Bill C-60 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) allows certain adoption-related expenses incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened to be eligible for the Adoption Expense Tax Credit;
(b) introduces an additional credit for first-time claimants of the Charitable Donations Tax Credit;
(c) makes expenses for the use of safety deposit boxes non-deductible;
(d) adjusts the Dividend Tax Credit and gross-up factor applicable in respect of dividends other than eligible dividends;
(e) allows collection action for 50% of taxes, interest and penalties in dispute in respect of a tax shelter that involves a charitable donation;
(f) extends, for one year, the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for two years, the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment;
(h) clarifies that the income tax reserve for future services is not available in respect of reclamation obligations;
(i) phases out the additional deduction available to credit unions over five years;
(j) amends rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons; and
(k) repeals the rules relating to international banking centres.
Part 1 also implements other income tax measures and tax-related measures. Most notably, it
(a) amends rules relating to caseload management of the Tax Court of Canada;
(b) streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers;
(c) addresses a technical issue in relation to the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a Registered Disability Savings Plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract; and
(d) simplifies the determination of the Canadian-source income of non-resident pilots employed by Canadian airlines.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) reducing the compliance burden for employers under the GST/HST pension plan rules;
(b) providing the Minister of National Revenue the authority to withhold GST/HST refunds claimed by a business where the business has failed to provide certain GST/HST registration information;
(c) expanding the GST/HST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services provided to individuals who require such assistance at home;
(d) clarifying that reports, examinations and other services that are supplied for a non-health-care-related purpose do not qualify for the GST/HST exemption for basic health care services; and
(e) ending the current GST/HST point-of-sale relief for the Governor General.
Part 2 also amends the Excise Tax Act and Excise Act, 2001 to modify the rules regarding the judicial authorization process for imposing a requirement on a third party to provide information or documents related to an unnamed person or persons.
In addition, Part 2 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to ensure that the excise duty rate applicable to manufactured tobacco other than cigarettes and tobacco sticks is consistent with that applicable to other tobacco products.
Part 3 implements various measures, including by enacting and amending several Acts.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Customs Tariff to extend for ten years, until December 31, 2024, provisions relating to Canada’s preferential tariff treatments for developing and least-developed countries. Also, Division 1 reduces the rate of duty under tariff treatments in respect of a number of items relating to baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment imported into Canada on or after April 1, 2013.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to remove some residency requirements to provide flexibility for financial institutions to efficiently structure the committees of their boards of directors.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to renew the equalization and territorial formula financing programs until March 31, 2019 and to implement total transfer protection for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. That Act is also amended to clarify the time of calculation of the growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer for each fiscal year beginning after March 31, 2017.
Division 4 of Part 3 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to certain entities or for certain purposes.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office Act to remove the statutory dissolution date of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office and to provide authority for the Governor in Council, on the Minister of Finance’s recommendation, to set another date for the dissolution of that Office.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Investment Canada Act to clarify how proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and WTO investors will be assessed and to allow for the extension, when necessary, of timelines associated with national security reviews.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that the Canada Revenue Agency can accurately identify, calculate and refund overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan in a particular year by contributors who live outside Quebec.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans’ disability benefits are no longer deducted when calculating war veterans allowance.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to authorize the revocation of temporary foreign worker permits, the revocation and suspension of opinions provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with respect to an application for a work permit and the refusal to process requests for such opinions. It authorizes fees to be paid for rights and privileges conferred by means of a work permit and exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, those fees as well as fees for the provision of services in relation to the processing of applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit, study permit or extension of an authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident or in relation to requests for an opinion with respect to an application for a work permit.
It also provides that decisions made by the Refugee Protection Division under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of claims for refugee protection that were referred to that Division during a specified period are not subject to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division if they take effect after a certain date.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Citizenship Act to expand the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of that Act and cases in which those fees may be waived. It also exempts, from the application of the User Fees Act, fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Nuclear Safety and Control Act to authorize the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to spend for its purposes the revenue it receives from the fees it charges for licences.
Division 12 of Part 3 enacts the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, sets out the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister for International Development and provides for the amalgamation of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency.
Division 13 of Part 3 authorizes the taking of measures with respect to the reorganization and divestiture of all or any part of Ridley Terminals Inc.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the National Capital Act and the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to transfer certain powers, duties and functions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the National Capital Commission. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Holocaust Monument Act to change the Minister responsible for the construction of the monument to the Minister of Canadian Heritage from the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Salaries Act to add ministerial positions for regional development responsibilities for northern Canada, and northern and southern Ontario. It also amends the Salaries Act to replace a reference to the Solicitor General of Canada with a reference to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It also makes an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act to provide that the maximum number of Parliamentary Secretaries who may be appointed is equal to the number of ministers for whom salaries are provided in the Salaries Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to remove the requirement for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to obtain a request from a government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere in order for the Minister to do certain things for or on their behalf. It also amends that Act to specify that the Governor in Council’s approval relating to those things may be given on a general or a specific basis.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent. It also gives the Treasury Board the authority to require that an employee under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Treasury Board observe the collective bargaining between the Crown corporation and the bargaining agent. It requires that a Crown corporation that is directed to have its negotiating mandate approved obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before entering into a collective agreement. It also gives the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to obtain the Treasury Board’s approval before the Crown corporation fixes the terms and conditions of employment of certain of its non-unionized employees. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Keeping Canada’s Economy and Jobs Growing Act to provide for increases to the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for municipal, regional and First Nations infrastructure through the Gas Tax Fund. It also provides that the sums may be paid on the requisition of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

This budget and our previous budget have demonstrated that the Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance are building our nation to heights we have never seen before. Canada is a place where immigrants and investors want to be. We have every reason to be optimistic about our future. I will gladly support this budget and the great economic stewardship of our government.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oakville for his speech. However, the thing that is missing in this budget is real job creation. When the Conservatives took over in 2006, there were one-quarter million fewer unemployed individuals in Canada than there are today, which speaks to the Conservatives' record. There are one-quarter million people who are now unemployed who were not unemployed in 2006. At the same time, we have one-quarter million more temporary foreign workers.

Members can do the math, and it is very simple. The temporary foreign worker program has been increased by the government over the course of its being, which has had a direct impact on the number of people who are unemployed in this country. However, the Conservative government has done nothing about it.

I would like the member to comment on what it is that the government is going to do to correct those numbers and bring more people to more jobs in Canada in a way that is actually going to work. We have heard it all before, and it is not working now.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member opposite has been for the last few months, but since the end of the recession this government is responsible for the creation of 950,000 net new jobs, most of which are full time.

In addition, it seems the member has totally missed what happened in 2008. I do not know where he was in 2008, but we were here dealing with the most serious recession since the 1930s. This government got this country through that recession. We purposely created a deficit through Canada's economic action plan, and now that the recession is over we are balancing the books.

With specific regard to the member's question on this budget on job creation, in talking about the future and the need for infrastructure in our communities, the roads, bridges and transitways that our children and grandchildren will need, in budget 2013 we have pledged over $53 billion over 10 years for a new building Canada plan. It is long-term predictable funding that represents the largest and longest federal infrastructure investment in Canadian history.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I give the member credit for sticking to the PMO notes. To what degree the member might even believe some of what he is saying is truly amazing.

When the Conservatives took over the government reigns, the reality was that they had a huge budget surplus. Even prior to the recession taking place, they turned that surplus into a deficit. They had to be brought kicking and screaming by the Liberal Party, who was the official opposition at the time, to provide an economic action plan to keep people employed in this country.

Now when the government members talk about having a balanced budget, members will notice they refer to 2015-16, which is post the next federal election. The Conservative government has never had a balanced budget in the last 100 years. The member should know that.

My question to the member is this. Can he clearly and definitely tell this House when the last time was that the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives or the Reform Party in Ottawa have presented a balanced budget to this House.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, but I am not so grateful for his fictitious preamble.

I believe the last time this government balanced the budget was in 2007. However, prior to the recession, which the member might remember started in 2008, this government had a surplus which it reinvested by paying down debt. That is what we promised to do. That is why the voters made us the government. We paid down over $30 billion of debt, which is what we are supposed to do.

When there is a recession, government money is invested to help people stay working. However, when there is a surplus, the government is supposed to pay down debt. That is acceptable fundamental economics. That is exactly what we did. We will not apologize for lowering taxes on Canadian families and putting more money into their pockets once the budget was balanced.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost sad to get up. I was enjoying the Conservatives and the Liberals going at it on the issue of economics when they should be embracing each other because they both practice the same austerity economics.

Before I start on the issue of Bill C-60, I do want to wish Marg Reilly a very happy birthday. Marg is a constituent of mine. It is a milestone birthday for her, and she is a person worthy of great celebration. Happy Birthday, Marg.

Today we are talking about Bill C-60, the budget implementation act. It is the final of five days of debate on the matter, owing to another Conservative time allocation motion, which is a new record for such motions. I dare suggest that there will be more such motions. There seems to be some kind of narcotic effect to these time allocation motions for those guys. It also, perhaps, is just the arrogance of power.

In his defence of the Conservative time allocation motion, the Minister of State for Finance described this legislation as “the blueprint of our government's mandate moving forward”. He “felt” that five days was more than enough time to debate the bill. As it turns out, what we have before us is another omnibus bill. It is certainly shorter than its predecessor, but still it involves amendments to nearly 50 pieces of legislation, and even introduces new legislation. That means that on average we have less than one hour of debate for each legislative change or legislative invention included under the bill.

Who would have imagined that those so-called champions of transparency and accountability, these parliamentary reformers who sit on the government side, would have ever stood in this place to justify such a limited level of scrutiny—on budget implementation, no less—for parliamentarians, much less to justify it on the basis of what they felt was appropriate, that those reformers would privilege their feelings over the traditions, institutions and processes of governing and government in Canada? It is most certainly a form of tyranny.

This is not simply an issue of process or principle, as those members like to portray it. This is about a government that is failing to do its best for this country and its citizens, a government that has deliberately set a target below the potential of Canada and its citizens. Never mind excellence, never mind maximization, never mind over-achieving, the Conservative government aspires to under-achievement, to less than what is possible, to less than our potential.

This is the recurring narrative in the April 29 economic and fiscal outlook produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office. I want to quote a bit at length here:

PBO projects real GDP growth in Canada to slow to 1.5 per cent in 2013 and remain below its potential growth rate until 2015. Combined with the sluggish recovery in the global economy, government spending restraint will act as an additional drag on growth and job creation. The projected weakness in growth keeps the economy well below its potential GDP through 2015 and as a result the unemployment rate remains relatively stable, averaging 7.3 per cent over 2013 to 2015.

It goes on to talk about employment in Canada being below its potential. That is on page 10, if anybody wants to reference that. It say that employment and “average weekly hours” for Canadian workers are below potential. That is on page 11. “Labour productivity” is below, which is, again, on page 11. Gross domestic product is “below potential”, on page 11 again.

How is all of this happening? Quite curiously, it is happening by design. As the economic and fiscal outlook says, “Over the period 2013 to 2017, PBO estimates that the net impact of [economic action plan] 2013 measures and revisions to spending levels on real GDP and employment is contractionary”. It is 67,000 jobs worth of contractionary, according to the report, which is a .57% reduction in GDP.

The PBO explains that does not mean that employment levels will be 67,000 jobs shy of where we are today. That is fair enough. The report explains it in these terms:

Rather, it means that, in the absence of these measures and revisions to spending levels, projected employment would be higher by 67,000 jobs, all else being equal.

The action in the government's economic action plan is:

...pushing the economy further away from its potential GDP and delaying the economic recovery.

This is worthy of the House's time for extensive debate. I want to know, and Canadians will want to know, why the deliberate path of action chosen by of the current government is to push the economy further away from its potential.

What is particularly perplexing is that the budget comes in the context of a Canada that is already so far shy of its potential.

The government has presided over a $67 billion trade deficit that is expected to worsen in the year ahead. That is thousands of jobs and billions of dollars leaving this country and going overseas to enrich others.

There are still almost 1.4 million Canadians out of work. There are 240,000 more young people unemployed today than before the recession.

Closer to my home, in Toronto, in my riding of Beaches—East York, I would note a recent report by the United Way and McMaster University showing that nearly 50% of jobs in southwestern Ontario are precarious jobs. A recent report by the Metcalf Foundation shows that the number of working poor is growing in the greater Toronto area. Reports by the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto show the continuing income polarization in our cities, particularly in Toronto, and extrapolate current trends to show a city with a completely hollowed-out middle class.

To be fair, this trend has carried through successive Liberal and Conservative governments, so we cannot blame it all on the guys on the other side.

The only employment numbers growing by a significant measure are for temporary foreign workers, spurred on by the government's inducement of paying significantly lower wages than for Canadian workers.

It is in this context that the government sees it wise to hit the brakes on the economy to constrain economic growth.

This is a set of circumstances that calls for a different kind of action, action that would put Canadians and Canadian cities, which are after all the engines of economic growth in a modern economy, to work—to begin at long last to undo the constraints on our economy, to realize the potential of our country and to make a more equally shared prosperity a goal for this country.

Let us look for a moment at the issue of infrastructure. Here is an economic opportunity that the government has failed to grasp.

By many accounts, the infrastructure deficit in this country is well north of $150 billion, and it continues to grow. We need to see this problem addressed, and soon. “A penny now or a dollar later”, as the 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card puts it, meaning the cost of delaying needed repairs could cost us vastly larger sums down the road, yet over the next four years, federal infrastructure funding will be $4.7 billion lower than it was last year, despite some creative advertising by the Conservative government.

This so-called new infrastructure funding announced in budget 2013 includes funding from older, delayed projects. There is $6 billion worth announced in this new economic action plan that is masquerading as new money when it is actually existing funds that had been committed back in 2007.

This is a budget that would provide no relief for urban congestion in Canadian cities. Owing to successive uninterested Liberal and Conservative governments, the public transit system in Toronto has not grown in any meaningful way since 1980.

In conclusion, what the government needs to explain to Canadians is how it dares to occupy those benches over there when it puts forward a plan that would shrink this country rather than grow it, when it puts forward a plan that would take jobs from Canadians rather than create jobs for them, when it aspires to less than what we are capable of as a country.

How does the government explain that to the youth of this country who have their futures in front of them? How does it explain it to the seniors of this country, who left what they had built up in our hands not so that we could take it down, but so that we could continue to build upon it?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting but somewhat troubling to hear members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party stand up, speaker after speaker, with an incredibly negative attitude. They can find nothing right with our budget and nothing right with our budget implementation bill. That is very disturbing, because they are totally out of touch with Canadians. In fact, our budget was extremely well received by Canadians, and our economic action plan has allowed business across this country to create 950,000 new jobs since the recession ended. That is an incredible record, yet opposition members are nothing but negative.

I ask the member if he could maybe find one thing from our budget, one thing covered in the budget implement bill, that he thinks is right with this budget? If he cannot, could he explain why he is so out of touch with how Canadians feel about this budget and this budget implementation bill?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the government did its budgeting right, then we could find something right with the budget. However, as it is, what I would suggest to the member, as we have suggested to the government side, is to divide the bill up and stop playing this game of putting everything into an omnibus bill—50 pieces of legislation, new legislation, amendments to legislation—and standing up day after day saying we disagree with it all. It is because it is all piled into one toxic budget bill.

Let us divide it up and then let us be truthful about the facts. Conservatives talk about 950,000 net new jobs; since 2008, immigration in this country has accounted for at least one million new Canadians, so how does the government talk about net new jobs that cannot even keep up with the immigration rate since the recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beaches—East York for a really quite eloquent speech in assessing this budget. I think he would probably agree with me that there are many things in the budget that are actually good, including first-time incentives for charitable giving and a small but certainly welcome amount of funding to CNIB. Overall, however, I think his analysis is exactly correct.

I want to ask the member if he finds it surprising that the government would boast about programs that it has cancelled. The environment section of the budget talks about the very successful home energy retrofit program, which no longer exists. I wonder if the member would agree with me that the budget would be much improved if that program were resurrected.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the budget would be improved and our environment would be much improved if that program still existed.

One of the curious things about that program is that when the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources justified ending that program, they did so by trumpeting its great success and the many jobs it created, so there is no rationale for cancelling that job program.

In fact, it becomes an extremely important program for a city like Toronto. One of the curious things about the city that I live in, because of its particular built form, is that over 60% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from heating and cooling the built environment, so a program like the eco-energy program became a critical part of dealing with climate change and with greenhouse gas emissions in a city like Toronto.

I know my constituents very much regret the decision of the government to cancel that program, not only because of the improvements it brought to their own properties and because of their concern about the environment but also because of the great job potential that the program had.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and speak to our budget implementation bill today.

I want to express from the start how disappointed I am that the opposition, for some reason, cannot find something good about our budget and our budget implementation bill when Canadians have really supported our budget with open arms and very positive endorsements from third parties of all types, including business and union leaders and so on.

However, the opposition members just cannot find it in themselves to say that there is a lot about this budget and this budget implementation bill that is good. That is very disappointing.

They also complain about any program that has been ended by the government since we came to office. The reality is that many of these programs were put in place by previous governments to help meet a policy objective of that previous government. In many cases, that policy objective no longer exists, so why should the program continue indefinitely?

One of those programs the opposition is complaining about was actually put in place 100 years ago. To me, the policy objective made a lot of sense 100 years ago.

The program was the shelterbelt program. That was in the last budget, just as an example. That program was put in place almost 100 years ago to help protect our prairie soil from wind and water erosion, and it was a good program at the time.

However, I suppose many members do not recognize that in the 1980s farmers started direct seeding crops, so this erosion that the shelterbelt program was put in place to protect against simply no longer exists because the soil is not tilled as it used to be and we do not have summer fallow as we used to have. The problem that the program was put in place to solve simply does not exist now, yet the opposition members complain about our government ending even this 100-year-old program that no longer meets a policy objective.

I am going to guess what they would do, and that would be to just have these programs built one on top of another until we would be so far in debt that we simply could not balance the budget in this country and we ended up in the same kind of mess that our neighbours to the south are in.

To me, that is not an acceptable route to take. Our government has committed to balancing the budget by 2015. That is an objective I want to support, even if they do not, and it is an objective that is certainly supported by my constituents.

The opposition cannot find a thing right about the policies being implemented in this budget implementation bill. I want to run some examples by the House. It will be kind of a disjointed presentation here dealing with different issues.

The first issue is the adoption expense tax credit. This was put in place to better recognize that adoptive parents incur costs prior to being matched with a child. A lot of expense goes into that process.

I know that some of my colleagues have adopted children, and they understand this issue very well. There are probably some members on the other side who have adopted children, and they know the costs that go into the process even before the adoptive parents are actually matched with a child.

My niece and her husband tried to adopt children for 10 years, and they just could not do it. They tried a lot of things to make this happen. They have incurred a lot of expenses. What they wanted was a child; they desperately wanted a child. They commented to me on several occasions that the costs are really incredible and that they would appreciate anything that could be done to help them deal with that a little.

They have been blessed. Just a couple of years ago they completed the adoption of their little girl, and currently they have a little boy and are hoping to be able to keep the little boy and adopt him. To them this is important, yet the New Democratic MPs cannot find it in their hearts to say that it is good thing. With the Liberals, it is the same.

What has the leader of the Liberal Party said on this? He has not made a comment on it at all, either on that or on any other policy issue. The leader of the Liberal Party is not in the picture at all.

What else do we have in this budget that would be implemented in this act? There is the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through shares. NDP members in particular receive a lot of funding from unions, and that is not voluntary. Union members are given no choice. They are forced to pay memberships, and the unions decide whether that money goes to a particular political party. I know that the Conservative members get a lot of support from union members, but it does not come through unions.

NDP members always claim that they are standing up for union members, yet they have not said a good thing at all about this mineral exploration tax credit that would encourage exploration and the development of new mines and that type of thing. That means jobs, and a lot of new union jobs, but can they find it in their hearts to speak on behalf of their union members and say that it makes sense because it would mean a lot of new jobs for union members? No, they cannot.

What has the leader of the Liberal Party said about that? Actually, he has said nothing about that or about any other policy issue I have heard about. He is too busy raising money for the Liberal Party, instead of being here in the House of Commons doing his job. He had one of the worst records in the House of Commons—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, members are not supposed to suggest whether people are here or not here in this place. That member is insinuating that the leader of the Liberal Party is not here. He is doing good work meeting Canadians across the country, which that Prime Minister—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The member for Malpeque is correct that members ought not to reference who is or is not in the chamber.

The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that very well. I was not commenting on whether he was here now. I was just saying that in the past, he has been gone an awful lot.

Another thing this budget implementation bill would deal with is the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing processing machinery and equipment. Again, the opposition parties always claim that they are standing up for union members and unions. Yet they cannot find it in their hearts to say that they support that accelerated capital cost allowance, which would encourage manufacturers to expand, build new plants and create new jobs here in Canada. They just cannot find it in their hearts to say that what the government is doing makes a lot of sense, that it is good for their union members and that they are going to support it. They will not do it. They just cannot be anything but negative. That is what I have heard from the NDP: negative, negative, negative. I get tired of it day after day. It is the same with the Liberals, those of them who are, in fact, here in the House.

Another issue is the additional deduction for credit unions. I have heard one particular member in the Liberal Party, who is a big supporter of co-ops. Lots of members in our caucus are big supporters of co-ops. Probably even some New Democrats are big supporters of co-ops. We hear our members talking about the positive aspects of the additional deduction for credit unions in this budget implementation act. Credit unions, of course, already qualify for the Canadian preferential income tax rate on the first $500,000 per year of qualifying business income. This would go beyond that, for credit unions in particular. The members claim to be big supporters of co-ops, but what do we hear from them on that issue here in the House of Commons? They are nothing but negative. They cannot find it in their hearts to say that carrying on that credit union special tax exemption is something they can support, because it is good for co-ops, good for their union members and good for the country. They just will not do that.

I just got started. There is a long list of items we would implement in this budget implementation bill that I know their constituents support. Their constituents support it, yet the opposition members cannot find it in their hearts to support their constituents. If they cannot support government or the good things we are doing, at least they should support their constituents. They are not doing that. They are failing them, and they should be ashamed. I encourage them to change their direction and start supporting the good things the government is doing.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member opposite was saying. I must say that I am upset by this government's approach to things.

We know that this bill is not unlike last year's omnibus bills, C-38 and C-45. We know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance tabled a notice of motion at the Standing Committee on Finance in order to give committee members just five meetings to complete consideration of Bill C-60 and to ensure that clause-by-clause review of the bill is completed by May 27, which is just eight sitting days after the time allocation motion forces passage of the bill at second reading.

Does the hon. member think that five committee meetings will allow enough time to study this bill properly?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member knows that there are going to be different committees, which is my understanding, looking at different parts of this implementation bill. Certainly every member of Parliament has had the chance to read it, study it and be ready for the committee meetings. If they do that, they have ample time. I have not heard them propose better options for any of the things in this budget implementation bill.

She complains that it is an omnibus bill. Budget bills are always omnibus bills. They deal with a lot of different issues. The last budget dealt with hundreds of different issues. Are we supposed to divide them and deal with each one separately at committee? No. Budget implementation bills are omnibus bills. They implement a budget, which is an omnibus bill. I do not think there is any other way of doing it realistically. We would be trying to implement last year's budget for the next 10 years, quite frankly, if we did it that way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vegreville—Wainwright was a little off base when he said that the leader of the Liberal Party has not said anything about this budget. Maybe the member for Vegreville—Wainwright has not been listening. I do not know.

Every day that the leader of the Liberal Party has asked questions in the House, he has talked about the middle class. He has talked about the damage the Conservative Party is doing, through this budget and other measures, to the middle class in this country. He has said things such as that $550 million annually is coming out of the small business sector, which supports the middle class and is, indeed, the middle class. There is a $600-million payroll tax hike in this budget, which is hurting the middle class. The member may have slapped aside the leader of the Liberal Party, but he is absolutely wrong. The leader of the Liberal Party is standing up for the middle class.

The member said quite often that we should find it in our hearts. Once when I was in London, England, I came out of a facility and a guy asked if I could find it in my heart to lend him a copper. Could the member find it in his heart to support the middle class?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque is defending the leader of his party. There is a lot to defend, and I commend him for that. That is his job, quite frankly.

I was talking about the particular issues, which make up almost all of the budget, that his leader, quite frankly, has not commented on at all. He probably will not. As I say, he is too busy raising money to try to replenish the Liberal coffers. That is part of his job too, but he should be here in the House of Commons at least a good part of the time the House is sitting. He is simply not. I do not think the member will defend his leader for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, hon. members, allow me to digress for a moment before getting to the heart of the matter.

The new leader of the Liberal Party knows nothing about the middle class. He does not know what it is like to lose his job or to have to wait for employment insurance benefits. He does not know the problems that come with receiving an unexpected bill. He cannot understand the difficulties the middle class experiences.

As with the last two budget implementation bills, the NDP opposes Bill C-60 for its content and for the process. I will use my time to explain why.

The austerity measures of the past few years, both in North America and in Europe, have not produced the desired economic results, to say the least. Just recently, the staunchest supporters of austerity measures had to acknowledge two mistakes that had been made. Our Conservative friends do not seem to be aware of them or do not understand their implications.

Last October, the International Monetary Fund—the IMF—acknowledged that it had made a calculation error in assessing the impact of those austerity measures, particularly in the southern European countries. What was the error? Simply that it used a fiscal multiplier estimated at a 0.5% drop in GDP. This was seriously underestimated, not a little, but a lot: nearly three times that ratio.

What the IMF is admitting is that the negative factor was not 0.5, it was actually between 0.9 and 1.7. In simple terms, that means that a one-point cutback in public spending did not result in just a 0.5-point drop in GDP, but a drop of between 0.9 and 1.7 points. Understandably, that revelation has caused considerable discomfort in Europe.

There is every reason to think that the real reason for that discomfort is ideological. Yes indeed. Greece was used as a testing ground out of which only one of the two theories of the cosmos would emerge victorious: Keynesian interventionism versus the liberalism of Friedman, which, like our colleagues opposite, hopes to see the state disappear, or at least be reduced to a minimum. The mastermind behind this operation knew all along that it would lead to the irrevocable and permanent disappearance of Keynes’s legacy, since it would prove that austerity and nothing but austerity would lead to growth. Small mistake. It is exactly that belief that is shared by our ideologue colleagues opposite.

The IMF experiment turned into a fiasco, a huge fiasco. In Europe, it is responsible for 4,000 suicides, the impoverishment of 3.5 million people and a two-year drop in life expectancy. It is also responsible for an unemployment rate that is beyond comprehension, an explosion in the number of elective abortions, abandoned infants, the dismantling of human lives and families, homeless people in numbers that are out of control, because of the ongoing destruction of the middle class—yes, that is right, we are talking about the middle class—and the intolerable spectacle of Greeks, in the 21st century, hunting through garbage to find something to eat. Those are the horrors of austerity.

Europe seems to be suffering the terrible consequences of a mistaken estimate, in view of the negative growth rates, approaching zero, experienced in recent years and exploding debt followed by unemployment rates that just keep going up.

The International Monetary Fund’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, has in fact said that economic activity is so weak in Europe that all governments that are still able should do nothing that risks shrinking their social safety net.

Is a shrinking social safety net not what we are seeing in Canada with the planned cuts to employment insurance?

I would like to talk about the second economic error that was recently acknowledged by staunch supporters of austerity measures. Reinhart and Rogoff, two economists at Harvard University, asserted that a country's economic growth slowed when its debt exceeded 80% of GDP. The Conservatives, who abhor deficits, are panicking.

This false economic assumption was used by far too many supporters of fiscal restraint. Numerous countries relied on this study, which was exploited for political purposes, and took the same stance on fiscal restraint, with serious consequences: civil servants' salaries were frozen, there was structural reform, taxes were raised and so on. That is exactly what the Conservatives are proposing with Bill C-60.

On April 17, the attention of economists around the world was focused on a discovery made by Thomas Herndon, a young economist at the University of Massachusetts. With the help of his professors, he recalculated the famous Rogoff and Reinhart numbers. They realized that when debt exceeded 90% of GDP, average growth was not -0.1%, it was 2%. The reason for this difference is that Rogoff and Reinhart do not seem to have included a number of countries in their calculations. They excluded Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Belgium between 1946 and 1950. Their calculations were inaccurate, and the premise that growth stagnates when debt exceeds 90% of GDP is false. Herndon's study proves that.

What does all that mean for Canada? Despite these proven errors, despite the warnings of the International Monetary Fund and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conservative government is sticking to austerity measures by introducing Bill C-60. In a 32-page paper published by his office, the Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that the Conservative government's 2013 budget will have a net negative impact on the labour market over three years. Employment will fall by 8,000 jobs in 2015, 14,000 in 2016 and 10,000 in 2017. The net impact of the budget-cutting measures that the Conservative government has taken since 2012 will amount to a loss of more than 67,000 jobs in 2017.

The Conservatives, who like to boast of their job creation record, are living in an ideological bubble. In the meantime, 1.5 million Canadians are out of work and we now have 240,000 more unemployed youth than before the recession. Despite that fact, the only measure in Bill C-60 that will create jobs is the addition of new cabinet ministers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has clearly stated that the Conservatives' savage cuts announced in budget 2013 are not necessary to restore a structural budget surplus. On the contrary, combined with the anemic global economic recovery, the austerity measures imposed by the Harper government will further slow economic growth and job creation.

Budget 2013 could lower—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Once again I remind the member not to refer to his colleagues by their given names.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for referring to the Prime Minister by his surname. I withdraw that remark.

Budget 2013 could lower economic growth by 0.12% and eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow growth in gross domestic product. Bear in mind that this year's budget will extend $5.2 billion in cuts every year until we achieve the alleged zero deficit. Whatever the Conservatives may say, this budget, like the other austerity budgets previously introduced, will slow rather than stimulate Canada's economy.

Why then move so quickly toward eliminating the deficit, despite the International Monetary Fund's urging to calm down, reflect, and rely on something other than known errors of economic theory?

In fact, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's calculations, the government will achieve an even larger surplus than planned of $3.7 billion in 2015-16, when Canadians will go to the polls. Is that the reason for these reductions and cuts, the possibility that the government may have $3.7 billion in hand before the election to invest at the appropriate time for strictly political purposes?

My colleague Peggy Nash recently mentioned this. In Bill C-60, the Harper government is doing nothing to support—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The use of members' surnames is prohibited.

You have 15 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use those 15 seconds to withdraw that remark and to underscore the excellent work done by the official opposition's finance critic.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech, which contained a great deal of information and was very well thought out, written and delivered.

The Conservative member who spoke before him said that NDP members are always so negative, that we think there is absolutely nothing good about this budget, that we cannot find any good measures in it. From my perspective, and that of my constituents, this budget is very hard to support. It amends nearly 50 pieces of legislation, and unfortunately, we are under a gag order and will have only five committee meetings to examine this budget implementation bill. The Conservatives' way of doing things is extremely problematic.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this, as well as what his constituents think of these measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The Conservatives' approach, which consists of using omnibus bills to amend 50, 60 or even 70 acts, makes it impossible for us to single out any measures and give our consent for specific measures. Then, as we have seen over the past two years, we come back to the House for question period and the Conservatives keep saying that we voted against this or that measure. That is not true. I am confident that those watching us at home see what is really going on.

We did not vote against this or that measure. We voted against the fact that some measures, which taken individually could be beneficial, have been grouped with others to try to make us swallow a bitter pill with a spoonful of honey.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an important issue for many Canadians is assisting young people to not get involved in gangs. I know it is a huge issue in certain areas of our country, Winnipeg being one of them. What we are looking for is a government that uses a proactive approach by providing other opportunities to those individuals who are at high risk of getting involved in gang activities. We would like to see the government include in a budget document some strong, clear direction as to how it plans to deal with the issue of gangs.

Over the last number of years in Winnipeg, gang memberships have skyrocketed to well into the thousands from the low hundreds in the late nineties. This is an issue that continues to be of great concern. I wonder if the member would provide some comment with respect to the role of government allocating resources in order to fight crime by looking at some of the causes of crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Providing job opportunities is the most effective way to fight youth crime and all forms of criminal behaviour. It is a proven fact: when people are working and can pay their bills and save up some money, they are less likely to turn to illegal activities.

As for youth, indeed, employment integration measures targeting young people in particular are the best solution to the problem of crime and violent crime.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the first budget implementation act of 2013.

Economic action plan 2013 is an outstanding budget that responds to the needs of Canadians. It delivers on the priorities that matter to my constituents in Richmond Hill: jobs, a stable economy, low taxes, support for infrastructure, help for the most vulnerable, and investments in science and innovation to build the jobs of the future.

In my time allowed today I will highlight just a few of the ways in which economic action plan 2013 would benefit communities, families and job creators.

During my pre-budget consultations in Richmond Hill, I heard loud and clear from many constituents, local businesses, the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce and many others about how essential the gas tax fund has become. It is a source of predictable, stable, long-term funding to municipalities that helps build and revitalize public infrastructure while achieving positive environmental results. This Conservative government under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister doubled the gas tax fund in 2009. It was also this government that put legislation in place through economic action plan 2011 to make these funds permanent. This is not a small amount. The gas tax fund is a direct annual investment of $2 billion delivered directly to municipalities across our great country.

In my riding, the town of Richmond Hill, this important government initiative adds $5 million each and every year to its coffers. Since we doubled the fund in 2009 that means about $20 million has helped build essential infrastructure in the town of Richmond Hill. Let me give the House a few examples: $435,000 in gas tax funds provided the energy-efficient upgrades for our rehabilitated Bond Lake Arena in addition to federal recreational infrastructure contributions of $712,000, which allowed residents in Oak Ridges and the surrounding area to continue using this important community facility; $200,000 in gas tax funds was used to install a geothermal heating and cooling system at the Richmond Hill Theatre for the Performing Arts, saving thousands of dollars in operating costs; and $1.1 million in gas tax funds went toward the rehabilitation of the aging Pioneer Park stormwater facility. Approximately 700 hectares of land, including many new neighbourhoods, are now protected from erosion and flooding.

Millions of dollars have been used to support a collection of energy-efficient projects. These include: a solar heating and snow melting system at the Shaw House in Phyllis Rawlinson Park; a solar pool heating system at Bayview Hill Community Centre; a small wind turbine and solar electrical panels at Richmond Green Park, and the purchase of a fully electric vehicle.

Gas tax funds in Richmond Hill helped the community achieve the honour of being Ontario's first municipality to reach its corporate greenhouse gas reduction target.

Economic action plan 2013 goes even further by proposing to index gas tax funds at 2% per year. It also expands the list of eligible projects to include highways, short-line rail, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity activity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation.

Our government supports infrastructure renewal. It creates jobs and is the fundamental underpinning of healthy communities. I am proud that economic action plan 2013 includes the historic building Canada plan, the largest long-term federal commitment to infrastructure in our nation's history.

The plan allocates $53.5 billion over the next 10 years for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure.

In addition to the gas tax funds, building Canada includes a community improvement fund, which would provide $32 billion to municipalities, over and above what they now receive, for projects such as roads, public transit and recreational facilities.

A new building Canada fund would provide $14 billion to support major projects across the country, and $1.25 billion would support innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and at good value for Canadians through a renewed P3 Canada fund. An additional $6 billion would be provided to provinces, territories and municipalities under the current infrastructure programs in 2014, 2015 and beyond.

Our government is committed to helping Canadian manufacturers better compete in the global economy. That is why we have established the lowest tax burden on new business investment in the G7. Economic action plan 2013 would add to this. The temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for qualifying assets has been extended. Canadian manufacturers would receive an additional $1.4 billion in tax relief when investing in new machinery and equipment.

We are also supporting our manufacturers by modernizing Canada's general preferential tariff regime for developing countries. Since 1974, Canada has granted preferential market access to imports from developing countries as a way to help those countries develop and grow economically. However, after nearly 40 years, the global economic landscape has changed considerably. Significant economic advancement has been made by some of these developing countries. In response, last year our government undertook a comprehensive review of the preferential tariff regime, including a thorough public consultation.

Economic action plan 2013 acts on the results of these consultations and effective January 1, 2015, benefits would be removed from 72 higher income and export-competitive economies. We think it is time that certain nations that have done well in developing their economies over the years compete with Canadian manufacturers on a more even footing.

At the same time, effective on April 1 this year, $79 million in annual tariff relief on imported baby clothing and certain sports equipment was enacted. Consumers and families will see lower prices for these items.

Economic action plan 2013 supports the long-term competitiveness of industries in southern Ontario. It proposes almost $1 billion over five years to renew the Federal Economic Development Agency for southern Ontario. Let me give an example of how important this initiative is.

In my riding of Richmond Hill, FedDev Ontario helped diversify our industrial base with assistance to leading-edge technology companies. One such company was Qvella Corporation. That crucial injection of capital helped develop and bring to market that company's groundbreaking bacteria identification system. The result was a faster diagnosis of bacterial infections in patients and more high-quality jobs for Richmond Hill.

The renewal of FedDev Ontario will help many more entrepreneurial businesses like Qvella to create jobs and contribute to economic growth. I am very pleased to see its proposed renewal in economic action plan 2013.

I will close by saying that balancing the books is important to my constituents. Upon assuming office in 2006, our Conservative government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, undertook an aggressive plan to pay down the debt. We are working toward that, to balance the budget by 2015-16.

I encourage all members in this House to join me in supporting the swift passage of Bill C-60 as it will assist Canadian families immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. The problem is that he did not describe Canadians' economic reality.

At present, the number of unemployed is going up, the participation rate is going down and household debt is increasing. That is the reality.

If my colleague toured his riding, he would see that there are more unemployed workers today than in 2007. That is the problem. We are not talking about made-up figures. Canadians have been facing difficult economic conditions for a long time, since 2007.

The government continues to rely on the same old measures.

When will this government realize that these measures are not working? How does he explain the fact that there are so many unemployed people?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. member to put aside the talking points of the NDP and what he gets out of the office of the Leader of the Opposition and consider some of the facts. Our government has cut taxes for Canadians 150 times. That has put $3,200 each and every year in the pockets of Canadian families. We have reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have repeatedly brought measures in the House that assist Canadian families by providing more disposable funds available to them from their incomes.

I would urge the hon. member and members of his party to put those partisan political lines aside and to vote in favour of the implementation of this budget that would benefit their constituents as much as it would benefit my constituents and indeed all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the member for Richmond Hill a question, and it will not be partisan; it will be, in fact, facts. The fact of the matter is that in this budget there is a $550 million tax on small business. There is a $600 million payroll tax, and those taxes would be annual. However, the member talked about the reductions in the tariffs that would make hockey equipment and a few other items cheaper. He failed to mention the fact that the tariff changes on many products that come into this country would be changed to the extent that it would take $338 million out of ordinary Canadians' pockets. That comes right out of these pockets right here. They are empty now, and the Conservative government would be taxing middle-class Canadians even further. Why does he fail to mention that $338 million tax increase on those products, and how can he support this bill with this attack on the middle class?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his question, although I do not agree with the premise of his question. In my speech I made it abundantly clear that certain benefits to tariffs would be taken off; they were given to countries whose economies have grown, and they were initially put in place for those economies to be assisted in some way.

We are putting Canadian businesses on an equal footing with countries that want to export their products to Canada. What I hear every day in Richmond Hill from my constituents and from Canadians across the country is that they would like to see Canadian manufacturers and Canadian products be on an equal footing so that Canadians can benefit economically.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-60 today. I have a very difficult time supporting the bill for a wide variety of excellent reasons.

One of the things I have noted about the government, more so than any other government I have had the opportunity to serve in opposition to over the last 20-plus years, is that this government sees the value of political spin like no other. It has no hesitation whatsoever in using taxpayer dollars to get that spin out there. We see that with member after member on the government benches talking from the speaking notes of the Prime Minister's Office.

Listening to some of the speeches, I often wonder if it could have been a speech from the opposition benches, which could have been used against the government, especially when it starts to talk about being financially responsible, because this has not been a government that has been financially responsible with taxpayers' dollars. A good example of that, and tying into the spin, is the economic action plan. I would classify it as a dud, and I have had the opportunity to do that before. It just does not have the impact that the Government of Canada should have, given the millions and billions of dollars that are being spent.

If we were to canvas Canadians I think we would find that they are starting to get a little upset with the government and the amount of tax dollars it is spending promoting the budget. The number of commercials is unbelievable. Whether on NHL playoffs or whatever, the commercials are there. In print and on television, the government has a message and it wants to sell that message. It will not spare a dime of taxpayer dollars doing that. Whatever it takes, it is prepared to saturate with that message.

What I would like to do is just focus a little attention on the bigger picture, the reality of the Conservative-Reform government that Canadians have had to witness over the last number of years.

Let us look at many of the speeches in which the Conservatives talk about the banking industry. They love to assume the credit for the banking industry and how solid the Canadian banks are today. Not only do they crow inside the House; they do it outside the House and even internationally. The reality is that it was Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, as the minister of finance, who resisted the changes that were taking place around the world regarding deregulating the banking industry and allowing banks to merge and become even larger. It was the government during the 90s that ensured we have one of the best banking industry today, and many would argue that it is the best.

It had nothing to do with this Prime Minister. He cannot take any credit. One of his actions was that his government went ahead and increased mortgages from 25 years to 40 years. Of course, it flip-flopped on that one after it realized it had made a mistake. The Conservatives have not done anything really to solidify the banking industry.

Let us look at the credit that would be taken away from our credit unions. For many of these credit unions, which provide competition to our banks and provide excellent consumer services, particularly in our rural regions from coast to coast to coast, millions of dollars would be taken away in the form of tax credits and so forth. Those have gone a long way in the survival of our credit unions, allowing them to grow and provide that competition. In Winnipeg's north end, we have only had a credit union, and it has actually expanded. That has been the impact they have had on that particular industry.

If we talk about budget surpluses and deficits, historically, Conservatives have not done well in terms of having surplus budgets.

We know that for a fact. The reality with this particular government is that when it took office, it inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Before the recession even took place, it turned that surplus into a deficit situation. The Conservative government has presented a deficit ever since then.

The government knows that Canadians recognize that at times the books have to be balanced. What does the government say? It says that it is going to balance them in 2015-16. That is after the next federal election.

Why should we believe that? Why should Canadians believe that Conservatives even have the ability to balance the books when they have been such a disaster in terms of their predictions in dealing with balancing the books. They have failed miserably. They inherited this wonderful trade surplus, which brought in hundreds of millions of additional dollars to Canada and which created tens of thousands of jobs.

That surplus turned into a multi-billion deficit. That is the record of this particular Conservative-Reform government we have today.

Speaker after speaker likes to get up and talk about taxes. They like to give the impression that the Conservatives know how to give tax breaks. In the last three or four year, in the last three or four budgets that have been presented by the government, we have actually seen net tax increases, each one tens of millions of dollars.

This is not a government that is friendly to the taxpayer or, in particular, to the middle class of Canada. Some of the taxes that the Conservatives have put into place make us want to give our head a shake and wonder where the compassion is. We have raised these issues in question period.

Imagine now that people want to go to a hospital and visit someone. The government came up with an interesting tax; it is going to tax parking at the parkade or at the meters. We have a new parking tax that is being implemented by the government.

What about victims of crime who require certain medical tests that might be necessary or that would provide peace of mind, if in fact they were able to get the medical tests that they believe are necessary for them? We are talking about victims of crime. The government has found a new way of taxing those victims of crime, for mental services, as an example.

The Conservatives have well over 1,000 new tariff increases. The bottom line is that they can talk all they want; they can say that they are going to cut taxes or that their government believes in cutting taxes, but in reality that is just not true.

There have been net tax increases in the last four budgets. The middle class is being hit hard by the government. People who are 35 to 55, who have a quality job but find themselves unemployed for whatever reason, have to try to find employment, which is hard for this age group, especially if it comes to trying to get a job of some sort of equivalent pay to what they were receiving before. What in this budget allows those individuals to feel optimistic?

We can kind of get a sense of the mentality of the government towards labour by looking at the temporary foreign worker program, a program that traditionally has been exceptionally successful, under Liberal administrations, and that has derived many benefits for all residents of Canada. It illustrates the need and the way in which the government has made a mess of things.

I look forward to any potential questions.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member opposite's speech. I have a couple of questions for him, but first I have a comment.

The member mentioned victims' rights. Obviously, there has been no government in Canadian history that has supported victims as much. The member had a chance, through some legislation that passed through this House, to assist victims by doubling the victim surcharge. The member voted against it, and I would like him to explain his record on that.

Second, the member has said that there have been changes in parking lots adjacent to hospitals. I would like to know whether the member favours having these privately held parking lots receive a government or medical benefit. Is he saying that these private corporations should continue to receive that kind of subsidy?

The member also talked about deficits and the need to bring the deficit down. I agree. I would like to hear from this member what date he proposes, because every time we bring forward spending reductions to bring us back to balanced books, that member's party voices opposition to them. I would like to hear from the member opposite.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I will deal with visiting a sick relative in hospital.

Provinces are ultimately responsible for the administration of health care. They are responsible for everything, including parking lots. However, the Conservative government has found a way to generate more taxes by saying that if someone uses a parking lot, whether it is a provincial government parking lot or a private lot, it will be the middle-class consumer who will pay an additional tax.

That is just one example. If we add up all the tax increases, we will find that there is a net tax increase. When the Conservatives decrease a tax, they spend millions of public tax dollars on ads to promote the tax cuts. Obviously, they do not spend money to tell Canadians that they have increased taxes, and they have increased taxes more than they have cut taxes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you probably noticed the number of Conservative members who started to blush when the member for Winnipeg North spoke the truth about the surplus created by the former Liberal government before the current government took over. He spoke the truth about the former Liberal government refusing to reform or change our banking system, which the current Prime Minister demanded. Thank goodness we did not make those changes. You probably saw them blush when the member mentioned that the Conservatives are now trying to take credit for it. I hope you noticed that, Mr. Speaker. It is important.

I would like to hear from the member about the myth the government is propagating that if we do not increase tariffs, we will be flooded with foreign products and that we have to increase those tariffs, because countries like China no longer need protection. That might be the case if we were producing those products here in Canada, but we are not. Those products will still come in, but those prices will go up. I wonder if the member could speak about that fact.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a way of trying to create a situation to justify making some sort of policy announcement. The increase in tariffs are nothing more than a tax cash grab.

It is just like when the Government of Canada, in the last budget, said that it would increase the age of retirement. Canadians will no longer be able to retire at age 65; it will now be age 67. The Conservatives said that it was because we have a crisis and cannot afford it, even though the independent officers recognized that Canada was in an excellent financial position and could afford it. The Conservatives create an impression that is just wrong.

The government knows how to increase taxes in a hidden and cruel fashion that affects our middle class. They should reflect on the degree to which they are taking Canadians for hundreds of millions of new tax dollars in this fiscal year alone.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House today to speak to the budget implementation act. Since the depths of the recession in July 2009, our Conservative government has created 900,000 net new jobs, and this was due to our economic action plan. Economic action plan 2013 would build on this strong economic foundation by creating even more jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

Every year leading up to the budget, I undertake extensive pre-budget consultations with my constituents right across my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. This year, I received overwhelming feedback from my constituents that they want a budget focused on job creation, economic growth and a return to balanced budgets.

There is an old saying that if we want to know where people are going, we should look at where they have been. I believe that applies to governments as well, so let us take a look at where we have been.

Since 2006, we have cut taxes 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in over 50 years. We have cut taxes in every way governments collect them: personal income taxes, consumption taxes, business and corporate taxes, excise taxes and much more. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant savings for a typical family of four in 2013 of over $3,200.

Economic action plan 2013 would build on these tax reductions. Economic action plan 2013 would eliminate tariffs on baby clothing, sporting goods and athletic equipment. In total, this represents $76 million in savings for Canadian taxpayers.

Our government also introduced a new temporary first-time donor's super credit for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. It would encourage all young Canadians to follow in the footsteps of their fathers and mothers and donate to charity. To encourage charitable giving by new donors, this measure would provide an additional 25% tax credit for a first-time donor on up to $1,000 in monetary donations. I see this being a big hit in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, because it is already known as one of the most charitable ridings in Canada.

Our government will also improve benefits for Canadian veterans through changes to the war veterans allowance, which would result in over 3,100 veterans being eligible for this allowance for the very first time. In addition, an estimated 5,350 veterans and survivors would benefit from the change. The war veterans allowance program provides assistance to low-income veterans of the Second World War and the Korean War as well as their survivors. Eligibility for the program and the range of benefits provided depends, of course, on a recipient's income.

Under the terms of eligibility for the current program, a veteran's total calculated income includes the disability pension provided by Veterans Affairs Canada. To better assist veterans who have served their country, our government, as a result of proposed amendments to the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, will no longer take the disability pension into account when determining eligibility and in calculating the benefits provided under the war veterans allowance. Our veterans, especially veterans in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, will really appreciate this benefit.

Economic action plan 2013 would also support high-quality, value-added jobs in important sectors of the Canadian economy, such as manufacturing, through tax relief for new investment in manufacturing equipment. To support new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors, this measure would extend the temporary accelerated capital allowance rate for machinery and equipment acquired by a taxpayer, primarily for use in Canada, for the manufacturing or processing of goods for sale or lease. Extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for only two years would increase support for manufacturers by almost $1.4 billion and would create tens of thousands of jobs for hard-working Canadians.

Economic action plan 2013 would also provide better support for job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada by indexing the gas tax fund. That would be $32.2 billion over 10 years through gas tax fund payments and the incremental GST rebate for municipalities. It would provide stable and predictable funding to support community infrastructure projects that will improve the quality of life for all Canadian families.

We have six municipalities in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and all six mayors and councils are singing our praises for the gas tax fund and for indexing it and making it permanent. I have a couple of mayors of the Liberal persuasion, and even they are singing our praises. That shows how popular this is.

As members know, our seniors built this wonderful country we call Canada. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Our government is committed to helping ensure that Canadian seniors receive the compassionate care they need and deserve. The Pallium Foundation of Canada works to improve the quality of palliative end-of-life care for Canadians by creating educational resources for primary care professionals. Economic action plan 2013 proposes funding of $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers. This investment would build on the funding provided in budget 2011 being used to support the initiative called the way forward: moving toward community-integrated hospital palliative care in Canada, which aims to help develop new community-integrated palliative care models right across Canada.

Economic action plan 2013 would also reform the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs. To strengthen and improve the temporary foreign worker program, the government is introducing legislation and regulatory and administrative changes that would be effective immediately. They would temporarily suspend the accelerated labour market opinion process; would seek to increase the government's authority to suspend and revoke work permits and labour market opinions if the program was misused; would seek to introduce fees for employers for processing labour market opinions; and would increase the fees for work permits so that taxpayers would no longer be subsidizing the cost. These changes would strengthen and improve the temporary foreign worker program to support our economic recovery and growth and would ensure that more employers hire Canadians before hiring temporary foreign workers.

As members can see, we are building on our successes of the past seven years to make Canada an even better place to live, work and play. Is it not a shame that the two opposition parties will not join in this wonderful, great success story? We are going to do all this, and we are going to eliminate the deficit. What a Minister of Finance we have, and we cannot get the support of the people across the way to encourage this finance minister to slay this deficit. I cannot for the life of me understand why our worthy colleagues on the opposite side of the House will not join us and celebrate this wonderful economic action plan 2013.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The five minutes of questions and comments for this hon. member will take place following question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste precious time, so I will begin speaking about Bill C-60.

The measures set out in Bill C-60 concerning the CBC could not have come with more ironic timing. Last Friday was World Press Freedom Day.

Throughout the world, May 3 serves as a reminder of the important role a pluralistic, free, independent press plays in a democracy. However, this year also marked Canada's drop in the world press freedom index rankings. Last year, Reporters Without Borders, a respected organization, ranked us 10th. This year, Canada is ranked 20th, behind Costa Rica, Namibia, Andorra and Liechtenstein. We fell 10 spots in one year.

Reporters Without Borders mentions a number of factors to explain this astonishing drop. It noted the Government of Canada's actions, specifically the threats to the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. Take note, members opposite.

The government finds itself in a serious and surprising situation. This is another brick in the wall of shame that is actively being built here in Ottawa. Our international reputation is all but destroyed. Do I need to point that out? Moreover, the government is steadily attacking the CBC day after day, which is only making matters worse.

Those attacks continue with Bill C-60, which allows the government to have a say in employees' working conditions and certain journalists' salaries. That is a shocking infringement on the public broadcaster's independence. It is clear that Bill C-60 challenges the CBC's independence, particularly its journalistic and editorial independence.

Canadians across the country have been writing to us—to me and my colleagues—for days to express their dismay and anger over the government's attempt to hijack management of the CBC. The CBC has been at arm's length from the government for nearly 80 years; it is a democratic tradition.

Liberal and Conservative prime ministers have done what they had to do throughout that time; that is, a number of governments from both parties have taken the opportunity to cut the CBC’s budget, but they all have chosen to respect the independence of the public broadcaster. Governments come and go, but they do not meddle with the independence of the CBC.

Today, it is clear that it is not very difficult to tear that down. It takes an insidious bill, a bill like this one, that gives the government the right to impose collective agreements, to decide the terms of employment for non-unionized employees and the salaries of journalists, bureau chiefs and news anchors.

To date, every government had restrained itself and chosen to respect a broadcaster funded by taxpayers, yes, but accountable not to the government, but directly to the public. It is that very restraint that characterizes the conduct of democratic governments toward the public broadcasters they fund.

Over the last few days, hundreds of Canadians have written to me as heritage critic for the official opposition and to my colleagues. I am sure that members in the government benches across the floor have also received a lot of emails about this. Canadians are angry about this attempt to threaten the independence of the CBC. Canadians are angry about the government's attempt to end 80 years of independent public broadcasting in this country, free from interference from the government.

I have the feeling that people are frankly outraged that the government would dare to meddle with what is actually a democratic tradition in Canada: the healthy distance between government and public broadcaster.

It is that distance that means that a CBC journalist can report that $3.1 billion simply disappeared from the government’s books and still know that his employer will not be asking him to tone it down in the next report because the minister is twisting its arm. It is that distance that means that a news anchor can decide that such information deserves to be given to Canadians, without having to worry that the government thus tarnished might decide to interfere in his next employment contract.

We see that the government wants to apply the same medicine to other cultural crown corporations like the National Arts Centre, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts. The cultural community is speaking out against this. The Independent Media Arts Alliance, in particular, has denounced the threat to the statutory independence of the Canada Council for the Arts. In a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the alliance states that doing this is harmful to the spirit and principle of a crown corporation.

I note that these principles of independence are laid out by the Canada Council for the Arts. In its fundamental values, it states that it maintains “an arm’s length relationship from government, which allows the Council to develop policies and programs and make decisions without undue political pressure or influence”.

The Canada Council also supports “freedom of artistic expression from control or dominance by external forces such as governments and markets”, a value to be reinforced by the arm’s length relationship.

We know that these measures will have a negative effect on the delivery of the services provided by these cultural agencies and their ability to attract personnel.

Obviously, the Conservatives’ goal is to diminish the independence of these public institutions, which play important roles for creators in particular. The Conservatives seem to be exhibiting a complete lack of interest in the very concept of an independent crown corporation: the space there has to be between government, politics and crown corporations.

The leader of our party, my colleague from Outremont, summarized the problem well yesterday afternoon. When it comes to advancing its ideological agenda, the government is not the least bit bothered about interfering with independent crown corporations. For example, it tells them how to manage their employees, how to administer collective agreements, what salaries are appropriate and how many pencil sharpeners and paper clips they should buy.

However, when a problem arises in those crown corporations, the government waves the white flag and says it has nothing to do with them. When a crown corporation makes a mistake or its managers do something wrong, all of a sudden the government cannot do anything. They are independent crown corporations. That is very handy. Suddenly, the statutory independence and arm’s length status of crown corporations is back in fashion, according to the government.

But it gets worse. As members undoubtedly know, Library and Archives Canada is our national archives. It is an institution that is the guardian of our most precious historical documents and even a few artifacts from the War of 1812—for the pleasure of Library and Archives Canada. However, things are not going well over there. In the opinion of the archivists, librarians, archaeologists, historians and numerous professions that have previously been represented at Library and Archives Canada, things are even going very badly.

Acquisitions of historical documents have virtually come to a halt. There has been a full stop in document lending to other libraries, researchers and historians not based in the national capital.

Let us talk about this code of conduct imposed on the employees, professionals, experts and scientists at Library and Archives Canada, prohibiting them from attending conferences without authorization, one of several faux pas—including the one we talked about earlier—of a public institution out of control.

When we went to see the Minister of Heritage, who incidentally seemed embarrassed, and we asked him whether he was going to intervene and whether he thought, as we did, that all this was going too far, he dared answer us that Library and Archives Canada is an independent crown corporation. That is what he said in the House and subsequently in Le Devoir.

Once again, if a problem arises that makes them uncomfortable, they quickly hit the panic button and say it is not their fault.

In this case, however, the minister is on the wrong track because Library and Archives Canada is not at all an independent crown corporation. Not at all. According to its mandate, it is part of the federal government under the administration of the Minister of Heritage. There is nothing less independent than that, unless the minister himself fills the coffee machine.

It seems difficult for this government to grasp the concepts of crown corporation, independence from government, arm's length and independence. They seem subtle. These crown corporations are independent. This is not complicated. For better or for worse, whether or not it pleases the government, they are constituted as entities independent of the government, in the public interest, because they must have some distance from political power.

As for the government, the Conservative Party may make a show of many principles, but I would like it to show a little consistency. Are crown corporations independent or not? They will have to make a choice.

In conclusion, apart from this budget that hurts the Canadian economy, apart from these same old solutions, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown, these same old austerity measures that will slow growth and cost thousands of jobs, apart from this economic shambles and lack of vision, hundreds of people have written to us because they are concerned about the independence of their public broadcaster, the CBC.

Ian Morrison, the spokesman for Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, recalled that the difference between a public broadcaster and a state broadcaster lies in its distance from the government.

In addition, tens of thousands of signatories to petitions, including that of friends.ca, have reaffirmed their support for the independence of the CBC.

CBC management clearly questions the relevance of this government initiative. It states that its employees are neither public servants nor servants of Her Majesty, and it says it needs flexibility so that it can attract the necessary talent.

CBC unions have denounced the attack on free collective bargaining and the fact that the government is taking control, violating the Telecommunications Act and giving itself the right to intervene in the CBC's production operations, finances and day-to-day business.

Like many other crown corporations, in particular cultural ones, the CBC must remain free of political interference. Public broadcasting, by its very nature, means that the broadcaster represents and speaks on behalf of our culture, not the government.

I join the legions of Canadians who are opposed to this attempt to undermine the independence of public broadcasting in this country, and I urge the government to abandon this measure.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, who does an excellent job as official opposition heritage critic.

I would like to hear him talk more about independence, about the freedom of expression that CBC/Radio-Canada has always had and that is the basis for art, culture and artistic expression in all its forms, not only in Canada, but in all democratic countries. It is so important that it is even reflected in administration. Interference is unacceptable, especially when it has to do with a corporation that represents the interests of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to hear my colleague talk more about how important it is for an organization like the CBC to be independent.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for being so passionate about identity issues.

He is correct. The CBC is definitely the most objective source of information for all Canadians. Unfortunately, that is what is in jeopardy here. The CBC is a crown corporation, and it objectively reports the news about different trends in the country every night. Unfortunately, that is currently in jeopardy. It cannot work any other way.

For example, if a journalist talks about an EI protest in the Magdalen Islands, he will find out the hard way that he should not have done so when the time comes to negotiate his contract with the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to recognize that one of the greatest expenditures we have here in Canada, especially being administered by the different provinces, is the cost of health care.

I have had numerous cards sent to me by my constituents. The message they want me to convey directly to the Prime Minister is that the federal government needs to play a stronger role when it comes to financing health care and maintaining health care standards. That is what my constituents are telling me.

When we think of the health care accord, which expires in 2014, it is absolutely critical that we have negotiations for a new health care accord if, in fact, we want to deliver the type of health care Canadians expect to see.

My question to the member is this. Does he believe that the Prime Minister is not doing his job by not meeting with the first ministers and being able to come up with the new health care accord, because of the long-term implications on federal budgets going forward?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the NDP do not always agree, but I should acknowledge here that my colleague has touched on a very specific and apt point: the Prime Minister and his government have no interest in the provinces and do not want to consult them.

The Conservatives obviously believe they have all the answers regarding what should be done and what is realistic and pragmatic. As with most of the files we have been dealing with for the past few months, if not two years now, the government will impose a very narrow vision that sidesteps any consultation of the provincial premiers.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague is following my meeting last night with many people of the ethno-culturally diverse press as they were celebrating the 20th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day.

We learned that in the budget there are cuts after cuts, of course, but also that the government wants to control crown corporations like the CBC, which is the public broadcaster. It needs to maintain its independence in order for the press to have that freedom.

I would like my colleague to comment a little bit further, if he can, about the importance of the freedom of our press.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a warm thank you to my colleague for her welcome at the start of my speech. I must say that she is very tolerant, because she was quite hidden behind a barricade.

Her question is entirely in keeping with her conscientiousness and her meeting, yesterday, with people who were concerned about journalistic freedom of expression. It is crucial.

All journalists have the right to hope for access to an objective desk and to tell stories that reflect reality as they perceive it in their work. It is extremely important and worrisome to see that it is not just on environmental issues that we look like dunces on the international scene; we look bad on this issue, too.

The bills that have been introduced recently, including Bill C-461, clearly stem from a narrow-minded vision, a relentless attack on a corporation—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I have to stop the hon. member there and give the floor to the hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 228 to 232 related to the Financial Administration Act and collective bargaining between crown corporations and their employees, be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

We are proposing this motion because we believe that this section of the omnibus Bill C-60 is extremely important and complex and that it must be studied carefully as a separate bill.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is no unanimous consent.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking in the House of Commons in support of economic action plan 2013. This piece of legislation is an integral part of continuing Canada's economic success.

Economic action plan 2013 would implement constructive job growth measures. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

...this is a good budget for small business. ...[the Minister of Finance] has done a solid job by remaining on course to eliminate the deficit while announcing some important measures for Canada's entrepreneurs.

This is something extremely important to the entrepreneurs in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal said:

We welcome the government's commitment to maintain focus on a balanced budget in 2015-2016 without increasing the tax burden, while putting in place a new plan for our infrastructure and proposing measures to support innovation, research and collaboration between companies and academic institutions.

I would like to remind my colleagues that strengthening Canada's economic and fiscal well-being has been a top priority of our government for the last seven years. With an uncertain global economy, we remain focused on ensuring Canada offers the right environment to attract the business investment necessary to create more and better-paying jobs, improving the standard of living of all Canadians. We do that knowing that we already have a strong economic record, one that Canadians can look to and trust as we once again face economic headwinds emanating from abroad.

Contrary to what the official opposition may believe, our economic policies to date, epitomized through Canada’s economic action plan, have worked and placed Canada on the right track.

Margaret Thatcher once said, “Plan your work for today and every day, then work your plan.” Our government's plan has provided Canada with competitive advantage for today, an advantage on which we will capitalize to ensure prosperity for tomorrow.

The facts speak for themselves. Since taking office in 2006, our government has pursued a positive agenda to make Canada's economy stronger, thus helping to create better, high-quality jobs. This has included lowering taxes over 150 times, supporting entrepreneurs and opening more markets to Canadian goods with increased trade deals.

Canada has more than recovered all of its output as well as all of the jobs lost during the recession. In fact, since July 2009, employment has increased by almost 900,000 net new jobs, the strongest job growth among the G7 countries over the recovery. Real GDP is now significantly above pre-recession levels, showing the best performance in the G7.

While it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic strengths, we also know we cannot afford to be complacent. Today's advantages will not carry forward into tomorrow simply by good luck or good intentions. This is especially true in an all too volatile global economy. Though coming from beyond our borders, a number of external threats have had, and can have, severe consequences on the Canadian economy. Members can rest assured that the government is cognizant of these challenges and will remain focused and disciplined on the things that we can control. That is why economic action plan 2013 sets out a low-tax plan to eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets by 2015-16.

Economic action plan 2013 sets out a plan that I know my riding of Simcoe—Grey would benefit from this year and for years to come. Let me highlight some of its key components.

Canadians count on good, reliable, lasting infrastructure. It is important to our quality of life and strengthens our communities. That is why our government launched the building Canada plan in 2007, the largest federal infrastructure plan in our nation's history. In fact, over the last six years the federal government has supported over 43,000 infrastructure projects across the country, and this year we are going even further. We will be moving forward with a new building Canada plan.

One key component of that plan is an indexed gas tax fund payment. The economic action plan would allow for increases to the payments made under the fund starting in 2014-15. Payments are currently $2 billion per year; this index would see the sum increase by $100 million increments year over year. In Simcoe—Grey, municipalities would benefit immensely from this, with upgraded roads, bridges and rail.

As mentioned, this is only one component of our government’s plan to provide over $70 billion in predictable infrastructure funding for the next 10 years—the largest and longest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history.

The reality is that whether it is building better roads to reduce congestion and keep people and goods moving or building bridges that link us to each other, infrastructure is key to our nation's success.

The economy and job creation remain job number one for our Conservative government. While Canada is on the right track, today there are Canadians seeking work while Canadian businesses are looking to hire skilled workers. The Canada job grant, which is part of economic action plan 2013, is our government's newest measure to bring employers and Canadians together. Through the Canada job grant, funds from the federal government would be matched by both provinces and territories as well as employers to help ensure that Canadians get the skills required for the high-demand jobs of today.

This initiative would allow both small and large companies, such as Honda in Alliston, Munro in Essa, Creemore Springs in Creemore, Sheldon Creek Dairy in Loretto, and Hamilton Bros. in Glen Huron, to ensure that their employees have the skills they need to succeed. A shortage of skilled tradespeople could hold Canada's economy back.

With a demand for skilled workers to maintain economic growth and with Canadians still looking for work across the country, this is a priority for our Conservative government. It is taking action to help ensure that Canadians are connected to jobs and the economy so that we have the skilled tradespeople we require for economic growth and long-term prosperity.

As members know, there have been growing concerns regarding decreased water levels in the Canadian Great Lakes, in particular in my riding of Simcoe—Grey with Georgian Bay, which is bordered by the towns of Blue Mountain, Collingwood and Wasaga Beach.

The Great Lakes are not only the natural pride and joy of our local residents but are implicitly tied to the housing and property markets in the region and are important drivers of the local tourism economy in Simcoe—Grey.

Economic action plan 2013 would aid in sustaining our Great Lakes by reviewing the findings of a study requested by the International Joint Commission. Our government is working diligently to review the findings and recommendations of the International Joint Commission's work on water levels to make sure that the upper Great Lakes are a focus and have been a focus of this government so that all Canadians can enjoy this region of the country for years to come.

Farm families are also the backbone of our country, as they are in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, whether potato growers or apple growers. This is why our Conservative government has delivered support to farmers and the agricultural sector since 2006. We have invested in Growing Forward 2, which supports innovation, competitiveness and market development for Canada's agriculture sector.

As part of economic action plan 2013, we are delivering on a number of new measures to support Canadian farmers, including increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000, thus making it easier for farmers to plan for their retirement and transfer their family farms to the next generation, which is something I hear about every day in my riding.

We are also helping part-time farmers by doubling the current deduction limit under the restricted farm loss income tax rates from $9,750 to $17,000.

This government is committed to supporting and recognizing veterans. The government is proud to honour the dedication and sacrifice of those Canadians who served our country in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War.

Economic action plan 2013 confirms that total investments of $1.9 billion over seven years would be made to ensure that disabled, ill and aging veterans and their families would receive the support they need. This is something I have heard about at significant length because CFB Borden is a sizable base in my riding where we train hundreds upon hundreds of Canadians to make sure our military is strong.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes to simplify the funeral and burial program and more than double its reimbursement rate from $3,600 to $7,376.

I strongly believe that all of the initiatives I have highlighted today will greatly benefit the people of Canada, by creating a higher standard of living for Canadians today and a more prosperous nation that will continue to be a world leader tomorrow.

Winston Churchill once said that he was easily satisfied with the very best, and I take those words to heart.

The government and I both aim to deliver the very best to Canadians and to the people in Simcoe—Grey. Thus, I ask the members of this House to support the swift passage of this bill and to facilitate the implementation of Canada's economic action plan 2013, a bill that I know would provide the very best in economic opportunities to my constituents in Simcoe—Grey and to Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60, the one we are currently studying, will alone amend about 50 acts. Just one vote will be held in the House to pass an array of measures.

I am interested in one in particular, and I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question about the Investment Canada Act.

The bill provides that businesses controlled by WTO investors will see the level of investment in Canada increase to $1 billion in three years before a review is conducted by the Minister of Industry. The bill also provides that foreign state-owned enterprises, such as Chinese companies, will not have access to this higher level.

However, that contradicts the foreign investment protection agreements, including the Canada-China agreement, which state that any enterprise, including state-owned enterprises that have a foothold, will have the same rights as Canadian enterprises.

Why is the government moving toward an amendment to the Investment Canada Act that goes against international trade agreements it wants to sign?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. Our government is very focused on making sure that we have a broad and focused trade agenda and also that investments in Canada benefit Canadians. We have been clear on supporting free trade and moving forward on making sure that free trade opportunities exist for Canadians. The NDP and particularly the NDP leader think that the best way to deal with this is by trashing Canadians abroad; we are very focused on growing our trade agenda to make sure that individuals will invest in Canada and that Canadians feel comfortable investing abroad.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I were a constituent of my hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey, I would not be satisfied with her remarks about the International Joint Commission's study on the low water levels in the upper Great Lakes. They were rather vague.

If I were her constituent, I would be insisting that the government do a serious economic study to find out the economic impact of low water levels, because that would tell us how much money we are willing to invest in a solution to manage the water levels in all of the Great Lakes, water levels that are affecting my constituents on the shores of Lake Ontario as well.

Is the government willing to commit to a serious economic study of the dollar impact of low water levels on the upper Great Lakes and, indeed, the entire Great Lakes economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, it is of significant concern, and because of that significant concern, this government has acted, unlike the Liberals.

Over a whole series of years, we have seen decreased water levels, and the Liberals never acted. They never commented on this file, never even understood what was going on. Members here were involved, whether it was the member for Simcoe North, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound or myself. We have taken action.

We are focused on this issue. Our government is focused on this file, and we are going to do great work to make sure it gets resolved.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to New Democrats opposite talk about economic policy, their economic policy can be summed up in one word: spend. That is all they propose: spend, spend, spend. Not only that, they want to create an economic climate that will not create the wealth to generate any government revenues.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this question: does she think that a country can spend itself rich?

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has been focused on tax reduction. We have reduced taxes over the course of this government over 150 times. Canadians now have over $3,200 more in their pockets than they had prior to a Conservative government. That is very different from the approach of the NDP and very different from the approach of the Liberals when they were in government. Taxes were either increased, in the case of the Liberals, or would be increased, in the case of the NDP. We are focused on a low-tax plan to make sure Canadians can have good Canadian jobs as well as long-term prosperity.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Budgets are about choices. They are also about influence. The Conservatives have made their choices and they have made them on the basis of their ideology and on those lobbyists who are closest to the PMO. Let us be clear: those lobbyists are the largest and wealthiest corporations and CEOs of this country.

I will admit their ideology rests on a theory, a theory much flaunted by them, that of the Chicago School of Business, that of Friedman and Hayek, what has been called anarcho-capitalism. These academics created a vision for a utopian capitalist society where the role of the state was limited to ensuring the protection of its citizens. The reality is that most of the members in leadership positions on that side do not really believe in the Canadian state. They want to minimize its democratic influence on the economy, and that means austerity wherever it can be had. Do not get me wrong: the Prime Minister and his lieutenants are incrementalists to their own admission, so they are in it for the long haul, knowing that they are confronted with the fact that the vast majority of Canadians in their heart of hearts fundamentally disagree with their dog-eat-dog philosophy. Why do we think they want to rewrite history and get involved in imposing curricula on schools? It is because they want to shape the minds of future generations to their vision.

But as incrementalists, we cannot expect them to be obvious about it. Their excuse for imposing austerity on Canadians is always based on their ideological buzzwords: jobs, growth and prosperity. The common sense revolution all over again. Well the reality is that their approach makes no sense at all for creating jobs, growth and prosperity. Let us consider the facts.

Despite having chosen the path of austerity, Europe, the U.S. and the Canadian economy are not getting any better and the world economic crisis, despite a few good weeks here and there, is nowhere close to the long-term sustainable recovery and strength we have seen in the past. The Conservatives have had to contort themselves to make any sense out of this and how their pie in the sky ideology is not working. That is because their heads are trapped in a utopian, capitalist, ideological cloud. The reality is that ever since a modern free market has existed, there has always been state intervention, and in most cases it has been positive.

The Conservative approach is also based on another myth, a sacred cow so to speak, that somehow corporations invest the savings from tax cuts back into their operations, thus creating jobs, expanding the economy, and generating even bigger revenues for governments. From this perspective, governments should keep slashing corporate taxes, presumably right down to zero. If the tax cuts of recent years continue, that state of nirvana will be reached in 20 years. This is their belief and it is a belief empty of facts. In fact, the worst financial years have always been under conservative governments. Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980s, Bush and now the present Prime Minister are examples of how extreme conservative economic policies lead to greater crises in the economy, not less.

I am exaggerating right, because I am a social democrat? Well, in 2000, the combined federal-provincial tax rate was just over 42%. A decade later this figure has fallen to 28%. The Conservative government would cut it to 25% by fiscal 2013. Members can do the math.

The problem that members might be wondering about is that Conservatives have forgotten about something very simple: globalization. What the other benches do not understand is that there is no guarantee in a global market that corporations will reinvest in jobs in countries to which they have no loyalty. Members should not take it from me, here is what The Globe and Mail had to say about it:

Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses....But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade. At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83 billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

However, what big corporations seem to be doing quite well is investing in themselves and in their salaries. The rate paid for a CEO is up at least 100% since the recession. Saved tax dollars are going into bigger salaries, not helping the economy or suffering Canadians.

Also large corporations are now more likely to hide this money than use it. The Globe and Mail reported that, “Investment in equipment and machinery has fallen to 5.5 per cent in 2010 as a share of Canada's total economic output from 6.8 per cent in 2005 and 7.7 per cent in 2000.”

Buying machinery is a good thing, and expanding one's business means stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Now all of this is not to talk about the human cost, which is to drive up the rate of exploitation of the workforce. Their main tactic is to increase the proportion of profit and salary while simultaneously taking advantage of hard economic times to reduce labour costs, and we wonder why they want Canadians to be paid as little as foreign workers. Temporary foreign workers should not be making a substandard wage in the first place. Not surprisingly, the average level of unemployment among Canadian workers rose dramatically during these Conservative government golden years.

In other words, tax breaks and handouts have failed to live up to the predictions of Conservative economists and politicians. The gap between the rich and the working class is at record levels. Over 1.5 million Canadians remain unemployed, and that is just according to understated official figures.

Funding for social programs, health and education is clearly not a priority, and corporate CEOs and shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.

Another study released on April 6 by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives shows that, “After a decade of corporate tax cuts, the benefits to Canada’s largest corporations are clear but the job creation payoff for Canadians hasn’t materialized.” The study tracked 198 companies on the S&P/TSX composite index from 2000 to 2009. Those 198 companies are making 50% more profit and paying 20% less tax than they did a decade ago, but in terms of job creation, “they did not keep up with the average growth of employment in the economy as a whole. From 2005 to 2010, the number of employed Canadians rose 6% while the number of jobs created by the companies in this study grew by only 5%.”

We on the benches on this side of the House have a different approach, a more balanced one, which takes into consideration the needs of small and medium-sized businesses that, contrary to the lobbyists in the PMO's office, actually create the majority of jobs in this country.

No, we have a different approach, which balances the needs of small and medium-sized businesses with those of average Canadian families of the middle class and the working class.

Bill C-60 does not address Canadians' real concerns. Instead of adopting meaningful measures to create jobs, the Conservatives are imposing austerity measures that will stifle economic growth. Furthermore, the Conservatives' omnibus budget flouts Canadian democracy. It is an underhanded attack on this country's workers.

Bill C-60 makes changes that allow the government to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board in order to enter into a collective agreement with a union. These amendments affect 49 crown corporations and hundreds of employees. Under the provisions of Bill C-60, if the government directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board, then the Treasury Board can impose whatever it wants in terms of the crown corporation's employees' working conditions. Furthermore, no crown corporation receiving such a government order will be able to reach a collective agreement without Treasury Board approval.

This government and its ministers, in an effort to rid themselves of any responsibility, have repeated over and over that crown corporations operate at arm's length from the government. However, the changes in Bill C-60 violate the fundamental principle of the operational independence of crown corporations.

The changes proposed in Bill C-60 constitute an attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada.

We must oppose this budget, and as official opposition Treasury Board critic, that is what I am doing. That is my duty.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech because it clearly exposes the NDP for what it is. NDP members may have tried to expunge the word “socialism” from their constitution, but it is quite obvious that socialism, an incredibly failed experiment, is alive and well on the other side of the House.

His trash-talking of Canadian corporations that generate wealth, profit and funding for this country is simply disgraceful. Given that he hates corporations, and given that many union pension funds are full of Canadian corporate stocks that fund the retirement of workers, would he recommend to his union friends that they sell all of their corporate stock?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight. I do not hate corporations. What I do not like is when corporations do not pay their taxes and when the Conservative government only gives tax breaks to the wealthiest of our country. That is what I am against. If a corporation is a responsible social actor in our society, it clearly has a place.

Also, the member forgot to listen to that part of my speech where I talked about promoting small and medium-sized businesses. The member would know that the Conservatives have cut tons of taxes for large corporations in comparison to cutting them for small and medium-sized businesses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I never hear the government talk about is those individuals who find themselves unemployed after working for a number of years. Thousands of jobs have been lost in our manufacturing industry over the last few years. Quite often, it is the core of the middle class who are leaving a job that has a decent salary and trying to get employment again at that same salary rate, but it is becoming more and more difficult.

Would the member comment regarding this issue not being debated enough inside the House?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I completely agree with him, which does not always happen with this particular member. However, in this case, I think we are fully in agreement.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has a very unbalanced approach with regard to promoting business in various sectors in this country. If we look at the amount of time that has been spent boosting up certain parts of our economy versus others, it is clear that the manufacturing industry in our country has been ignored for too long.

We need to do something about stimulating growth, and the wholesale giving of our jobs to either Chinese companies or others is just not the right approach.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned SMEs, which are the economic backbone of many regions in Canada. They are very important to regional economic activity and growth from coast to coast to coast.

He explained how important it is to keep them afloat and provide them with an economic environment that enables them to thrive. If the government violates their rights and does not allow these businesses to grow, how will we encourage new people to get involved in agriculture or culture?

Could my colleague speak more to the importance of SMEs in Canada?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He is absolutely right.

For example, in my riding of Pontiac, the vast majority of job creators are small and medium-sized businesses, especially those involved in tourism and in small boutiques in the towns.

Small and medium-sized business owners are having a hard time, and the big business model will not help them. They need a tailor-made approach. The government must take their needs into consideration and act responsibly.

It is unfortunate that this budget does not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we live in an extraordinary time. Canadians are consistently expressing gratitude for our economic blessings. Again and again, we hear evidence why our economy, under our Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, and this Conservative government, is truly the toast of the world. The evidence is clear: over 900,000 net new jobs since July 2009; the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the western world; and an investment climate which Forbes magazine calls number one in the world.

My purpose in rising today is to highlight aspects of the environment which are integral to our economic success and which figure prominently in budget 2013. I hope by the end of this debate that my colleagues will share with me the notion that the environment is the economy; a notion that goes beyond the more traditional paradigm that suggests the economy and the environment must be in balance.

I am delighted to work in a House where we have a Minister of the Environment who has worked relentlessly on improving climate change, both domestically and internationally. He has done a sector-by-sector effect of GHG assessment, recorded great accomplishments in responsible resource development, and with his predecessors has increased our parkland by over 50%. These are amazing accomplishments.

Every time we consider whether environmental and economic factors are in balance, we are suggesting that the environment and the economy are in conflict with one another. Another way to articulate this supposed polarity is that the one must make sacrifice for the other to advance. In other words, we tend wrongly to start our discussion from the notion that the economy and the environment are at war with one another.

In encouraging Canadians to rethink the economy and the environment, let us have a look at the importance of this discussion. The organization ECO Canada, a foundation which was founded in 1992 and is the country's largest online resource for environmental jobs, training and recruitment, says that some 682,000 jobs in Canada are directly related to the environment; that is, the people in those jobs spend 50% or more of their work time relating to the environment. That is a staggering number.

Today I would like to point to our budget to reset the discussion around the notion that the environment is the economy. As we perhaps discuss the quality of life of Canadians, instead of how the economy and the environment are struggling against one another, our budget in its genius brings out many ways in which this government views our economy and our environment to be interrelated and coexisting.

Starting with this, let us call it a fresh view of the interrelated environment and economy, how can we continue with policies of economic growth? How must our processes be designed to evaluate infrastructure projects that might facilitate responsible resource extraction?

Constituents of mine, as individuals and in groups, have consistently expressed their support for Canada's economic success but have also stood for responsible environmental practices befitting of a riding which many call the most beautiful place on earth. Some of these proud Canadians include David Bromley, a world-renowned environmental engineer; the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable coordinator Dave Brown; Carl Halvorson of the North Vancouver Outdoor School, based in Squamish; and Squamish First Nation Elder, Randall Lewis. Other groups and individuals who have articulated to me clearly the priority they put on fisheries habitat issues include the West Vancouver Streamkeeper group, including leaders such as John Barker and Mike Akerly, the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and the Future of Howe Sound Society.

What is in this budget for fisheries? In the past and current sessions of this Parliament, ministers of fisheries and of the environment have visited our riding and have heard directly from stakeholders, such as those of whom I just spoke. They have heard loud and clear about the importance of protecting fish habitat.

I am, therefore, especially proud to highlight two provisions in this budget which would respond directly to concerns such as those raised by these constituents.

First, Ottawa would contribute $10 million over two years, across Canada, for partnerships with local groups on fisheries and habitat conservation measures. That is something that my colleagues and members right around this House ought to be rejoicing about. There is a direct relationship between this budget and the millions of Canadian volunteers, anglers and recreational fishers who would benefit from this excellent measure.

Second, the Vancouver-based Pacific Salmon Foundation would see its funding increase from about $300,000 a year to $1 million a year as a result of changes in how the government would allocate revenue from the sale of conservation stamps that fishermen would have to purchase when they acquire licences. The Pacific Salmon Foundation is one of the best organizations in Canada in terms of galvanizing volunteers and leveraging government funds many times over, so I am delighted that this foundation has made its voice heard in such an effective way.

Let us look at conservation and biodiversity. John Fraser is in Ottawa today. He is a former minister of fisheries and of the environment. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he is a former Speaker of the House, whose 1991 decision influenced your recent decision concerning members' statements in the House. Mr. Fraser is one of many Conservatives who have created a strong environmental legacy. Among other things, he assisted former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in creating the acid rain treaty with the Americans to clean up our Great Lakes, and he contributed to the founding of a national park in what we now know as Haida Gwaii. Therefore, with the distinguished Mr. Fraser on Parliament Hill today, it is especially meaningful to refer to the remarkable record of this government regarding conservation and biodiversity.

Environment Canada's collaboration with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and other organizations has resulted in the protection of more than 354,000 hectares, including habitat for 146 species at risk. Our investments include $10 million to safeguard the Flathead River Valley in British Columbia. Since 2006, the Government of Canada has added 148,754 square kilometres to Parks Canada's network of protected areas, which is a tremendous accomplishment for this Minister of the Environment and his predecessors. As a result, we have increased the total land and water that comes under our stewardship by more than half. The government's investment of $143 million over 10 years to create Canada's first national urban park in the Rouge Valley of Toronto is a fine example of action. John Fraser will be happy to hear that we are carrying on his great environmental legacy.

What would be in the budget for the environment generally? Well, environmental concerns in B.C. would focus heavily on tanker safety, and Canada is a world-class regulator with an almost unblemished record of tanker safety on the west coast. The Government of Canada would take further action to ensure it continues this world-class tanker safety system for shipping oil and liquefied natural gas safely through Canada's waterways before any major new energy export facilities become operational. New measures would strengthen Canada's current system, including increased tanker inspections, new and modified aids to navigation, and the establishment of a Canadian Coast Guard incident command system, which would allow it to respond more effectively to an incident and integrate its operations with key partners. The government has also introduced the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, and a new expert panel to review Canada's current tanker safety and proposed measures to strengthen it.

With the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, we would provide greater certainty for industry at the same time as increasing penalties in order to ensure compliance. This would allow our natural resources to be developed in a responsible and timely way. We would work to ensure accountability and transparency from industry by conducting a review of industry reporting through the national pollutant release inventory.

These are other concrete examples of Canada strengthening its environmental protection, and there is more. The National Energy Board inspections of oil and gas pipelines would increase by 50% annually to improve pipeline safety across Canada. Canada would double the number of comprehensive audits of oil and gas pipelines to identify potential safety issues before they occur. New enforceable environmental assessment decision statements would ensure that proponents of resource and other economic projects would comply with required mitigation measures to protect the environment. New administrative monitoring penalties would be introduced for violations to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and the National Energy Board Act to help ensure compliance. Companies that violate Canada's environmental laws would now face strong, stiff, new financial penalties.

If members agree with me that the environment is the economy, they will note what the next provision means in terms of its distinctiveness from the previous Liberal approach on the environment which focused on endless debate, vague objectives and unenforceable provisions.

In contrast to that previous Liberal approach, budgets of this Conservative government have created a $1.5 billion trust fund to help provinces and territories invest in major projects that clean our air and result in real GHG emission reductions.

This government is committed to reducing Canada's total GHG emissions by 17%, from 2005 levels, by 2020, and is halfway to meeting its target, a target that is inscribed in the Copenhagen accord. That is concrete and measurable evidence of progress on the environment.

The government is also following a sector-by-sector regulatory approach to align with the United States to achieve GHG emission reductions. To date, stringent regulations to reduce GHG emissions in the electricity and transport sectors have been implemented. In addition, work is also under way to develop regulations for the oil and gas sector.

Our environmental approach is comprehensive and will continue to include actions that create a cleaner healthier environment, improve the lives of Canadians, and support the development and deployment of new environmental and cleaner energy technologies.

Let us look at a bit more of our history. To maintain a strong economy, Canada requires a healthy environment that provides sustainable resources and supports a high quality of life. That is why our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's enviable and pristine environment, never better evidenced than in the riding I represent, is protected and strengthened for current and future generations.

In conclusion, our government listens to stakeholders and is convinced that the environment is the economy and that we are acting in measurable ways to protect it. Secondly, our government is protecting our fisheries. Thirdly, our government is making improvements on environmental protection in a practical and measurable way that allows for responsible resource development.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about securities.

The Supreme Court ruled that creating a national securities regulator would infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, according to the Constitution, securities regulation falls to the provinces.

Why is the government choosing to go against the Supreme Court decision? Why does the budget include measures to continue working towards a national securities regulator when the government knows that the provinces are opposed to the idea and have jurisdiction over securities regulation? Why does this government not respect provincial jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question.

She was correct to emphasize the co-operation between various levels of government. Our minister and our government respect the division of powers between the levels of government, but it is crucial that we work together. That is why we are developing air quality legislation, for example. As parliamentarians, we must listen to the needs of our constituents.

That is why our budget so closely reflects our country's needs. We are listening to the needs of the provinces and, more importantly, the needs of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also well acquainted with the superb environmental record of former Speaker John Fraser and his exemplary efforts to stop the destruction of environmental laws through Bill C-38. He signed a letter with three other former ministers of fisheries decrying that the current approach of this administration is to destroy environmental laws, pushing back the protection of fish habitat.

As much as I think the world of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, he could not be more wrong about what his administration and his party are doing to environmental laws in this country. It is absolutely abominable to see CEAA destroyed, the Fisheries Act weakened and, by the way, the measures that he has described as being positive are not included in the bill we are discussing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a great contributor to the debate in the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Certainly, she exemplifies the importance of our government listening.

Mr. Fraser certainly has been involved in that debate and always will be, as long as he has a breath to breathe. He has provided some very good constructive criticism for our government.

I want to give great credit to our Minister of the Environment and our Minister of Finance for the way they have listened. That is why we have such ingenious provisions in the budget. They are provisions that reflect the needs of Canadians, provisions that, for instance, invest $10 million in partnerships with groups across Canada. They are the engines in the protection of habitat. They galvanize volunteers. They understand the on-the-ground needs of the fish and the habitat.

Our government will be standing with those people across Canada as we protect our habitat and produce an environment that is not only as good as but is better than the one we inherited.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. The government will spend $95,000 in tax dollars for a 30-second ad during a hockey game, or something of this nature.

In Winnipeg North, about $300,000 in government money would allow for 60 summer jobs for students. Three ads would have covered the cost of that program. Does the member believe that Canadians would rather see the Government of Canada invest in student summer jobs or in the propaganda in the television promo ads it is running on the economic action plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be far more credible if my colleague, whom I admire greatly for his intellect and his rhetoric, occasionally offered support for the government for measures such as accountability and transparency, which he is referring to now.

Which government brought in the most sweeping accountability provisions in Canadian history? Which government puts its focus on transparency every day in its operations? It is our Conservative government. It is hard to take an out-of-context criticism of one particular thing when the member is consistently on his feet voting against the provisions we are talking about today: a budget and environmental measures that are bound to pull us forward into a cleaner and healthier environment.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-60 on behalf of my constituents in Berthier—Maskinongé, who are opposed to this new omnibus bill.

In my opinion, the short title of this bill, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, is not really appropriate.

After reading through this bill, I am once again disappointed to see that there is nothing in it that will bring about economic recovery or create jobs or make life more affordable for Canadians. On the contrary, the Conservatives have raised taxes on a number of consumer goods.

Budget 2013 is full of tax increases on hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby buggies. These increases even affected hockey helmets, until my colleague from Sudbury pointed that out and the government had to cancel the increases on hockey helmets and sports equipment.

These tax increases will cost Canadians $8 billion over the next five years. This budget will not just raise the cost of living. It will also slow economic growth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the bills brought in by this government. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.57% decline in the GDP. I do not need to say that this is not a good thing for our country’s economic growth.

With wages stagnating, uncertain jobs and families heavily in debt, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that add to the cost of living for Canadian families and stifle economic growth.

This bill contains a number of complex measures that deserve to be considered and examined carefully. For the third time in their current term, however, the Conservatives are proposing to evade the oversight of parliamentarians and the public. I find this insulting on several levels. We are here to examine bills. When the government imposes gag orders, we cannot do our job.

This bill contains changes to the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives are proposing to close major loopholes by giving the department the last word when work permits or opinions about a permit application become a source of political embarrassment. That does not solve the main problem, which is the mismanagement of the temporary foreign worker program by the present government.

I have received many emails from the people of Berthier—Maskinongé criticizing the changes in Bill C-60 that enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC.

The people of Berthier—Maskinongé do not want to see any politician exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. The changes proposed in Bill C-60 constitute an all-out attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60 based on its content, but also on the process used. With so little time to study of the bill, members cannot consider its consequences. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark, and it is Canadians who will ultimately pay the price.

Today I would like to focus on a few specific aspects of the bill. I have noticed a truly disturbing trend in this government's legislative program.

Several changes made recently show how little the Conservatives know about the need for a long-term strategy for our regions. I am thinking in particular of the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit, the employment insurance reform and the cuts to all services.

One important measure that has drawn my attention is the cancellation of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit in this last budget. The government has announced the phasing-out of the 15% tax credit it grants for shareholders of labour-sponsored funds.

This decision is a serious mistake and shows that the Conservatives understanding nothing about Quebec's economic model and the role these funds play in the province and, of course, in the economies of the rural regions.

Ninety per cent of the amounts that Ottawa wants to recover with this measure will come from Quebec savers and investors, since virtually all of these funds are in Quebec. This decision will mainly affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement, in addition to depriving Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development.

Once again, the government has turned a deaf ear, just as it did on the employment insurance reform. On April 27, thousands of people from several Quebec regions demonstrated in downtown Montreal against the Conservative government's butchering of employment insurance.

This reform is a serious attack on the most vulnerable workers in our society, most of whom are women. It will also affect families and regions. Once again, despite the demonstration, the Conservatives are not listening to Canadians, and I find that truly sad and deplorable, particularly when I see families and workers trying hard to make ends meet.

This reform strikes a hard blow to the economic health of our regions. In my riding, thousands of people hold seasonal jobs. A large segment of the economy depends on seasonal work, including farming, tourism, construction and forestry. The list is long.

Employment insurance reform will have disastrous consequences for a number of regions. The Conservatives did not assess the impact of such a reform. They are refusing to listen to the protestors who are calling on the government to back down. I am also wondering what happened to their 2011 campaign slogan, “Our region in power”. I have the impression that their slogan should now be “The regions—who cares?”

Why not try to create real jobs and support local initiatives? In short, I am talking about this reform to remind the government that it is a real disaster. As if that were not enough, the government is adding insult to injury with the labour-supported funds.

Another important aspect of the bill is the elimination of the supplementary tax credit for credit unions. Our credit unions play a vital role in our rural communities. Last year, I had the honour of being on the Special Committee on Co-operatives, where my Conservative and Liberal colleagues and I heard testimony that shed light on the remarkable work co-operatives do in our communities.

Perhaps some members were more attentive than others, because I now see that the supplementary tax credit for co-operatives will be eliminated. That will seriously limit the ability of credit unions to compete with large banks, when what the banking sector needs is more competition.

Last year, the Conservatives put an end to the co-operative development initiative and made cuts to the rural secretariat. Now, it is the co-operatives' turn. Do the Conservatives not understand that these changes are going to hit our rural regions hard, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country?

Tabling a budget means making choices. The budget implementation bill shows that the Conservatives are choosing not to support families, workers or our young people. Last year, when we debated the budget 2012 implementation bills—Bills C-38 and C-45—many of my New Democrat colleagues, as well as economic analysts, warned us that we would not have time to understand everything the omnibus bills contained and that the long-term impact would be felt for years to come.

We are finding out the implications of those bills again today, and I am afraid the same thing will happen with Bill C-60. Our children will be the ones to feel the effects of the Conservatives' misguided policies, when they are longer be around to be accountable. I hope they will be willing to listen to our concerns and make the required changes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the NDP economic model is basically the Greek economic model, and that model put Greece in terrible difficulty. Only by adopting the policies of the Canadian Conservative government is Greece finally starting to work its way out of the terrible place it was in.

As I said in my previous comments, the NDP's proposals for all economic action is to spend, spend, spend. Does my hon. colleague think a country can spend itself rich?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question we hear quite often from the government, and the member posed it recently.

As I said in my speech, a budget is about choices. It is about being responsible. There are 1.4 million Canadians who are unemployed. When I see the youth of my generation not being able to find jobs out of college and being so heavily indebted, these are not good choices. In my riding, there are a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. I do not see any measures in this budget that would help people or businesses in my riding. That is why I am voting against a budget like this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments with regard to credit unions. This is something Liberals have raised in question period and in speeches to try to draw more attention. The government asks what it can do to improve things in the budget, and this is just one of many things it could do.

Let us recognize the important role credit unions play, in particular, in smaller communities that do not have access to banking. Another way of looking at it is that smaller credit unions provide a great deal of competition, thereby ensuring that there are at least better service fees. Fees are still far too high within the banking industry or the financial industry as a whole, but the bottom line is that there is healthy competition when there are enriched credit unions. Credit unions play a phenomenal role in providing support for many of the regions that are not getting the type of support they could get from the banking industry.

I wonder if the member would like to expand upon her comments with regard to just how important those tax credits were for that industry.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, co-operatives and credit unions are very important. They are also very democratic. It is member based, and members take care of each other. In my riding, there are quite a few co-ops, and as a result of what I learned after having been on the special committee for co-operatives, I know they are based out of a need. They come together and create jobs. They are democratic and give back to the community. When credit unions make money, they do not get rich or give bonuses to the higher ups, they give back to the community. That is something we need to encourage. This is a good measure and a step in the right direction to keep this credit. It is a simple step.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé gave an excellent speech. She clearly articulated the kinds of investments our rural municipalities need for their economic growth.

She talked about choices, and she is right. Budgets are all about making choices. Consider infrastructure investments for just a moment. The government is simply playing with numbers. Initially, the money was spread over seven years; now it is over 10 years. If we do the math, after 10 years, less money will have been invested annually than originally planned.

The government is playing with numbers. Does that sound like the actions of a good manager?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

When I visit the mayors in my riding, which is made up of 34 municipalities, they often tell me they need money for infrastructure. When the government announced that there would be plenty of money for infrastructure, it was playing games.

Clearly, $4.7 billion is less money than what has been allocated in previous years, and yet investing in infrastructure creates jobs, meets genuine needs and constitutes a positive measure.

The government says it is investing more, but that is merely propaganda. It is simply not true.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech. I did not hear him talk about the provisions in the budget that would drastically reduce the value of takeovers that would be examined under the Investment Canada Act.

In view of the fact that he voted against our motion to stop the Canada-China FIPA, and also in view of his leader's support for the takeover of Nexen by a Chinese state corporation, does he have any concern about this reduction in the size of takeovers that would be examined under the Investment Canada Act?

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

Mr. Speaker, always I have concerns. It happens in my riding. Corporations in my riding, and in many situations, fishermen, miners and loggers, are put in a grave situation.

However, I am not going to completely turn off the tap of investment into my area. If I did that, it would be far worse than what we have right now. If we turn off the investment in the mining sector in my riding alone, and part of the new riding I will inherit after the next election, if we do not sign onto these agreements that allow reciprocity, we will find ourselves at a disadvantage. None of that will be extracted and no benefits will be taken.

I have my concerns, just like the hon. member does, but I do not close the door completely and lock it to future investment in the area. There is no company in my riding that can extract this mineral. There is no one company that can take all this, whether it is oil, gas or logging. We need that outside investment for this to work, and yes, reciprocity is a two-way street.

The unfairness is vetted through many boards. There are certain mechanisms by which we can settle these disputes. Granted, some of these disputes do not work out for us. However, that does not mean I am willing to eliminate this whole process. That would be far more detrimental than the situation my hon. friend proposes.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague has opened the door, and I will therefore ask him the question that I put to his colleague from Ottawa—Vanier concerning employment insurance and the EI fund.

Is transferring money from the EI fund to the consolidated revenue fund in order to pay down deficits elsewhere a form of veiled tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, would it be a veiled tax? What the member is talking about is what the Auditor General said some time ago about putting it into consolidated revenue and whether that was the right thing to do. The money did not disappear. It went into consolidated revenue.

If he is talking about an employment insurance tax on people, as opposed to keeping it in there, it becomes a premium. A tax is a tax, as my hon. colleague from the Conservatives said, whether it is a premium or whether it is through general revenue taxes, which most of the consolidated revenue comes from.

I am not quite sure where he is coming from with his question, but I would be happy to answer anything else.

I will ask him a question. If he is going to be in government the next time, will he put that $52 billion back into revenue?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. He spoke about a number of measures in this piece of legislation. I know he has spent some time in my riding, the electric city, Peterborough, Ontario. I also know that he has frequented his own area. I also know that he is an accomplished weatherman. I wonder if he has read the barometer on a number of the issues in the budget, such as incentives for manufacturing, the extension and indexing of the gas tax credit for municipalities and infrastructure funding. Has he read the barometer on these and found out that they are indeed popular?

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel as if my dew point is rising.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Peterborough. I am a huge fan of that city. It is a fantastic little place. I say little, but it is actually bigger, but it has that small town feel to it. I remember many times sitting in Haaseltons having coffee downtown. It is a great place.

What is the barometer reading for what he is talking about? It is high pressure, sunny skies; low pressure, not so sunny. It is very simple. I can see the barometer dropping as we speak.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-60, an act to implement certain measures in the budget that was presented on March 21 by the Minister of Finance.

This bill is about continuing the important work of this government on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. This bill would implement very important measures for all Canadians, and I know it would improve the lives of people across Canada and in my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the outset, I would like to quote some of other things the Minister of Finance told the House on March 21 when he tabled economic action plan 2013. He stated:

Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the worst recession in a generation. As many of our allies and trading partners continue to struggle, we are well placed to prosper.

...by sticking to the long...view...by taking strong, decisive actions whenever it has been required. We have grown stronger, even as many have weakened.

However, he went on to say:

...it is...clear to the world that Canada has picked the right path and the right plan, a responsible plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am proud to be a member of a government that is committed to a solid plan for the near and long term. I am proud of a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who have put the economy first. However, I am also immensely proud of Canadians who continue to work hard, do their best and make Canada the greatest country in the world. There is no better way this is shown than through community service and charitable giving. It has been my honour and privilege to serve on many community agencies in the city of Mississauga with passionate volunteers for more than three decades. I see the wonderful work that each and every one of them does, and I see the tremendous generosity of people who donate to these vital organizations.

That is why I am so delighted to see that this bill would implement a new super credit for first-time donors to charitable organizations, so that we may bring in thousands of new contributors to support these important services. Charitable giving promotes philanthropy and good citizenship while helping others when they need it most.

I had the distinct pleasure to serve as a member of the board of directors of the Peel Children's Aid Society and Peel Children's Aid Foundation, and I am very pleased to see that this bill would allow certain adoption-related expenses, incurred before a child's adoption file is opened, to be now eligible for the adoption expense tax credit. Our CAS system plays a very important role in adoption, and any way we can help families with the costs of this would be greatly appreciated.

I see as well that there is good news in this bill for veterans. The bill would amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to ensure that veterans' disability benefits would no longer be deducted when calculating the war veteran allowance, and the contributions for the Last Post Fund for funeral and burial services would be doubled.

Further, this budget is very good news for our partners in the municipalities across Canada. Bill C-60 proposes to index the gas tax revenue that is sent to municipalities, which they use for important transit and transportation infrastructure that suits local needs. Our last budget made this transfer permanent, and this one would ensure that the funds would grow with inflation. This government respects our towns and cities, and works with them as true partners. I am certain that in my own city of Mississauga these important funds would help our city continue to grow and provide needed transportation infrastructure for many years to come.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I am very pleased to see that this bill proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, to ensure that it operates within its original mandate—to permit the use of foreign workers on a temporary basis in certain sectors where Canadians cannot fill those jobs—and to ensure ultimate accountability through a new registration and fee process. While there has been much media fanfare about the TFW program, it is still a vital system for some areas of the country and should be improved, not scrapped. Bill C-60 proposes a strengthened program with the proper checks and balances as we move forward.

There is also new support for job creators. Bill C-60 proposes changes to the mineral exploration tax credit, it would extend the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery and equipment, and it would modernize the general preferential tariff regime for developing countries to help Canadian companies better compete with foreign firms.

It also would provide more than $70 million in tariff relief for families purchasing sports equipment or baby clothing.

Through this budget, the Government of Canada is renewing its commitment of fiscal transfers to the provinces for equalization until March of 2019, providing them that important sense of stable funding. Bill C-60 would make a number of changes that continue Canada moving on the path of better jobs and greater prosperity. It sets an important tone of confidence and responsibility at times that are still cautious and fragile. This is not the time to propose huge new tax increases on Canadians or go on wild spending sprees. We cannot play fast and loose with Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars, and we cannot slag our trading partners and the private sector.

As we move forward, I look forward to the implementation of the new Canada job grant with the provinces and employers; I look forward to the ten-year renewal of the Canada building fund with provinces and municipalities; I look forward to the five-year renewal of the affordable housing program and the homelessness partnering strategy; I look forward to the renewal of the hiring tax credit for Canada's job creators; I look forward to new investments in innovation and technology; and I look forward to Canada's continued economic leadership at home and in the world.

It is easy for members on the other side to criticize while offering no ideas of their own, other than raising taxes and increasing spending. That is not a plan for Canada; it is a recipe for disaster.

As the Minister of Finance concluded on March 21:

Today we move this responsible plan forward, forward toward that bright future. With this plan, our government renews our commitment to Canadians, our commitment to jobs, our commitment to growth, our commitment to long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, May 2, 2013, 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 amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was defeated on the following division:)

Vote #674

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #675

[The Speaker, 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 Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 6:12 p.m., the House can now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.