations were getting the tax breaks in this budget instead of all Canadians getting a tax break.

The challenge of any government, and it does not have to be a right-wing ideology-driven government like the Conservative government, is that it does not have to just give tax breaks to the people who voted for them. The challenge is to help everybody, the most in need.

In times like these, when people are having a hard time making ends meet, those are the people who should be helped. There are proposals for non-refundable tax credits. The tax credits have to be refundable or they are not effective.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that everyone on both sides of the House understands that small businesses drive the economy and create over 50% of the jobs. Yet we have the Conservative government proposing to tax small businesses in the new year with the payroll tax. How would this affect small businesses in his riding?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that the number of companies that would be eligible for the new hires program would be very minimal. It is supposed to be geared toward small business enterprises, but it will actually only help a few very small businesses with less than 10 employees.

What will be the repercussion? Even if they were eligible to get the $1,000 maximum eligible tax credit, it would be taxable and then it would be offset by an increase in employment premiums.

The small businesses in my riding will not be any further ahead.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke very convincingly about municipalities and the need for more infrastructure support. That ties really strongly into small business needs.

In rural Canada, in particular, municipal governments, small business and tourism work very closely together. What would my colleague recommend in terms of small business requirements when he thinks about municipal infrastructure investments?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why do I always get the toughest questions from the Liberals?

We have been saying that basically we do not need to reduce the taxes on large corporations to keep the incentives.

A tourism tax credit was eliminated by the government, and it has been proven that tourism has gone down because of that. Small businesses are suffering because they are normally open longer than the big corporations.

There is general discontent among small businesses in our country because the government is not doing enough for them.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. It was evident that he was very negative about the great measures in the bill.

He forgot to mention the 650,000 new jobs that have been created. He tried to take credit for the $2 billion tax incentive for municipalities. That was $1 billion. We have doubled it and made it permanent.

Most of all, I cannot understand why he would avoid mentioning the tax credit to assist caregivers. He is trying to make it look like we are not compassionate for people who are caregivers. That is clearly a part of Bill C-13. I would like him to comment on that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my speech was given in French, but members will be able to read it in English tomorrow.

There is no problem with the caregivers tax credit. It just does not help the people who actually need it. It does not go far enough. That is what we are saying.

The Conservatives did not create the 600,000 jobs the member is saying they created. Those are part-time jobs. We were in Europe and spoke to the OECD. It is worried about the number of unemployed people in Canada. This is a big worry.

My Conservative colleague should get his head out of the sand and do something for the economy.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as Canada's labour minister, I am very pleased today to take part in this important debate on keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This act focuses on strengthening Canada's economic recovery by improving the ability of businesses and entrepreneurs to respond to emerging growth opportunities and to create jobs.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I served your office with a request for an emergency debate on the Coptic situation and I am sure you will acknowledge that.

I want to thank everybody today on both sides of the House for agreeing on a motion. I hope it is okay that I withdraw that request and want to thank everybody in the House who co-operated. We reached consensus on a motion that is affecting the plight of the Coptics and other ethnic minorities in Egypt and religious minorities around the world, and I want to thank everyone for that.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt for indicating that to the House.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

As always, this government is concerned about and is focused on what matters the most to hard-working Canadians: jobs and economic growth. The bill we are debating today includes key elements of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, a plan that worked to protect Canada from the worst of the global recession.

We have had seven straight quarters of economic growth, and since July 2009 nearly 650,000 net new jobs have been created. More importantly, over 80% of them have been full-time positions. This is great news for Canadians. We are definitely on the right track.

Canada's fiscal position is among the strongest in the world's top-performing advanced economies. However, we must be mindful that the global recovery remains fragile and that there are still too many Canadians looking for work. Too many hard-working Canadians have been affected by the economic downturn, and that is why the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act proposes such a large number of strong initiatives to promote job creation, to provide support for communities, to help families invest in education and training and to respect the taxpayer.

As the Minister of Labour, I would like to turn my attention to one of the aspects of this legislation that provides support particularly to workers who have been affected by an employer bankruptcy or receivership. In our economic action plan, we established the wage earner protection program, or WEPP, to help workers manage one of the toughest challenges that they ever face: going without hard-earned pay because an employer has gone bankrupt. As a direct result of this very important program, eligible workers who lose their jobs and who were owed money in the six months prior to their employer going bankrupt or being subject to receivership can now be compensated for unpaid wages and for vacation pay. This compensation also includes severance and termination pay, with workers receiving up to a maximum of $3,400.

The WEPP has proven itself as an important program and has provided assistance to a great many people who have been hard hit through losing their jobs out of no fault of their own. Since July 2008, over 40,000 WEPP claimants have received $89.5 million in payments.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act would provide additional good news workers caught in a bankruptcy or a receivership situation. We are proposing an expansion of the WEPP to cover employees who lose their jobs when their employer's attempt at restructuring takes longer than six months but is subsequently unsuccessful. This enhanced protection would provide an estimated $4.5 million annually to support workers affected by the bankruptcy of their employer. It would ensure that employees are not unfairly penalized if their employer tries to restructure in the face of financial difficulties, but fails.

The keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act also announces the government's proposal to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to eliminate mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction. We are taking this step because we believe that forcing an employee to retire by reason of age is a form of discrimination and a form of unequal treatment. Canadians are living longer and are more active than ever before, so people should be able to choose when they retire, unless there are compelling reasons, such as health or safety reasons, that prohibit them from choosing themselves.

This piece of legislation strikes the right balance between fiscal prudence and targeted investment, and it is no surprise that there have been very many favourable reactions to proposals from the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. As a few examples, Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada welcomed this elimination of a mandatory retirement age and the role it will play in mitigating the brain drain of experienced workers.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation's national research director, Derek Fildebrandt, also commended the elimination of mandatory retirement and said:

People have a right to determine how long they work, and this is a major step towards eliminating poverty for seniors...

These are only a few among so many favourable statements that have been made in support of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

I will take a moment to describe the labour program's role in supporting economic recovery and of course in building a fair and prosperous society.

I am a big proponent that safe and productive workplaces contribute to our economic prosperity. One of the key roles of the labour program is to support occupational health and safety by carrying out workplace investigations of work-related injuries and occupational diseases. We determine causes as well as strategies for prevention and resolution because Canadians should be able to return home safe and secure after a day or night at work.

I have held national round tables across Canada to examine occupational health and safety in the workplace, some of which focused on mental health issues. Our goal was to learn from the range of stakeholders, including employers, employees, other levels of government and academics about current and emerging occupational health and safety issues and how well these are being addressed by the federal government.

Mental health in the workplace, violence prevention, and in Iqaluit northern issues on health and safety, were discussed at the round tables.

Stakeholders across the board believe that respectful workplaces and emotional intelligence need to be promoted as core values for a productive and sustainable society and economy. The National Round Tables on Occupational Health and Safety underscored the importance of our program's focus on healthy and safe workplaces.

I have also met with stakeholders to discuss important issues, such as fair wages, hours of work and women in the workforce. These discussions provided valuable knowledge and insight on issues affecting today's workplaces. They also gave me a better understanding of the challenges that employers and employees sometimes have to face.

The labour program works to ensure that employment standards are respected as well, especially regarding pay, dismissal, leave and hours of work, because employment standards set the foundation for creating productive workplaces.

These standards help protect the rights of workers. They help foster cooperative relationships between employers and workers and provide the necessary conditions for a productive economy.

I am pleased that we have successfully conciliated about 1,000 unjust dismissal complaints, partly through the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, and have recovered $4.6 million in unpaid wages for workers in the federal sector.

As well, we continue to promote employment equity and related initiatives. Our goal is to foster inclusive and fair workplaces that take advantage of the skills and talents of all Canadians.

Finally, we continue to work in collaboration with both provincial and territorial governments, as well as our international partners, to identify and craft policies that can best support the development of enterprises and workforces, leading to strong and sustained growth.

I will also take time to talk about my constituents in Halton and how the initiatives proposed in this bill benefit them in their everyday lives.

There are a number of small businesses in the riding of Halton and a number of small business owners. Just as the CFIB has applauded the government's position and provision of a temporary hiring credit for small businesses, I know that businesses in my riding will be enthusiastic about this initiative as well.

This bill encourages additional hiring for small businesses through this temporary hiring credit and this is good news for job creation in my riding.

Also contained in the bill is a permanent annual investment of $2 billion in the gas tax fund which provides that predictable, long-term infrastructure funding for municipalities. As well, specific beneficial initiatives are: the volunteer firefighters tax credit; the new family caregiver tax credit; and, the new children's arts tax credit. There are many in here for the good people of Halton.

In conclusion, this act builds on our work to protect Canadian workers and employers and on strengthening labour management relations while playing a leadership role in intergovernmental and international labour affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the workplace and in particular the current workplace in my area. She is familiar with Cape Breton. I am from central and northeastern Newfoundland.

One of the biggest elements of the workforce is the existence of seasonal labour. Earlier today I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talked about the 45-day work week.

I will provide the minister with an example that I would like her to comment on. In a place like Port Union, which earlier lost its plant for only one season, it is harder for that particular plant to maintain a workforce in the foreseeable future if a 45-day work week does not exist.

Therefore, we must look for ways to promote EI reform in areas of high unemployment. Could the minister comment on that?

I apologize if that is not particularly germane to her speech.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tangentially on the topic that the hon. member brought up, in the first round of Canada's economic action plan the biggest challenge was dealing with single industry towns. We approached it from a number of different areas. One way was to help the community diversify and that is by putting in infrastructure. I know we did an awful lot of work on the forestry file to ensure that those communities wanting to diversify their base could do so by having new industries and creating new jobs so that people could stay in those communities. There are many benefits to having people stay in those communities, especially for those who live there.

As well, we introduced temporary measures with respect to employment insurance to ensure that older workers were able to obtain the retraining they needed.

Finally, not necessarily for the area from which the member comes but in my area in Halton we found that work sharing specifically was a very important program, one which I have been told the United States thinks was the key initiative that allowed us to recover from the recession as well as we did.

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

Mr. Speaker, as someone who enjoyed attending law school and practised law, I always felt that a bill's title should reflect its content. In this bill on jobs and economic growth I do not see a connection to clause 181 which removes campaign financing in public form, which is not any part of economic growth, and which does not even begin to touch the largest of taxpayer support to political parties. Would the Minister of Labour comment on that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out that the Cape Breton caucus does indeed get along outside the House, though not necessarily always inside the House. I also appreciate that she stood in defence of another member from Cape Breton at the other end of the House today.

Our government is committed to strengthening integrity and accountability both in government and political activity. We have always opposed direct taxpayer subsidies to political parties. We believe that political parties should rely primarily on their supporters for financing. That is why we are introducing legislation to gradually reduce the pay-per-vote subsidy starting April 1, 2012 until it is completely eliminated in 2015. That is also why the next phase of Canada's economic action plan is following through on the specific campaign commitment we made to defend the public interest.

We indicated that we have a duty to use taxpayer dollars wisely, especially in a time of fiscal constraint and when families are struggling to make ends meet. That is the underpinning as to why we are doing it, how we are doing it and when we are doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the debate today I heard many opposition members talk about there being no plan or that it is not working. One need only look at the results of seven periods of economic growth and an employment rate that while still not as good as we would like it to be is certainly better.

Could the member speak to the fact that we indeed have a plan and share it again with opposition members? Perhaps they have not heard but phase two of the economic action plan is working.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is indeed focused on what the next phase of the economic action plan is about. It is about supporting job creation, families and communities. It is about investing in innovation, education and training. It is about preserving Canada's fiscal advantage. The most telling part of it coming from my department is the quote from the Canadian Labour Congress wherein it stated:

—the CLC has pushed hard for an increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) paid to 1.6 million low income seniors. “Minister Flaherty has made a modest improvement to the GIS in this budget. This is a win for every senior living in poverty in Canada...”

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the budget implementation bill. It goes without saying that we support some measures in this second budget bill, but unfortunately, some measures are unacceptable. That is why we will vote against it today.

The first problem we have is with the federal government's proposal to centralize securities in Toronto. There has been opposition to this not only in Quebec, but also in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Opposition was particularly strong in Quebec, since it would mean moving all economic life to Toronto. The government's desire to do this is nothing new. Members will recall that on May 26, 2010, it introduced a draft bill for this purpose. Then, in July 2010, despite opposition from four provinces, the Conservative government started implementing the transition plan for the Canadian Securities Regulatory Authority.

The government seems to forget that securities regulation falls under the exclusive constitutional authority of Quebec and the provinces. Let us not forget that the government's proposed Canada-wide securities commission does not respect Quebec's responsibility for property and civil rights. Authority over securities is given to the provinces by virtue of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights under subsection 92(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It is plain and simple. Nevertheless, the government wants to move forward.

The current passport system, as we call it in finance terms, works very well. With this system, a company that registers in one participating province can do business with people in all the other participating provinces. Every province, except Ontario, is part of the rules harmonization project. This Canada-wide commission will strip Quebec of a very important economic tool. Major decisions will be made outside Quebec. The Autorité des marchés financiers has an awareness of Quebec's distinct nature and needs that a single commission will not have.

For example, jobs in the financial sector are threatened. This is a key sector of Quebec's economy that accounts for 155,000 direct jobs. In all, 300,000 jobs in Quebec are connected with the financial sector. With their proposed Canada-wide commission, the Conservatives are trying to do Montreal out of what it has for Toronto's benefit and are encroaching on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. For these reasons, the National Assembly and the business community in Quebec reject the proposal.

The voluntary membership that has been spoken of is a ploy. By destroying the passport system and counting on conflicts among the regulatory bodies, the Conservative government is creating a reason for stock-issuing companies to turn to the national commission.

Contrary to what the Conservative government is saying, the existence of such a commission would not have prevented investors from being fleeced by white-collar criminals such as Earl Jones. He was a criminal who was not registered anywhere. In Montreal or in Toronto, he would have committed his crimes the same way. It is up to the RCMP to hunt down criminals. This should not be part of the debate.

Similarly, the existence of a single commission in the United States did not prevent Bernard Madoff from defrauding investors of over $50 billion. In addition, during the merging of the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges into the well-known TMX Group, the AMF came up with a series of conditions that had to be met in order for it to accept the transaction, including, in particular, maintaining a certain number of jobs in Montreal in the derivatives sector. Since TMX Group is regulated by the Ontario Securities Commission, which would be part of the new Canada-wide commission, there is a real concern that the conditions set out by the AMF will no longer be respected.

In that case, what would stop TMX Group from moving all of its activities from Montreal to Toronto? That is a real danger. This commission will also be detrimental to the use of French in business, let us not forget. It is unlikely that companies registered with the single national commission, whether or not they are from Quebec, will be required to publish in English and French. The Bloc Québécois reiterates its opposition to the creation of a national securities commission. The Bloc Québécois supports the current harmonization of the rules governing the financial system. The passport mechanism maintains the autonomy and jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. This mechanism has existed since 2008 and is also used in the European Union. Thus, it is not something that is unique to Canada and Quebec. It is an international way of seeing things that respects all jurisdictions, including the provinces.

Canada's securities regulatory system works very well. A coalition of business people representing Quebecor, Jean Coutu, Cascades, the Association de femmes en finances and its 350 members, the bar, notaries, Power Corporation and Mouvement Desjardins all confirmed it in 2010. Many experts also oppose the plan for a single securities commission. Among them we have Pierre Lortie, the former President and CEO of the Montreal Stock Exchange, the constitutional expert Henri Brun, Yvon Allaire and Michel Nadeau from the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations, and Jeffrey MacIntosh from the Toronto Stock Exchange Chair in Capital Markets Law at the University of Toronto. He shares our opinion even though he is from Toronto. All the political parties in Quebec are against this initiative. There have even been some unanimous motions from the National Assembly.

Let us take a brief look back to see how we got here. From 1970 to 2005, the idea of a single securities commission surfaced and resurfaced sporadically. The idea of giving Canada a single regulatory body for securities has been resurfacing for more than 40 years. Since 2003, the subject has been at the forefront of the federal political scene. The Liberals, who were in power at the time, had formed a committee of experts to study the possibility of setting up a single regulatory agency in Canada. The surprising thing is that the committee was far from being definitive. But today the Liberals and the Conservatives agree on centralizing everything in Toronto.

We should remember that, since coming to power, the Conservatives have attempted to force the issue. The 2006 budget revisited the idea. It announced that the government was going to work with the provinces. But if you work with the provinces and they say no, that they do not want change, the matter should go no further. The federal government often forgets that it was created by the will of the provinces. It is a creation of the provinces. It is not up to the federal government to tell the provinces what to do. It is up to the provinces to tell the federal government its expectations about how things will work. The provinces have delegated the powers to the federal government. This is often forgotten.

The Minister of Finance reiterated in 2007 that a panel of experts would be set up to study the creation of a single regulator. The 2008 budget again confirmed the government's intention despite the opposition from the provinces. In 2009, the expert panel on securities established by the Minister of Finance tabled its report, which was not unanimous. Action has also been taken recently, as we can see today in the government's statement on finances. It is still determined to move forward without waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling because the government is in a difficult position due to the provinces' opposition. Alberta and Quebec are mounting a legal challenge.

I hope that the Conservative government will revise its position to satisfy the demands of the provinces. For the time being, if Quebec is opposed, we will vote against the bill

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. Once again, he clearly stated the Bloc's understanding of this bill. Why does he feel that the Conservative government is stubbornly moving ahead with the securities commission initiative in Toronto, despite the fact that it goes against the unanimous will of the National Assembly in Quebec City, which wants to retain full authority in this area? I would like to hear from the member.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It seems that this desire to centralize exists not only in the finance department, but also in the justice department. An omnibus bill that affects a number of areas has recently been tabled. It also infringes upon provincial jurisdictions. For example, Quebec has developed a vision for young offenders that has been cited as an example around the world. In fact, 85% of youth who offend are rehabilitated through this system, without jail time. The Conservatives' centralist vision focuses on repression instead of prevention, which centralizes power in the field of justice.

And exactly the same thing is happening in the arts and in finance. This securities commission is very symptomatic of the Conservative government's desire to centralize. Thousands of Quebec jobs would be transferred. There is opposition in Quebec and in the National Assembly, of course, but Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are also opposed to this. Conservative talk about decentralization and understanding the regions and the provinces is completely at odds with the proposal of a single securities commission in Toronto.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today in support of Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act. The passage of this bill is very important to my riding of Newmarket—Aurora, as it is to all Canadians.

Bill C-13 would complete the passage of budget 2011. It contains measures that are critically important for Canada's long-term prosperity by boosting research and development, innovation and productivity. It speaks to what Canadians elected us to do, focusing on economic growth, job creation and stability.

I will direct most of my comments today on how Bill C-13 supports job creation in my riding. Over the past months, I have met with thousands of residents in my community, whether at the door, on the street, or in my office, and, by far, the top of mind priorities above all others were jobs and the economy. They made it very clear to me that they wanted their government to focus squarely on these priorities, jobs and economic growth. Why is this? It is because a stable, growing economy creates job opportunities. It supports families and it creates confidence. It is the fundamental backbone of what vibrant communities and a prosperous nation are all about.

Newmarket--Aurora is comprised of thousands of entrepreneurs, most of them small and medium sized businesses. They will all benefit from the one time hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 contained in budget 2011 and formalized in Bill C-13. Through this measure, over 525,000 employers across Canada will be helped with the costs of additional hiring. This is an average of almost 1,400 businesses in each of the 308 ridings across the country. With this initiative, a small business can hire one additional worker at a salary of up to $40,000 or two part-time workers at a salary of up to $20,000 each without having to pay additional EI premiums.

Entrepreneurs in my riding would benefit from budget 2011 measures to support the development of clean energy technologies through a $97 million investment over two years to renew funding for technology and innovation in the areas of clean energy and energy efficiency. Measures, such as the new children's arts tax credit and the extension of the eco-energy retrofit homes program, are boosting economic activity in hardware shops, contracting companies, music and art stores across my riding, just as they are throughout the country.

Manufacturing and processing businesses would benefit from the extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate that encourages investments in machinery and equipment. This measure builds squarely upon our previous support for the manufacturing sector.

Last week, Statistics Canada released a report showing that manufacturing sales rose 1.4% to $47.6 billion in August, the highest level since October 2008. In fact, last Friday, a news release from AirBoss of America crossed my desk. AirBoss has its head office in my hometown of Newmarket with manufacturing plants in Kitchener, Ontario; Acton-Vale, Quebec; and North Carolina. The news release announced the securement of two contracts worth $20 million with the U.S. department of defense in supplying that company's rubber based products. So we know that strategic investments, like the accelerated capital cost allowance rate, the hiring tax credit for small business and the expansion of tax support for clean energy generation, are working to create jobs for Canadians.

Indeed, earlier this month, Forbes magazine rated Canada as the best place in the world for businesses to grow and create jobs.

I am very excited that budget 2011 provides $20 million to support young entrepreneurs by providing mentorship, resources and start-up financing through the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. Many business icons today began their careers as budding entrepreneurs and this investment would help create the business leaders of tomorrow.

I would like to share a few examples from my riding of Newmarket—Aurora of how these initiatives create jobs.

Earlier this year, I announced a contribution of $115,000 for the National Research Council of Canada industrial research assistance program, or IRAP, to Treefrog Interactive Inc.

Treefrog is an award-winning Newmarket graphic design and web development agency and a shining example of a leading-edge small business. The IRAP funds, made possible through Canada's economic action plan, allowed Treefrog to fund an innovative research and development project and create new products for local and international markets. Sean Stephens, the CEO of Treefrog Interactive, said in February of this year:

These last few years, help from the federal government stimulus has been a clear and inspiring drive for us at Treefrog. Where many talk about a period of “recession”, we at Treefrog talk about a period of “innovation”. Thanks to IRAP, we have greatly increased our staff, doubled our revenue, significantly matured our products and helped many other businesses grow through web initiatives in the region--mostly through innovations in our products. This period of incredible growth has been through that extra little “shot in the arm” from IRAP--and we have Canada, through IRAP and the federal government, to thank for it.

Here is another success story in my riding.

Last year, a collaborative project led by the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce involving the Newmarket Public Library, South Lake Regional Health Centre, town of Newmarket and Newmarket-Tay Power Distribution received $2.1 million from Canada's action plan for a shared digital infrastructure project. The project created new community partnerships and received national recognition.

The Newmarket Chamber of Commerce was able to parlay this investment into an asset now benefiting hundreds of entrepreneurs, businesses, community organizations and residents through this information-sharing infrastructure. The past president of the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce, Jim Gragtmans, regarding the success of this project said last year, “Dozens of jobs have been created. New creative and effective partnerships have been established and we are only beginning”.

Canada's economic action plan has assisted many businesses in my riding to expand, innovate and create jobs. In the town of Aurora, for example, Axiom Group Inc. was able to extend its product line and open new markets through support from the southern Ontario development fund and industrial research assistance program.

In fact, last year I was honoured to present, on behalf of the minister of state, a Canadian innovation leader certificate to Axiom President, Perry Rizzo, in recognition of that company's success. On the assistance that Mr. Rizzo received from Canada's action plan, he said:

We appreciate the SODP and its contribution to helping small to medium sized businesses like Axiom create jobs and stimulate economic growth in the local community of Aurora and abroad.

We know that small business owners and entrepreneurs create jobs and generate wealth in communities across Canada. Our government declared 2011 the official year of the entrepreneur to help increase public awareness of the important role played by small businesses.

It is most fitting that we are debating Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, during small business week. By supporting our small and medium-sized businesses we support all Canadians by facilitating the conditions for investment and job creation.

It is important to note that Bill C-13 supports the creation of jobs and economic growth by allowing the continuation of work done by the red tape reduction commission to root out and cut business red tape. We know that red tape ties up Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs, reduces their competitiveness, and forces them to spend time and money that could be better spent strengthening Canada's economic recovery.

In January 2011, our government fulfilled its budget 2010 commitment by establishing the red tape reduction commission, to which I am honoured to have been appointed. Bill C-13 allows the means to continue this important work and the commission will present its final recommendations for lasting reforms in the coming months based on the “What Was Heard” report released last month.

I also want to note that among the many significant measures contained in Bill C-13, of great importance to my riding and all municipalities across the country is the legislation to make permanent gas tax funding for municipalities. It is why Bill C-13 and its key job creating measures, like the hiring credit for small businesses, are critically important as we continue to solidify our recovery and position Canada for a prosperous future. That is what Canadians want.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my esteemed colleague talking about the reduction in the number of public servants, especially at Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Is my colleague aware of what is happening right now in the City of Montreal? It has adopted exactly the same approach to public service reductions, especially in any area related to engineering.

The city is left with a public service that is incapable of judging the nature and value of the work it is responsible for. Is this a good way to go, from a public administration perspective? Does anyone really think this will save any money?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, I did not actually address that in my speech, but I am very pleased to speak to it. Our government was given a very strong mandate to take care of taxpayers' dollars and to be responsible to taxpayers for what we spend. We have asked every department to go through its own strategic review and to find savings within their department. As we find those, we will pass those savings on to taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech she talked a lot about these places that have created jobs over the past little while.

I read headlines from her riding with regard to 2008-09 and about all the job losses that were at the Newmarket—Aurora plants, concerning Magna. I wonder at what level the economic action plan has actually worked for these people because I am still hearing quite a bit of noise from that area about all the job losses that took place. I wonder if she would like to comment on that.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct. We did go through a drastic job loss. In fact, overnight, we lost 800 jobs when two of the Magna plants were closed very suddenly.

However, through the work of the economic action plan, many of the plants that I talked about in my speech have created jobs that have created opportunities for those people to be hired into new positions. For people who were in need of retraining, we put in place the measures through employment insurance that gave them the opportunity for retraining. We also put in place the work share program which preserved a number of jobs that could have otherwise been lost, and those jobs are still ongoing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the speaker did not mention it, but her colleague, the Minister of Labour, talked about what she referred to as the per vote subsidy and how this is an unfair subsidy of political parties by the taxpayer.

However, I wonder if she would care to comment on the distinction between what this particular method of financing political parties, which is pretty democratic in nature, each voter, regardless of his or financial ability, can trigger a contribution to the public purse to a political party by his or her vote; for example, over a four year cycle, $8.00. Whereas what is left in place is a system whereby if an individual gives $100, for example, to the Conservative Party that triggers a taxpayer contribution of $75 back to the taxpayer, effectively subsidizing the contribution.

So, we really have a system that is being left in place that actually can only be accessed by people who have money; whereas the individual $2.00 per vote payment is a more democratic one available to every single person.

Does she not think that it is much fairer to say that each voter can trigger a public contribution by his or her vote rather than by someone who can afford to contribute $100 to a political party?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to that because it really was a campaign promise that we made, that we would reduce these subsidies.

We believe that a political party ought to be able to persuade citizens of Canada to support it through their own contributions by the programs that it is putting forward or the philosophy that it represents and every Canadian, regardless of the money that he or she has is able to contribute any amount he or she wants. Five dollars is a contribution that we have seen in the past and I believe that every Canadian has the opportunity to donate that from his or her own pocket. It is a very fair system. It is a very generous system that we have. I believe that Canadians will choose to support the political party that best represents them.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to give the perspective of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway to Bill C-13. I have read the bill and given a great deal of thought and analysis to it. I would like to point out a few things that come to my mind as some preliminary observations about the bill.

First of all, the bill provides some positive measures. The bill also contains some negative measures and most notably from my analysis, the predominant feature of the bill is that it is marked by what it does not deal with, what it is silent on.

In terms of some of the positive measures that are contained in the bill, I would like to point out some of them and congratulate the government on picking up what are some policies that most Canadians would support. First, the bill offers partial loan forgiveness for family physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners who begin practising in underserved rural or remote areas. This is a provision that I personally must stand in support of in the House because it mirrors in part a private member's bill that I drafted a year and half ago and introduced in the House.

I proposed a bill that would reward doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners who serve in underserviced areas with a freeze on their Canadian student loans for the first five years of practice and then for each year from year 6 through 10, they would have their loan erased at the rate of 20% per year meaning that rural and underserviced areas in our health care system in terms of family doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners would get that very important service. People who practised in those areas would have their federal loans forgiven as a result of that commitment.

The bill also introduces a family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependants. Once again, that is a positive measure although, as has been pointed out by many experts in the tax field, the government is moving toward increasing reliance on the use of tax credits and that reflects a certain philosophy of delivering government programs that is not without its problems. Most notably, it requires Canadian families to lay out the money first and then claim the tax credit much later. For millions of Canadians that is simply not a reality. For millions of Canadian families they simply do not have that money to lay out at first and so tax credits are of limited utility.

The bill also provides a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small business. This is truly a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other, although one must support a measure that would refund a portion of EI premiums for employers and workers in this challenged economic time. On the other hand, we must also remember that it was the government that is raising EI premiums starting in January to the tune of $2 billion per year.

Taking back money or giving businesses the ability to save some money after having their overall premiums raised is a cynical approach to politics that Canadians should be aware of. Also, Canadians must always remember when we talk about EI that the EI surplus of over $50 billion, premiums paid by the businesses and the workers of this country to create an insurance fund for them to draw in times of high unemployment, which as I will talk about in a few minutes we are experiencing right now in Canada, and taking that money and putting it into general revenue is still an unredressed problem that cries out for redress.

The bill also expands the eligibility for accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment. Again, that is a positive measure; however, in the grand scheme of things and I see my colleague from Halifax is here who has done wonderful work on the environment file, I am sure she would point out to the House, as has been done day after day, that this measure is really a drop in the ocean in terms of what Canada must do in terms of clean energy creation and environmental protection.

In terms of some of the negative things in this bill, as we have heard, the bill proposes to end the per vote subsidy for political parties that receive more than a certain percentage of the vote. If I am not mistaken, I think it is more than 5% of the vote. In my view this is a regressive policy and it amounts to poor public policy at the same time. Canada has created what can be fairly regarded as one of the finest and fairest election finance systems in the world. Canadians want an electoral system that is fair and is controlled by the citizens of our country.

The features of our federal campaign and electoral finance system are as follows. We have put in measures that limit the contributions of any one person to $1,100, so that takes big money out of politics. It has eliminated donations entirely from corporations and trade unions. That has taken the influence of non-individuals out of politics. It has set spending limits in what we can spend in a particular riding in an election and what we can spend nationally in a campaign. It evens the playing field and again it takes big money out of our political system. In short, it is a system that enshrines the concept of democracy run by people, paid for by people and to serve the people.

Canadians have a great interest democracy. Democracy is not free. A democratic system must be paid for. However, a democracy that is paid for by the public means that we do not have a democracy that is bought and paid for by private interests. I think that is what Canadians want. They want a publicly financed democracy, not a privately financed democracy.

Interestingly, in Afghanistan right now our troops are fighting ostensibly for the establishment of democracy in there. The public financing of the electoral system here in Canada helps maintain a democracy in our country.

As has been pointed out by my colleague from Newfoundland just a few moments ago, providing public money based on the number of votes that a party gets at the rate of $2 per vote is the fairest way of all to finance political parties in our country. The government has said that it does not want that. It wants parties to go out and raise money from private sector citizens, that this does not represent a subsidy, but we know that is not true.

People who contribute to a party get back, at taxpayer funded expense, 75% of the first $400 they donate and that declines to 66% for the next $350 and then 50% for the remainder of the $1,100. Therefore, we do have public subsidies of donations to political parties. The only question is one of philosophy, whether, as the Conservatives want, we do that through private interest as opposed to public funds, which the New Democrats support.

I want to talk briefly about the economy in our country. Millions of Canadians across the country know they are having a difficult time right now. They know this economy is not working for them. Statistic after statistic shows that over the last 25 years there is a growing gap between the wealthy and the poor in our country.

We also know, with statistical certainty, that the middle class is shrinking. That is because of policies pursued by the Conservatives and the Liberals before them for the past 25 years, policies of incessant corporate tax cuts, of shrinking government, of reducing public services, of pursuing free trade agreements and lowering tariffs and of attacking workers and the trade unions, which is one of the only forces that is serving to create and fight for good, family-sustaining, middle-class jobs with benefits.

The government stands in the House every day and brags that it has created 600,000 jobs since the recession began, but what kind of jobs are those? We do not hear it talk about the quality of those jobs. Those jobs are temporary, in large part, they are part-time, they are low-paying, they do not have benefits and they are primarily in the service sector. Hundreds of thousands of those jobs are those types. The government cannot take the good, middle-class, family-sustaining jobs with benefits, erase them and then replace them with $10 an hour mc jobs and call that an economic success. The government is doing exactly that.

Millions of people around the world are talking about the 99% of us who are no longer going to tolerate 1% owning 40% of the wealth in our country. The government should pay attention to that sentiment and start pursuing policies that reflect equitably a better share of the wealth of the country so we have an economy that works for everyone.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite closely to my hon. colleague's comments and I could not help but think that the NDP had finally reverted to what that party really was, spokespeople for a few special interest groups, the big unions in our country. It is not about jobs, or opportunity, or trying to find a free trade agreement with likeminded countries around the world or fairness. It is about special interests.

If Forbes magazine can say that Canada is the best country in the world in which to invest, if we have created 680,000 jobs and other countries around the world have been unable to, when an economic crisis is ready to swallow up Greece and perhaps Spain and Portugal as well and when we look around by every parameter and see we have done better than other countries, how can the hon. member say what he has said?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that simply is not true and the premise that New Democrats are a party of special interests is thoroughly flawed. We are a party that represents the vast majority of Canadians, the millions of hard-working middle-class and working-class families that go to work every day to try to put a paycheque on the table.

The median total family income in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway is $51,000 a year and 40% of the families in my riding live on total family income of less than $40,000 a year. This is a place where the average house costs $800,000 and the average two bedroom apartment rents for $1,200 a month.

I would ask my friend what special interests his government represents when it tables a budget that does nothing to address the housing problems faced by these people in our country? The budget does nothing to create affordable housing, child care or—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat enjoying the member's speech until he hit the one part where he mentioned the Conservatives and the Liberals and their corporate tax cut agenda. There is no doubt that the Liberal Party has recognized the value of corporate tax cuts in certain situations, economic times and so forth. The Liberal Party is opposed to the tax breaks that have been given by the Conservative government in both the last budget and this budget. We have called for those tax cuts to be put on hold.

Just over a year ago I stood inside the Manitoba legislature when the NDP government gave corporate tax breaks. Would he suggest that the NDP government in Manitoba was wrong, as I would suggest, which I suggested back then? Giving corporate tax breaks to those companies in the province of Manitoba was not appropriate when the food banks were continuing to grow in the city of Winnipeg because of neglect by the NDP.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with trying to understand Liberal policy on anything. The Liberals are for corporate tax cuts except when they are not and it is almost impossible to determine when that is.

The Liberal government in the 1990s went through a massive slashing of federal government departments, cutting whole departments 30%, downloading costs on to the provinces, reducing health care and education transfers to the provinces and then bragging it had a balanced budget.

Many of the worst economic measures in our country were put in place by the Liberal government in the 1990s when it started a massive corporate tax cut program, which the Conservative government has continued.

The NDP in the last election promised to reduce the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% and proposed the smartest corporate tax cut policy as well, which was to give corporate tax cuts to corporations that agreed to create jobs. These two things have to be linked.

What the Liberals fail to understand is that broad-based corporate tax cuts to banks and oil companies that the Conservatives have carried on, without the creation of any jobs, is very tax inefficient and it creates tax leakage. It does not create jobs.

The NDP would give tax cuts to corporations provided they worked with us and created jobs in our country for the people who need them to raise their families.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, the Minister of Finance tabled the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, which is integral to maintaining our country's economic strength and resilience. I am privileged to speak about this important legislation.

On May 2, Canadians gave this government a mandate to stay focused on what matters: jobs and the economy. Canadians recognized our government's strong track record with managing the country's finances in a fair and effective manner.

The budget is part of a process of government. Since 2006, each Conservative budget has built upon the success of previous budgets, with the purpose of ensuring Canada's economy is the strongest in the world. This legislation represents a continuation of previous budgets, the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

The opposition would have Canadians believe that our government has mismanaged the global economic downturn, but the facts show the opposite is the truth. I can personally assert that the $60 billion in targeted stimulus did indeed work by setting examples within my own riding of Oakville. Federal contributions to a waste water treatment plant, a new Oakville transit facility and a new training facility for the Operating Engineers Institute of Ontario demonstrate the effectiveness of Canada's economic action plan. These improvements have yielded hundreds of local jobs, opportunities for upward job mobility and a general improvement in the economic outlook of many of my constituents. This is just one way in which the stimulus package is working for Canadians.

Other encouraging developments have lately materialized. On October 7, Statistics Canada announced that 60,000 net new jobs were created in September across Canada, while the unemployment rate fell to 7.1%, the lowest rate of unemployment since before the recession. Canada has now created nearly 650,000 net new jobs in total since July 2009, most of which are well-paying full-time jobs. This is a remarkable feat considering the current global economic climate.

Canada's economic strength and resilience has not gone unnoticed. Allow me to highlight just some of the recognition and praise Canada has received internationally.

The International Monetary Fund has forecasted Canada will have the strongest economic growth among the G7 countries over the next two years and praised Canada's “healthy economic fundamentals”.

The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report determined Canada's financial system to be the soundest in the world.

Forbes magazine has determined that Canada is the best place to do business, period.

Moody's has renewed Canada's triple A credit rating “due to our economic resiliency, very high government financial strength, and a low susceptibility to event risk”.

Even private sector economists are singing the praises of our government's achievements. BMO Chief Economist Doug Porter stated before the House finance committee on September 27, “Canada's economic policy-making has been exemplary”, while Scotiabank's Chief Economist Warren Jestin stated in the Journal of Commerce, “Canada is the best place to be and almost everything I look at screams that out to me”.

The recognition of Canada's economic performance has a lot to do with our goal of returning to balanced budgets. I believe if families and households have to control spending in difficult times, then so should governments.

Before the global recession, our government reduced the national debt by almost $40 billion to the lowest level in 25 years. Therefore, while other countries face serious debt challenges, our country is in a strong fiscal position with the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the entire G7.

In 2010 we developed a three-point plan to return to balanced budgets by slowing down temporary stimulus spending in conjunction with targeted spending restraints, as well as strategically reviewing the cost to operate government. By implementing specific spending restrictions, we have identified approximately $1.6 billion in ongoing savings already. Moreover, our government's commitment to returning to balanced budgets includes closing unfair tax loopholes.

By improving the fairness of our tax system, the government has identified $1 billion in potential savings by 2013-14 on that part alone. More important, the government's strategic and operating review has targeted at least $4 billion in potential savings by 2014-15. In fact, on October 13, the Canadian Press reported that our government had reduced the deficit by $2.8 billion before the original forecast for this year, which is a 40% decline in the deficit from the $55.6 billion deficit from the year before. Not only does this leave us in a strong fiscal position, but it gives our government leeway in determining economic policy should the global economy dip back into recession.

Although the forecasts and praise surrounding Canada's economy are encouraging, the global economy remains fragile. Severe economic challenges in the United States and a sovereign debt crisis in Europe could signal the onset of another global recession. It is very important that our government remain on the right path and complete the next phase of the recovery by implementing this bill.

This legislation contains important measures that will benefit families and businesses throughout the country. I would like to speak for a minute on what it means to my riding of Oakville.

Our government believes in supporting families, which is why we have included several tax credits specific to families. This includes the children's art tax credit which is a 15% non-refundable tax credit on up to $500 in eligible fees for artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental programs for children. It is an important element in keeping children involved in the arts and will help ease some of the financial strain that is caused when parents have to pay for the various activities in which their children are involved.

We are also helping families take care of their loved ones. The family caregiver tax credit represents a 15% non-refundable tax credit on an amount of $2,000 for caregivers of all types of infirm dependent relatives including spouses, common-law partners and minor children. Moreover, we have included the enhanced medical expenses tax credit which eliminates the $10,000 limit on the amount of eligible medical expenses that can be claimed on behalf of a financially dependent relative. This aims to make it easier for family members to continue to care for their loved ones, something that has been called for for decades.

Helping families is what this government has been doing since 2006. Allow me to remind the House of some of the things we have done to support Canadian families since then. We have made tax cuts over 120 times since 2006. We have cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting nearly $1,000 in the pockets of the average Canadian family. We have introduced the tax-free savings account, the single most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. Because of our government's commitment to relieving the tax burden on Canadian families we have helped a typical Canadian family save over $3,000 a year in taxes.

Support for Canadian families does not end with tax credits. Many families in Oakville earn their livelihood by operating small businesses, which can be challenging. I know of one family in my riding where both parents own and operate small businesses: a restaurant and an interior design company. The targeted measures our government is implementing will help small businesses like theirs hire employees, avoid red tape, and purchase equipment necessary to improve productivity. One of them recently expanded the business and hired 10 new employees.

The new hiring credit for small businesses is a one-time credit of up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2011 employment insurance premiums over those paid in 2010. This new credit will assist 525,000 employers in hiring people for their businesses. This hiring credit will help them expand their business while trying to keep their costs down.

In my many conversations with small business owners, several of them have voiced their concerns on the difficulties they have faced when dealing with government departments. The red tape reduction commission will help reduce the burden of navigating government departments. Any small business owner knows that red tape can slow down the growth of his or her business and create unnecessary stress. We are removing many of those road blocks. But it is not just red tape that is slowing down expanding businesses, it is also the costs of purchasing and upgrading machinery and equipment.

Oakville is home to a number of manufacturers, and like manufacturing companies throughout Canada, they are key engines of economic growth and jobs. Small- and medium-size manufacturers will receive help from the federal government through the extended accelerated capital cost allowance. This will help manufacturers allocate resources toward investing in manufacturing and processing equipment. Manufacturers also want to be able to sell their products abroad, and for this reason the government is simplifying customs tariffs to speed up cross-border trade with the United States.

Our government's recognition of the enormous contribution small businesses make to our economy has been consistent since we formed government in 2006. Allow me to take a moment to remind members on the opposite side of the House what we have done for small- and medium-size businesses.

We have increased the limit on the amount of income earned by small businesses in order to be eligible for the reduced federal tax rate, otherwise known as the small business limit, to $500,000. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, not to mention the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% by 2012.

All of our government's support for small- and medium-size businesses cannot be viewed independently from our commitment to finding new markets for products and services they produce. Forty per cent of Canadian companies export their goods compared to only 1% of U.S. companies that export their goods. Simply put, we need trade to continue to grow our economy. In conjunction with this budget bill, we are pursuing mutually beneficial free trade agreements with 50 countries on top of the eight agreements we have already signed.

I have highlighted many ways in which the decision making of this government is helping put Canadians first, at both the national and local levels. It is clear we are leading the world by example. We will maintain our economic strength and resilience regardless of the direction the global economy may take.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague across the floor.

I cannot quote Forbes or banks to which this government has given tax breaks, but I can quote myself. I met with forestry workers, manufacturers and mayors in the northern part of my riding, in the Mont-Laurier area. The five biggest employers were sawmills that are now closed. The local economy has been very hard hit by the forestry crisis. In the bill that has been before us for days now and is again here today, I wonder if there is anything to help the forestry industry to restructure. Is there really any plan for that? The people I met with do not see anything like that in this bill. They are trying to find ways to finance themselves and restructure their economy and they have not heard anything from this government.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we first became the government there had been a softwood lumber trade dispute that had dragged on for many years. It was finally settled by this government in a favourable position for the forestry industry. There have been many things the government has done to support the forestry industry over time.

Recent developments in our economy are also important. This government is presenting a budget that has carefully considered the past, the present and the future conditions resulting from the recession. Previous budgets committed $60 billion in stimulus spending to produce jobs and improve infrastructure. The plan worked. I believe the forestry industry was a beneficiary of that.

As new developments arise, we continue to stay focused on returning to balanced budgets. We are certainly not going to spend wildly. We have to be more responsible than that. We have seen the result of that in Europe. We have seen it in Greece. We are seeing it in Spain, in Ireland, in Portugal, and possibly even in Italy. For decades the people have been electing governments that have been giving them more than they can afford and the chickens have finally come home to roost. They are going through terrible restructuring in Europe and they are going to be going through very difficult times.

A similar situation is happening in the U.S. It is actually in the worst fiscal position--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I am sorry, but other hon. members may have questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, every member from the Conservative Party talks about the thousands of jobs that have been created. Every Conservative member has talked about that, yet the reality is that in August 2008, there were 14,631,300 Canadian full-time jobs. Today, that number is down by over 500,000 to 14,106,100.

How would the member reconcile that we are out a half million full-time jobs since the government has been in office?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the source is as the member did not quote the source for his numbers.

The numbers are clear that the growth that has happened since toward the end of the recession in 2008 has been 650,000 new jobs in Canada. We saw another 65,000 jobs created in September. The economy continues to grow.

Is anyone happy that they are not the best paid full-time jobs with great benefits? Of course not. We are doing everything as a government to develop all kinds of jobs, particularly those jobs. One particular way we are doing it is by growing our economy. When our largest trading partner is in economic dire straits we have to expand to other countries so we are not dependent. The Americans have been good trading partners for many years, but we are expanding trade. We are pursuing free trade agreements with 50 countries, including the European Union and India and some of the fastest growing economies in the world as well. That is how we are going to expand growth and create more jobs, even more than we have to date.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to oppose Bill C-13, introduced by the Minister of Finance.

This bill—a second version—is entitled the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. It contains a number of amendments by replacing certain measures and is broken into 22 parts that affect that many laws, from part 1 and the Income Tax Act, to the Customs Tariff Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, the Children’s Special Allowances Act, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Jobs and Economic Growth Act, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and more.

To give hon. members an idea of why this bill does not make any sense, part 1 implements measures that pertain to the Income Tax Act but actually do very little. For example, part 1 forgives a portion of a guaranteed loan to doctors who work in the regions, introduces a family caregiver tax credit to assist informal caregivers, refunds employer premiums for SMEs, and extends to 2013 the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment.

Indeed, these are small things that will not really help to stimulate the economy and create employment. These measures are also completely insufficient. It would be better to give refundable tax credits to taxpayers or to provide direct payments to finance investments in SMEs and foster true economic growth.

Moreover, despite the Conservatives' repeated claims that 600,000 jobs have been created, we hear all sorts of news about the unemployment rate, which is currently the same as it was in 2008. In absolute terms, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed; however, if we take into account those who have already withdrawn from the labour market because they cannot find work and those who are not considered to be looking for work because they are not receiving employment insurance benefits, there are actually 2 million unemployed Canadians.

No real stimulus plan has been proposed, save for a few small credits. Some measures are truly praiseworthy and satisfactory, as was so wonderfully stated by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. Other rather interesting measures were also mentioned by the member for Halifax.

Despite all the glowing references made to Forbes magazine by the members from other cities, economic growth is still fragile. And the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of Montreal, the TD Bank Financial Group, Scotiabank, the Conference Board of Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Toronto Board of Trade,and the Canadian Medical Association have confirmed this. Even the Minister of Finance recognizes that infrastructure investment has five times the economic impact of corporate tax cuts.

I am opposed to the bill being passed as is. I recommend that the Conservatives take another look at all of these proposals and make the necessary amendments.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his presentation and his vision. He is quite right. He said that cutting the corporate tax rate instead of investing in infrastructure was very ineffective. Even the Department of Finance says so.

Can my colleague explain whether the government should be investing in infrastructure or in helping small businesses?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie very much. Indeed, that information comes from the Department of Finance, which says that investing in infrastructure creates jobs. Many Canadians get work and then a lot of investment follows. That is what wealth and economic growth are all about.

I could name some other departments and other sources such as the TD Bank Financial Group, which published a rather clear document suggesting ways the finance minister's advisors could improve the bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a very good argument for the need to invest in infrastructure. In Canada, there is a $130 billion deficit with regard to infrastructure. The Champlain Bridge is an example. We must invest in that bridge, but there is nothing to that effect in the budget.

I would like my colleague to explain the importance of investing in infrastructure and how this can improve productivity and enhance the economy.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. First of all, I would like to mention the announcement that was made recently by the Conservative government's Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities confirming its commitment to rebuild the Champlain Bridge. It should have been announced long before we spent so long discussing such a project.

Taking all the economic parameters into account, it has been decided that this is a viable project and that building this new infrastructure would help create jobs. These investments will benefit not only those travelling between Montreal and the south shore, but also anyone who takes this bridge to return from the U.S. and other Canadian provinces.

There are also other projects, like ports. There are many projects—whether in Halifax or Newfoundland and Labrador—in fisheries. Our hon. colleague from New Brunswick once proposed such a project. On the west coast of the country, Vancouver, among other large ports, also needs new port infrastructure. Almost all of this infrastructure is aging and, as we know, maintenance alone will not suffice. We really need to create effective growth.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-13, keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, as introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Since the last federal election, I have heard a common message from constituents, business owners and community leaders alike. They have said again and again that they want our government to continue to focus on strengthening the economy and creating jobs for Canadians.

Through the economic action plan, our Conservative government delivered a record $60 billion in investments across Canada to aid Canadians and businesses during the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Through these investments and the leadership shown by our Prime Minister, Canada has seen seven straight quarters of economic growth, one of the strongest fiscal positions among the world's top performing and advanced economies.

However, more important, Canada has seen a record of 600,000-plus jobs created since July 2009, with over 80% of them being full-time jobs. Clearly, our economic action plan is working and it is putting Canadians back into the jobs they want and need.

The good news does not stop there. On October 7, Statistics Canada further reinforced that our action plan was working. In September of this year, Canada saw employment rise by 61,000 new jobs, almost all of which were full-time jobs. This increase pushed our national unemployment rate to the lowest it has been since December 2008, down to 7.1%. These jobs were spread across a number of industries, such as education services, accommodation services, natural resources and public administration, all of which provide meaningful employment opportunities to Canadians.

The good news does not stop there. Last Friday, our good friends at Statistics Canada further reinforced that the action plan was delivering to Canadians the way our Prime Minister and ministers had envisioned. In August of this year, manufacturing sales rose by 1.4%, to $47.6 billion, which is the highest level we have seen since October 2008.

Despite this good news, I find it ironic that the “new voice of Quebec”, as they call themselves, the official opposition, has and continues to vote against every economic measure the government makes. After all, it was Quebec that saw one of the highest increases in manufacturing sales of 3.5% to be exact, to $11.8 billion.

For every realist in the House, we know that magnificent increase is due to the stimulus this government made in industries, such as manufacturing, as well as industries in our markets and our economy, and yet the opposition members continues to vote against our economic plan. When good news like this is released they are the first to claim how they did this or they attempt to take credit for it.

We must not be fooled. The facts are there. The economic action plan is working and we need to stay the course to ensure that we continue to lead our G7 and G20 colleagues in coming out of this economic recession. Why will the opposition not see that and join us in building a more vibrant, stronger and better economy by supporting this bill?

Our government tabled the economic action plan which has seen enhancements in a vast array of sectors: the economy, the programs and services that the Government of Canada delivers to its citizens, and the leadership our country has taken on the global financial stage. Whether it is extending programs to help businesses keep workers on the job and gainfully employed or enhancing benefits to seniors in our country, Canadians know they can count on this Conservative government to deliver for Canadians.

Supporting job creation, families, communities and investing in innovation and education will continue to be important pillars of our government's economic plan. Even with all these continued investments to help Canadians most in need, the Minister of Finance is still on track to balance Canada's budget. Is it a miracle? I think not.

It is clearly the result of sound fiscal management, expenditure review and proper economic management by the government, our ministers and the Prime Minister.

As stated a few moments ago, supporting job creation has been and will continue to be the top priority of our government.

From providing a one-time credit of up to $1,000 to small businesses to encourage additional hiring to enhancing and extending successful programs such as the work-sharing program and the wage earner protection program, our Conservative government is focusing on sustaining and creating jobs across this nation while improving government services and programs so that they are delivered efficiently, effectively and affordably to Canadians.

Our great initiatives do not stop there. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in economic sectors that are important to our country and our economic recovery. From innovation, agriculture, energy and manufacturing to forestry and tourism, Canadian businesses know that they can count on our government to deliver the best balance to keep their doors open and business flowing, and to aid them in hiring Canadians.

That is what it is all about: building our economy to create new jobs for Canadians, young and old alike.

However, our focus has not only been on business; we are focused on two other things that are also important to Canadians: their families and their communities. That is why the government has put into law the permanent investment, annually, of $2 billion in gas tax funding for cities to support the infrastructure programs and projects that matter most to them.

In my riding of Don Valley East, this has enabled the City of Toronto to plan and prioritize local projects because they know they will have stable funding to better our city and our local community's infrastructure.

Building strong and more vibrant communities has been a priority of our government. In Don Valley East, I am confident to say it is evident. In addition, it was our government that introduced a new children's arts tax credit that enables parents to claim up to $500 for programs associated with arts, culture, recreation and development. We did this because we know that a child's education and intellectual growth happens not only inside the four walls of a classroom but also in the extracurricular activities that they do in the mornings, after school or on weekends.

Just as important is what we did for the most needy seniors--over 680,000 of them, to be exact. In the budget, we took action to enhance the guaranteed income supplement to enable seniors to receive additional annual benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 for couples.

Our parents and grandparents worked hard for many years to build Canada into the great nation it is today, and when it comes to keeping their money where it belongs, in their pocket, they know they can count on the Conservative government to deliver without the reckless spending that the opposition proposes.

I think one of the most important investments our government has made in Bill C-13 is the new family caregiver tax credit, which alleviates the financial burden on families who have loved ones who are not well. As someone with parents who are seniors, I find it reassuring to know that if a family member has to take care of them, the government will recognize their sacrifice by providing them with a tax credit when they have to file their returns with the government.

As we all know, families should always come first, and I believe the government and the ministers have made that clear in this budget and through all the programs and services we have created or enhanced. As a former professor at Centennial and Seneca Colleges in Toronto, I strongly support the investments in innovation, education and training that Bill C-13 makes.

After speaking with former colleagues of mine, I know they too applaud the government's investment and commitment to education, innovation and research. As we all know, education and training provide our young citizens with bright, vibrant and encompassing opportunities for their future.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation.

However, I do not share his enthusiasm regarding the fact that everything is fine. We hear that quite often: All is well. Things are very good.

However, we seem to forget that there is a slowdown, especially in Canada, in terms of growth. We especially seem to forget that there are 1.4 million people who are without jobs here in Canada, and if we look at people who are not looking for jobs and who are actually just out of it, we are talking about 1.7 million people. We are talking about 17.2% unemployment for youth.

Would the member explain how he can say things are going so well when right now there is a big difference between the rich and the poor, and the difference is getting bigger, as the IMF will state?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we had not taken any economic action, clearly this problem would be far bigger than it is. We have created over 650,000 new jobs, and the opportunities are growing month over month. Last month 61,000 new jobs were created, and we will be continuing to create jobs despite the slowdown that is going on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I was over at Maples Community Centre with a group of seniors. One of the discussion items was with regard to pension incomes. The feeling shared among opposition members is that we are not providing enough for our seniors and that they need to have more financial support. Surely the member recognizes that we are not providing enough financial support to our seniors.

Would he give some sort of indication as to what he believes would be a move, going forward, in terms of how we could provide an additional supplement for our seniors so that it would be easier for them to live?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has already done many things for seniors. We have actually introduced higher GIS payments. We have introduced income-splitting and a number of other measures that are already in place and helping them.

There will never ben enough money for everybody, but certainly this government has done more for our seniors than almost any other government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at how things were in 2008 and I look at how things are in 2011. Certainly we do have some concerns as we look at the global economy. However, we take some great comfort in terms of where Canada is and our position in the world. I can look at the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, where the headlines today were focused on the increased shipments to China of our forestry products, and we see the mills reopening.

Perhaps I could ask the member to reflect on how things have changed in his riding over the last couple of years through economic action plan part one, and how phase two would actually help the constituents of his riding.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding it is clearly having a big impact. Just recently I spoke in the House about a new business that was opening up, and 40 new jobs have been created by that business in my riding. It is a great step forward. The assistance that we are giving to small businesses, which is where a lot of the jobs are being created, is having a big effect in my riding.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a final quick question regarding investment in infrastructure.

When the finance minister says that the benefit of investing in infrastructure is five times greater than through reducing corporate taxes, could the member explain why he still supports corporate tax cuts?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the tax cuts, this government has made gas tax money to the tune of $2 billion available to local cities and corporations to support that. That is a great investment in our infrastructure.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government keeps repeating that it has a stable majority, but it conveniently forgets that over 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In the Pontiac, 70% of voters did not vote for them. The government has a fundamental, even moral, responsibility to listen to the majority of Canadians and the majority of my constituents. The government must take time to listen to the Canadian public and to add some key elements to its budget.

This is even more surprising because today we need only look out the windows at the demonstrations as part of the Occupy Ottawa, Occupy Montreal and Occupy Toronto movements to see that things are not going as well as the government claims.

These demonstrations are justified because the government is doing nothing—absolutely nothing—to correct the increasingly glaring inequality in Canada. Just because Canada's economy is doing better than that of the United States or Europe, that does not mean that we are doing well, especially if we look at the facts. For example, the youth unemployment rate is increasing, not decreasing, and every time the stock market plunges, families lose an even larger chunk of their retirement savings. Furthermore, the cost of living is going up steadily, and families are struggling more and more to make ends meet. Yes, only the privileged seem to benefit from Conservative economics.

The growing gap between rich and poor in Canada is reaching crisis proportions. Between 1999 and 2007, one-third of income growth was among the richest Canadians, those with average incomes of $400,000 or more, who represent just 1% of the population. At the same time, the IMF published a study concluding that more equitable distribution of income equates to longer and more stable periods of economic growth. This government continues to maintain its out-of-touch approach, and Canadian families must work even harder. It is time to take action to ensure that the interests of families come first.

The entire NDP team and I are listening to Canadians and continue to work in Parliament to address the priorities of all Canadians. However, I also agree that opposing without proposing is not particularly useful. For that reason, the NDP has come up with concrete measures to address inequality in this country. Take, for example, the proposal to implement a family caregiver tax credit for those caring for an infirm dependent family member.

The family caregiver tax credit is not enough to support those who take leave to look after a sick relative. The problem with the tax credits proposed by the government is that the caregiver must have sufficient income to claim the credit. Since 65% of households with a caregiver have a combined income of less than $45,000 and 23% have less than $20,000, most caregivers cannot benefit from the credits proposed by the government. Changing these tax credits to a family caregiver tax credit would provide direct support that is sorely needed by most family caregivers, who cannot claim the tax credit. Many stakeholders are proposing that the government use the child disability benefit as a model. Family caregivers would receive a monthly non-taxable amount to pay for expenses incurred while caring for someone. The advantage of the credit is that it would primarily help low- and middle-income caregivers. That is a tangible solution for Canadians.

With the Conservatives in power, less than 5% of the annual budget of $190 million for sickness and compassionate care benefits has been disbursed since 2004, helping just 6,000 Canadians.

The New Democrats also want to make the compassionate care benefits portion of the employment insurance program more flexible and generous to enable claimants to take up to six months of leave to care for dying parents, as opposed to the six weeks that are currently allowed. These are our parents. This is another concrete proposal that targets most Canadians in this situation.

If I could, I would like to continue speaking about health, since this is a very important issue in my region.

I would like to quote from the report of the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de l'Outaouais:

However, it has become more difficult for the Outaouais region to maintain these hard-won gains given factors such as demographic growth and availability of workers. Current coverage of obstetric services is a striking example. Nevertheless, these issues, which affect basic services, must be analyzed as temporary situations, and the agency must provide sustainable solutions for the region.

The reality that this government does not seem to want to address or even recognize—as though hiding its head in the sand were a viable option—is that 5 million Canadians do not even have access to a family doctor and 73% of Canadians without a family doctor rely on emergency rooms or walk-in clinics for front-line medical care. In a country where universal health care is recognized as a fundamental principle, this is shameful.

Now, because of this situation, Canada ranks 26th out of 30 industrialized countries. The Conservatives like to say that Canada is in first place but, when it comes to health care, Canada is in 26th place because of this government.

Let us now turn to jobs. The Conservatives claim that the measures in their budget will stimulate the economy and create jobs, but we know that the same measures were used in the United States without success. In Texas, where the right reigns, the Republican government is doing the opposite of this government.

It is true that job creation is fundamental. The Outaouais, my region, lost 6,200 jobs in 2009, making it the region the second-most affected by job loss in Quebec. In the forestry sector, in October 2008, the Smurfit-Stone company lost nearly 600 jobs, as well as indirect jobs involving transporting wood and all the rest. That same year, Maibec, White Birch Paper and AbitibiBowater had to cut jobs. Again, there is nothing in this budget to help this industry in crisis in Quebec and its workers.

On the contrary, the government is investing even more in the major oil companies and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. What is the government doing to help Quebec's forestry workers? The answer is simple: not enough.

The Outaouais region has a split personality. In Gatineau and the Collines-de-l'Outaouais, the labour force participation rate is on the rise and is one of the best in Quebec. In the City of Gatineau, the average income is $52,000, which is not bad. However, when you leave the city, in the Vallée-de-la-Gatineau regional municipality, the average income is only $32,395. In the Pontiac, it is only $33,859. This difference is attributed to the proximity of the public service to the first two municipalities. According to Service Canada, no growth in the forestry sector is expected between 2010 and 2012.

Add all that to the significant cuts planned for the public service, and one has to wonder if the two municipalities that have been spared thus far will experience the same kind of job losses. Government cuts and investments do not take urban or rural factors into consideration, nor do they take into account this country's industries in crisis. Basically, this plan is not in tune with the daily reality Canadians are facing. If that were the case, it would take a more serious stance on this country's growing unemployment rate. Today, approximately 1.4 million Canadians are officially unemployed. If we include discouraged and underemployed workers, that number rises to nearly 2 million. The unemployment rate has risen to 7.3%, and the proportion of part-time workers and those looking for full-time work has increased very rapidly.

High-quality, full-time jobs that can support families—not just the insecure jobs that the government constantly brags about having created—are very difficult to find in many regions of the country, particularly my region.

My party's position is clear. The NDP is determined to put the priorities of Canadian families first. This involves immediately passing measures to improve health care, stimulate job creation and guarantee stable retirement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference on two occasions to health care. I agree in terms of the importance of that universal health care to which he makes reference. I would go further in just how important it is that we start to talk more about the health care accord that we hope will be put into place by 2014.

What is his party's position in regard to the ability to use the Canada Health Act to ensure we have basic standards of health care delivery that are relatively equal from coast to coast, as opposed to just giving tax points or money for health care transfers? Would he support the important role that we, as a legislature, have to ensure that there is good quality health care and that there is accountability for those dollars that are spent?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am happy that my colleague is interested in this issue that is important to me and my riding.

My answer is yes. Essentially, the NDP believes that the principle of universality is fundamental. However, we must also respect provincial jurisdictions. The reality is that larger investments, especially for hiring doctors and nurses, are essential to help this country move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, my ears perked up at the conversation around health care.

We were all back in our ridings this last week. As I travelled into my rural communities, my constituents were looking at the movement we made in terms of forgiving loans for students as being very positive and they were starting to see very positive results.

They talked about the 6% that we would maintain on transfers. There are many positive things happening in health care.

Would the member perhaps like to reflect on really provincial jurisdiction as being very important to respect, but also how important these movements are to ensure physicians are available and health transfers continue to be protected?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Like her, I represent a rural riding. The comments I have heard from my constituents are that the government's measures make certain things possible. She spoke in English, so my thoughts are in English.

Loan forgiveness is not enough to create incentives for doctors and nurses to stay in rural areas. It is not as easy as saying that we will forgive a loan.

There are a lot of reasons why people leave rural areas and why young people in particular leave rural areas. The member should know it as well as I do. It has to do with devitalization of the area or crisis in certain industries.

There is a need for greater incentives to keep trained doctors and nurses in rural areas. One solution is to actually train them in the area they were born.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

He spoke about what is going on with Occupy Wall Street and the movement that is now sweeping across Canada: Occupy Halifax, Occupy Montreal and Occupy Toronto, for example. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

I would like my colleague to tell me what the current budget proposes or what the government is doing to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Pontiac has 30 seconds to respond.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The answer is very simple: very little. Furthermore, it will basically only create further inequality. This budget does not present any solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, it really is an honour for me to rise here today to speak to the budget implementation act.

We have heard some excellent speeches today about the government's commitment to the well-being of Canadians in the context of the bill.

Three themes come through loud and clear as we look at the bill. First, our government, especially the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, have listened to Canadians. Second, hearing what Canadians want, our government has committed to put money back in their pockets, to promote jobs and economic growth. Third, our government proposes to lay the foundation for all Canadians to become stronger, healthier and better off.

We Canadians enjoy one of the most stable and strongest democracies in the world, a democracy where our people care and a democracy where our leaders listen. The government has consulted extensively across the country. In fact, on January 12, 2009, the Minister of Finance and I arranged for him to consult at our very own Park Royal consumer centre in West Vancouver, part of the riding I so proudly represent. Over 400 people came, some from great distances from across the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, to lend the minister their perspectives for our federal budget. The minister was welcomed with a standing ovation. Members of my community and local leaders have in recent months, and over the past three years, shared with me what they believe should be included in the government's low tax plan for jobs and growth.

The Minister of Finance, my team and I have spoken to a large and diverse range of community groups, local municipalities, first nations, heads of cultural demographic and interest groups. Together we have identified for each group three priorities and three events that most matter to them. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and our government have listened.

The economic action plan, the low tax plan for jobs and growth, responds directly to what Canadians across the country want. A big part of that is putting money back into the pockets of Canadians. Our government proposes to put money back into their pockets by better supporting families, balancing tax measures and by improving infrastructure, the Canadian business environment and Canada's focus on clean energy.

As a government that stands up for families, I am pleased to see the introduction of the family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependent relatives. This will enable other Canadian families to care for elderly mothers and fathers in the way our family did. I have seen the benefit to families first hand of enabling them to care for frail or sick dependents at home. In my own case, our family was able to work closely with hospital workers, especially palliative care nurses, occupational health nurses and others to enable us to care for my mother until she passed away in May, 2008. Her quality of life was the best it could be, surrounded by her son, her grandchildren and even the family dog for as long as possible.

Do not just take my word for it. The Canadian Caregiver Coalition has said:

The measures announced in the budget are an important acknowledgement of the vital role of family caregivers. The announcement of a Family Caregiver Tax Credit demonstrates the federal government's commitment to families and the caregiving responsibilities that they assume.

Another major way the government proposes to support families is in repealing mandatory retirement regulations. As the Canadian Taxpayers Federation notes, “People have a right to determine how long they work, and this is a major step towards eliminating poverty for seniors”.

Charitable organizations in Canada are also world leaders. They encourage people to volunteer their time and money to help the needy in Canada and abroad. I have been warmed and inspired by the strength of the volunteer spirit I see demonstrated in Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island, West Vancouver and North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler, where I met with constituents over recent weeks in my ride the riding bicycle tour of the majestic riding that I represent.

Many people in the North Shore support Food for the Hungry, for instance, an organization that delivers food and services to needy people overseas. It is an organization I had the honour to chair before becoming an MP. Another great organization in our riding is Linwood House, which assists marginalized women in the downtown east side. Organizations like these will also benefit from the bill, as it strengthens the tax base for charitable donations.

Finally, the government proposes to put money back into Canadian's pockets by investing in clean energy, infrastructure and business. One of the many areas in which people in my riding lead the world is in clean energy. We have seen jobs created and the economy stimulated through independent power projects in many areas of the riding I represent, in Powell River, Squamish, and elsewhere. Steve Davis is one individual, a resident of West Vancouver, who has done much to promote clean energy generation.

A company in the same field, formerly known as Plutonic Power now Alterra Power Corp., has blazed environmentally friendly trails in the Powell River area, creating jobs for aboriginals and other people. So Canadians will be glad to hear that this budget implementation act extends eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment.

Our government also proposes to invest in infrastructure. While our government now strives for deficit and debt control, we are mindful of the need we are fulfilling with infrastructure improvements. Part 9 of the bill provides for payments to provinces, territories and municipalities, first nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements. In late March of this year the Federation of Canadian Municipalities noted that budget 2011 delivered a vital commitment to cities and communities to develop a new long-term federal infrastructure plan. We will keep this momentum going.

Our government also proposes to invest in Canadian industry. Many captains of the mining industry reside in the riding I represent, like Ian Telfer and Robert Gallagher. Also in our riding is the B.C. Museum of Mining, an excellent institution that not only preserves the history of our province's pioneers but also helps people understand the importance of the mining industry to jobs and prosperity in B.C. today. I am therefore proud to say that this bill would extend eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year to flow-through share agreements entered into before March 31, 2012. This is an important way that our government proposes to invest in Canadian industry.

Our government has listened to Canadians, and in response proposes to put money back into their pockets by supporting families, by balancing tax measures, and by investing in clean energy, infrastructure and industry. I dare say our government has listened well and made some very fine proposals.

Finally, besides telling our government to put money back into their pockets, Canadians have told us to lay the foundations for our continued security, health and well-being.

That is why the bill introduces a volunteer firefighters tax credit to allow eligible volunteer firefighters to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit up to $3,000.

One of the most valiant persons one will meet in Canadian communities is the volunteer firefighter. I have worked with career and volunteer firefighters in the riding I represent to ensure that, to the best of our ability, our government is supporting them.

In direct response to a meeting held in the Lions Bay part of my riding with volunteer firefighters led by Fire Chief Andrew Oliver, I wrote the Minister of Finance requesting that a volunteer firefighter's tax credit be created and along with many other Canadians calling for that tax credit. We found it in this budget and we are happy. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has said that it strongly applauds the Conservative government's introduction of a $3,000 credit. How happy Canadians are that our Minister of Finance, known as the greatest in the world, wisely recognized these heroes and provided for our continued security in this budget implementation bill.

Our government proposes to support our continued well-being by investing further in Canadians. In our ridings we have an enormous number of artists, musicians, sculptors and others who promote Canadian culture with their every word and deed. Names like Sarah McLachlan, Randy Bachman, Joni Mitchell, Shari Ulrich and Michael Tickner are just a handful of names of such groundbreaking cultural icons.

What a great breakthrough for our Conservative government to introduce the children's arts tax credit up to $500 per child for eligible fees associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities. We cannot wait to see the next generation of artists develop, partly in response to this initiative.

This bill would accomplish what Canadians asked us to do, to provide for their continued security, health and well-being. On behalf of the innovative, hard-working and entrepreneurial people of the riding I represent, and on behalf of all Canadians, I am proud to support this bill, our government and our great country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

We're not getting rid of the Wheat Board.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are measures in terms of RRSPs.

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

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

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

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

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

The report was tabled in Parliament in 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

I will point to a couple more companies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. Perhaps the hon. member could elaborate during questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member from Edmonton—Leduc on his speech.

He talked about several measures to create jobs and get the economy moving; on the other hand, he did not talk about the environment. Yet the environment is very important to getting the economy moving, because it could be very costly in the long run. In a report released on September 29, 2011, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy reported that climate change could cost Canada $21 billion per year by 2050. So this is where investments are needed—in the environment, in renewable energy sources, green energy, innovation and so on—in order to improve the Conservatives government's record. For now, this budget does not cut it.

Should we not be investing in the environment, rather than in small measures that do not seem to make any difference right now?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raised environmental issues, but as he knows, the budget did in fact make some investments in the environment.

If he is looking at this specific piece of legislation, the accelerated capital cost allowance which I mentioned, investments in new machinery, makes a specific company more environmentally efficient.

Further to that, this piece of legislation expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment. I encourage him to look at that specific part. I also encourage him to look at the expansion of the eligibility rules for qualifying environmental trusts.

There are very specific measures in this bill that address environmental concerns he may have. That is why I encourage members on the opposite side of the House to think very carefully about the measures in the budget before they vote yea or nay to this measure. The environmental spending was in the first budget implementation act that was passed in June, but these specific measures that address some of the environmental concerns are in this budget implementation bill which we will be voting on very shortly.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech, but I also want to discuss the retention of work that he talked about, and some of the measures that are in the bill to help retain the workers.

I appreciate his comments on the capital cost allowance and other smaller measures. There is one measure, however, that is not directly addressed but is of great benefit to areas of higher unemployment, which is the current pilot projects that are in existence for employment insurance.

In one case in particular, by way of illustration, it allows people to rely on the best 14 weeks of work in order to achieve that benefit, whereas before this pilot project, it was the last 14 weeks. Without the pilot project there is a disincentive to go after shorter weeks, as we call them.

I would like him to comment on that. Should these pilot projects be a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out, the pilot was extended in some fashion. He may disagree with the specific way in which it was extended, but it was extended to the best 14 weeks.

I would also point to the extension of the work-share program which did allow companies to retain a lot of the employees they had, especially during the downturn.

I also point to the hiring credit which was very strongly endorsed and recommended by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as the strongest measure that we could make at this time to enable small- and medium-size businesses to hire new employees.

If the member is concerned about job creation, the job creation numbers, as I mentioned at the outset of my speech, from Statistics Canada itself are fantastic when we compare them to those of other nations in the G7 and the OECD, in part because of things like the work-share program, the best 14 weeks, the sharing credit through EI.

I encourage the member opposite to look very carefully at these measures that are included in this budget implementation bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must inform the hon. member for Drummond that he may begin his presentation, but that I shall interrupt him at 6:15 p.m.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I will not be able to give my entire speech. Nevertheless, I will begin my speech on Bill C-13.

This bill would give large tax breaks to very large business 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 coming years. And they will be significant challenges.

First, as I mentioned, the legislation will not create any jobs—and we need jobs. We must continue to create jobs because there are still too many people left behind in Canada and in my lovely region 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 make us realize that Canadian families, and those of Drummond as well, are feeling a tremendous amount of pressure. I recently noticed that relief agencies, such as the Comptoir alimentaire Drummond, are being used by more people, which worries me a great deal.

In this respect, let us look at the numbers and statistics that prove that the Conservative government is missing the mark when it comes to job creation.

The number of Canadians who are officially unemployed is still approximately 1.4 million. In addition, if we include those who are discouraged or underemployed, the number is close to 2 million.

So, we would expect serious and concrete job creation measures. For example, the Conservatives could draw on our excellent election platform in which we proposed the introduction of a job creation tax credit of up to $4,500 for each new job created. This initiative would help to create 200,000 jobs per year, jobs that would meet the needs of families.

We also have other proposals that hon. members can find in our election platform. Unfortunately, I do not have time to share those proposals with them. These are concrete measures to reward businesses that create jobs, not just gifts for very large corporations, banks or the oil and gas industries. No. These are real measures that would benefit families in Canada and in my riding, Drummond. They are real measures that would create good-quality jobs for the future.

Speaking of the oil and gas industries, does the Conservative government really believe that these are the industries of the future? No, they are not. And it is not true that oil sands are an ethical oil source, that is for sure. Give me a break.

In my riding, people have joined forces. I have to stop there? Okay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 6, 2011, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas 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 #39

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:44 p.m.)