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.

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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the hon. member for Wascana a question, and I would now like to put the same question to the member for Malpeque.

The measure to eliminate the tax credit for labour sponsored venture capital funds was not included in Bill C-60, but it was announced in the budget. This measure is very important and very controversial. It has been criticized by Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, an organization that represents private equity companies in Canada.

What is the third party's position on the elimination of the 15% tax credit, which we think is crucial? The hon. member for Wascana did not seem to think the matter was crucial enough to look at.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, but I think we have to understand in the beginning that many of us do it under some duress. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, he is again suppressing debate with another time allocation motion, which seems to become the norm in this place, and a budget that seems to have been prepared without the proper analysis. Certainly, the Atlantic premiers said that the proper analysis was not done, and I will get to that in a moment.

On the positive side, this document is not quite as big an omnibus bill as the previous two budgets were, so it is a little shorter and does not cover pretty near everything the government does. However, on the negative side, in following up on the budget, the budget implementation bill builds on the damage already done by the federal government on its ability of be a leader in Canada among the provinces to build our economy, to put some foundation under our social programs, to assist industries, to establish more trade in a way that benefits Canadians. This builds on the damage and even makes it worse from previous budgets.

Members will recall quite vividly when theMinister of Finance stood in his place and said that the government would balance the budget by 2015. Is there a Canadian who actually believes that? There are a couple of members who have raised their hands over there, but they raise their hands any time the Prime Minister says anything. They jump to the tune. For the information of Canadians and the members opposite, there has never been a target that the Minister of Finance has hit, whether it was when he was the provincial minister of finance and did the great damage to Ontario, which it still suffers from, or when he has been the federal finance minister, which the whole country suffers from now.

It is important to note in the beginning a couple of key messages and summarize them.

There is no question that this budget will make it harder for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet. Middle-class families are really starting to suffer and suffer substantially as a result of the activities of the government. Bill C-60 raises taxes on Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. Last night in the media, the Minister of National Defence, who is becoming infamous for his inability to manage his portfolio, saw Canadians spend twice as much on ships as other countries had. There is not time in the rest of the day to spell out all the other areas the Minister of National Defence has spent money wastefully.

The problem is that there is no joy in the Minister of National Defence, backed up by the Minister of Finance, spending wastefully because middle-class Canadians are the ones being asked to suffer and pay for irresponsible fiscal and financial spending by the government.

The budget raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs.

There are other policy cuts. In the area of agriculture when I used to be the critic, I went to an announcement in P.E.I. two weeks ago on a Friday. I listened closely while the Minister of National Revenue made the announcement for the minister, and she said something along the lines that “We're increasing by 50% the shared funding”. It sounds really good, does it not? The Conservatives are increasing the funding. However, what we have to understand is the key words “the shared funding”. That means farmers are picking up half, where the previous government was really paying for it. If we look closely, we will find that the safety net programs, like agristability and agri-invest, have been cut substantially by the federal government. Therefore, what happens the next time when prices fall on grains in Alberta? The safety nets are not going to be there for the farm community. More middle-class families have been asked to suffer for the incompetence of the current government.

Last Sunday, I happened to be at some of the harbours in my own riding, including Stanley Bridge and Malpeque. Fishing season started early Monday morning. What were fishermen doing on Saturday and Sunday afternoon? They were stressed out and nerved up because DFO, through small craft harbours program, had not done the dredging so they could get out of their harbours. Finally, after a lot of pressure, the dredge was working and the fishermen did get out of Malpeque at six o'clock in the morning. In Stanley Bridge the fishermen had to load their traps from elsewhere because, with the cutbacks to Fisheries and Oceans to the small craft harbours program, fishermen were being asked to pay and suffer as a result of the federal government failing to live up to its responsibilities.

As well, this budget would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy. The credit unions are right across the country. People who invest in them and put their money in those are usually small businesses. Again, the government is imposing further taxes on the credit unions.

I do not have time to go into all the nickel and dime issues where the Conservatives will tax Canadians, but they will put GST and HST on health care services, including medical work that victims of crimes need in order to establish their case in court, and hospital parking lots will have extra tax on them. Those things add up and they are all be imposed on Canadians as a result of the absolute incompetence of this Minister of Finance.

Let us turn for a moment to the attack on workers and seasonal industries. Except for the minister in charge, we all know the damage that has been done to the seasonal industries and seasonal workers through the changes to employment insurance. However, a special thing happened last weekend, and that was the Atlantic premiers issued a press release through the Council of Atlantic Premiers on April 29, in which they came together. They are from three different political parties, four premiers representing four provinces, and they spelled out fairly clearly the damage that the federal government had done to this federation called “Canada”. They talked about the impacts of employment insurance. One point they raised was:

These impacts are most acutely felt in seasonal industries, which make up a significant portion of the Atlantic economy. These changes were introduced without consultation or shared analysis, and therefore without a full understanding of the effect of the changes.

Clearly, the Atlantic premiers are coming together and saying that there is no federal leadership in our country and no consultation. The role of the federal government is to use its spending power, the budget and the budget implementation act, to do things that will build up Canada and set a foundation under our economy and our social programs. All we would get in this budget implementation act from the federal government is more and more damage, building on the poor fiscal management that it already has.

Worse yet, not only is Atlantic Canada being targeted, but middle-class families right across the country are being asked to pay the price for the fiscal incompetence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the backbenchers over there who fail to stand and speak out against the Prime Minister and the damage that has been done to the Atlantic economy and to the country.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act no. 1, the government's bill to implement the budget.

It is important when considering any budget bill to understand the circumstances to which it must respond, so I will begin with those.

First and foremost, the economic polices of this government during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years are recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. Governments alone, of course, do not create jobs or prosperity. However, it has been a happy, if unintended, blessing to have been led by a Prime Minister with a strong grasp of economics through these troubled times. Keeping taxes low, time limiting stimulus spending and focusing on long-term infrastructure and job creation investments, while modestly restraining program spending, have been key, sensible policies for supporting our recovery.

Canadians can be grateful that time and again the Conservative government has been able to resist the high-tax, high-program spending demands of the opposition. This was particularly challenging during the recession, during two and a half years of opposition-controlled Parliament. Fortunately, the last election produced a strong, stable Conservative majority government to stave off reckless tax-and-spend policies.

As a result, Canada has led the G7 significantly in net employment gains of almost 950,000 since the recession and in GDP growth. Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew once again in February.

While Canada has fared well in global comparisons, we continue to confront significant global challenges. The eurozone remains in recession. The United States, our major trading partner, is experiencing only very modest growth. Global competition from emerging economies is very intense. Too many Canadians are still looking for work.

Fortunately, this bill addresses the challenges we face. It would strengthen the Canadian economy and increase jobs, all while supporting Canadian families and respecting taxpayer dollars. This bill would deliver on the real concerns of Canadians.

One of the timely, targeted measures included in this bill is the reform of the temporary foreign worker program. The temporary foreign worker program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians are not available. Canadians have expressed real concerns about the use of this program by some. The program was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace already employed Canadian workers. Recent events that suggest otherwise made very clear the need to reform this program to match that intent.

The reforms brought forward in this bill stem from the government's ongoing review of the program to ensure that Canadians are the first to be considered for available jobs. The bill would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits and labour market opinions, enabling immediate action against employers who do not comply with the program's rules. Changes to the bill would require employers using the temporary foreign worker program to pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes to the program to remove unintended incentives to look abroad for employees.

The bill also introduces user fees for employers applying for foreign workers so that these costs are no longer absorbed by taxpayers. The bill does not dispute the ongoing need for temporary foreign workers to meet acute labour shortages. Rather, these reforms create incentives to hire Canadians and ensure that temporary foreign workers are a short-term solution to skill shortages. These reforms introduced in this program would ensure that Canadians are always at the front of the hiring line.

To fulfill the commitments of the 2013 budget, this bill would also deliver targeted tax relief. The enhancement of the adoption expense tax credit, the new first-time donors super credit for charitable donations and the expansion of tax relief for home care services are all targeted tax relief measures to support Canadian families.

This bill would also remove tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, resulting in significant savings for families. All parents know the expenses that come with raising a family. From basic necessities, such as clothes and food, to education and recreational activities, it adds up very fast.

Through the delivery of the family caregiver tax credit, the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, the average family now saves $3,200 a year in tax reductions compared to when the present government took office.

These tax credits deliver important savings for Canadians. However, the fact is that the price of too many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than the same products sold in the United States. Through the removal of tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, this difference will be reduced.

The bill also delivers a two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery. This demonstrates that the government recognizes the importance of sectors that provide skilled jobs. The bill provides continued support for Canada's manufacturing employees, support that is especially important for my constituents in Kitchener Centre.

Canada's manufacturing economy will compete in the global economy. Members need not take my word for it. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, has already come out and said this:

The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.... This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities, and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world.

Constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre are well aware of the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, a major economic driver in southwest Ontario. The manufacturing sector employs approximately 1.8 million Canadians across Canada. In providing tax relief for new investments of manufacturing equipment, this bill creates a favourable environment for manufacturing employees.

As mentioned, in addition to tax credits to support Canadian families, this bill also ensures that taxpayer dollars are respected. The bill takes steps to close tax loopholes that allow a select few to avoid paying their fair share.

The government has already introduced loan rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans, thereby avoiding taxation. This bill also provides an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions. This, in turn, will help the government track down and monitor a loss of tax revenue and collect it for the rest of us.

Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that this bill will ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.When everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and improves the incentive to invest in Canada. I am very pleased that the budget implementation bill delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to put aside partisan differences to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. Please pass this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.

I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:

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.

As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.

I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.

There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.

This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.

I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers.

My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.

During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.

This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.

My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.

That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.

Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.

I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.

In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.

Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.

While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.

The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.

How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?

It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.

I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.

I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.

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

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

I would like to speak to part 3, division 6 of Bill C-60, specifically clauses 136 and 137, which provide some definitions relating to state-owned enterprises. The definitions are set out there, and that is of some interest.

Unfortunately, during the information session on Monday night, officials seemed to be telling us that, despite the definition, all purchases of Canadian businesses by state-owned enterprises would be subject to the definitions in clause 137, meaning that in a few years, the value of transactions will be $1 billion or more.

How does the hon. member think this could protect us from interference from foreign governments, considering that we have had some specific cases of concern that had to do with control of our natural resources?

The House resumed from May 2 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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

In relation to the changes proposed to the Investment Canada Act, in December after the CNOOC decision the rules changed for the energy sector. Does Bill C-60 extend these changes to all other sectors? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and talk about Bill C-60, the first BIA. There is normally one in the spring and one in the fall.

I want to say a couple of words before I begin on the actual substance of the bill. We are hearing from the opposition about the length of the bill. That is a legitimate concern. Therefore, I looked at it. It is 115 pages, in English and in French. It is not 115 in English and 115 in French. It is a total of 115 pages.

I am absolutely positive that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain can read 50 pages and understand what it is in it. The argument that this is some sort of big bill that is unmanageable is completely false. If the opposition cannot read 50 pages, then we have something to really worry about.

Let us be fair. This is a 50-page bill, 115 pages in both languages. If members are talented enough, which I am not, to read it in both languages, it is 115 pages. It is not that long.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for hosting the overview of the bill on Monday night. There was a decent crowd there of members of Parliament and staff.

Every section was reviewed, not by the political staff but by members of the finance department. They went clause by clause, division by division, and answered questions from the floor from all parties on what was in this implementation bill, Bill C-60. They gave non-partisan answers to what was in the bill.

I would encourage all members of Parliament who are interested in the financial aspects of the budget and the implementation bill to take advantage of the opportunity that the government is providing to all members of the House. The briefings that took place on Monday night of this week made a significant difference in the understanding of what was in these clauses before us today.

Let me go to some of the points I think are very important to my riding, to me personally, to my constituents and to the country as a whole. I will see how much time I have and how far I can go on these.

Let us talk about the adoption expense tax credit that the opposition will vote against. With this tax credit for adoptive parents, we are adding to what they can deduct in their quest as a family to adopt a child or baby. It is an opportunity. We understand, on this side of the House, that there are costs and effort for young families to adopt a child.

We are using the tax credit system to say that we understand what they are trying to do, that they are doing a good thing for their family, that they are doing a good thing for the country and we are providing some assistance in the adoption expense tax credit.

We are also offering a first-time donor's super credit. For people who have not donated before, we are adding an extra 25% to that first-time donation that they make to an organization, if they and their spouse have not donated since 2007. We are encouraging Canadians to support charities.

Where did we get this from? We have done consultations as individual members and the finance committee heard people from across the country. These are the kinds of support for which the not-for-profit charity sector asked. That is what is being delivered. It is in the budget, which is a policy document. The implementation bill is what takes parts of that budget and puts them into law. It implements those changes. I am very supportive of that change.

Another important change we are making has to do with more of a technical issue. We are providing assistance to the registered disability savings plan for adult beneficiaries.

I am very proud of this government for developing the registered disability savings plan that did not exist before we took office. We heard that at the finance committee. In the field we talked to different individuals and organizations about what is needed for disabled adults and disabled children and parents who were concerned about their financial well-being after they had passed.

We developed this registered disability plan, and that plan came back for a review. In my riding there was a meeting to discuss changes that could be made, and one of the issues was somebody being able to take out a registered disability savings plan for another adult who was unable to do it at that time because of physical or mental issues, just not being able to do it. The change we are implementing in this bill will make that happen. I am very proud of this.

In my riding, 50% to 60% of people are over age 55, which is relatively senior. I am not quite there yet, but I am getting closer by the day. In this bill we are adding some services such as bathing, feeding, assistance in dressing, taking medication and so on to the GST-HST exemption for health care services for seniors. This is a very positive piece of relief for those who require those services from publicly funded organizations. In the past and up until this bill passes, they had to pay HST in Ontario, and this bill would remove that. I cannot believe the opposition members are voting against it.

We often hear in the news about how much influence a member of Parliament can have. On tariff relief for Canadian consumers, I have an organization in my riding called Source For Sports, and a gentleman named Randy Hooper, who is now retired from that organization, said to me a few years ago that they were big importers of hockey equipment and they were not competitive with U.S. counterparts because of the tariff on hockey equipment. People in Burlington can easily go to the border, one hour away, cross into Buffalo and buy hockey equipment. I took that issue up and wrote a letter and spoke directly to the finance minister. It did not happen right away, but it did happen eventually. I am thankful that I had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to represent my constituent, represent my constituent business and make the point that we need to look at this issue. I may have had a small influence on making that happen, and that is what a member of Parliament should do. I am very proud of that and I want to make sure, even though Mr. Hooper is retired, that he gets credit for bringing that to my attention.

Another area I would like to talk about, as I said, is that we have a fairly large senior population in my riding, and we also have a fairly large veterans group in my riding. Many of them are naval veterans. For some reason the navy did a very good job of recruiting in Burlington. We have one of the nicest naval monuments in the country in Burlington on our waterfront. I am very proud that the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognized the issue of the disability payment being deducted as income from recipients before they received the rest of the allowance. We are removing that so they can keep the full amount. It is excellent that it is in the budget and we are implementing it. It will have a major impact on many veterans in my riding.

Finally, we are obviously looking at the gas tax. The member who spoke before me talked about the importance of infrastructure. I hear it all the time from my municipality. I hear it from FCM. I have an open-door policy with my local council group. We have a very good relationship, and they talk about infrastructure all the time. We are indexing the gas tax. We are providing support for infrastructure. That is another area that will have a direct impact on my riding.

I appreciate the time I have had to speak to Bill C-60. I hope everyone in the House will support it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for staying a little longer and taking the time to answer our questions.

My question is for Mr. Knubley. In fact, I would like to ask him the same question that was put to the minister.

Division 6 of Bill C-60 makes quite significant amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

Fewer and fewer transactions will be covered by the Investment Canada Act. Has Industry Canada studied the impact that this might have on the Canadian economy? Does it intend to conduct studies on the subject and to examine those consequences in greater detail?

There was a kind of uproar over the CNOOC-Nexen transaction. The issue was whether it was a good thing for Canada. At the Prime Minister's press conference, we suddenly saw that the rules would be changed. We seem to be operating on a somewhat piecemeal basis.

Does the government really intend to determine the consequences of the fact that fewer transactions would be examined under the Investment Canada Act?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.

It is very interesting. I have listened to the debates this afternoon and opposition members have been arguing about the rationale as to why they cannot support Bill C-60, our economic action plan.

I would like to give them a few examples of reasons why they should support it. It is rather important legislation that continues a growth pattern that we have started on as a government.

We have come out of the recession as number one in the world, which is really rare for Canada as it has never been there before. It is exciting to see the numbers of jobs that have been created and the opportunity that we have as far as growth as we move forward.

Maybe I will close with some of the optimistic things that we can talk about within our country, but this legislation builds on that. Just for one reason alone, if the opposition is looking at something it could support, it certainly could support our veterans. This legislation would give a very nice benefit to our vets. For that reason alone, the opposition should support it.

Then again, it should also be supporting what the legislation does with regards to going after tax evaders, something that has not happened for many years. Just in fairness, as Canadians, and for no other reason, the opposition should support it to ensure everyone pays their fair share of taxes and to deal with those who cheat.

When it comes to the indexing of the gas tax, I heard the opposition say that the number one problem in municipalities was housing. I would beg to differ. The number one problem in municipalities, as we have heard right across the country from coast to coast to coast, is infrastructure. The legislation deals with $53 billion of infrastructure over a 10-year period, the most aggressive infrastructure plan that we have ever laid out as a country. For that reason alone, the opposition should support the legislation.

We would be lowering taxes and providing flow-through shares for mining and keeping that industry going. The accelerated capital cost allowance creates a tremendous amount of opportunity in manufacturing and opportunity for job growth and industry growth for many years to come. This is a great benefit in the legislation. The opposition should be supporting it because of that, or because of the hiring tax credit that has been continued for small businesses, which is a real benefit that it should be supporting. Even the capital gains exemption has gone up for lifetime capital gains for individuals. This is should be supported.

For those reasons alone, and I could go on about many other reasons, the opposition should support the bill. Instead, we hear a lot of negativity and some things that are negative have nothing to do with the legislation as far as arguments go. I guess I should not be alarmed about that, because when the opposition runs out of manufactured reasons for not supporting it, it comes up with reasons that are not even in the bill.

I would like to spend my time on the number one issue in my riding, which is the lack of labour. It is different from what I heard from the hon. member from Toronto, who suggested the number one problem was unemployment.

I have the opposite problem in my riding, which is a good thing in some ways, but in other ways it is not. The temporary foreign worker program was there to address it in the last election. When the people of my riding discerned whether I was the right person to vote for, the number one issue they came forward with was a lack of labour. The importance of the temporary foreign worker program was to deal with the kinds of reduction and the ability for corporations and industries to grow and create the kinds of opportunity for our region and our country.

However, the temporary foreign worker program was something we said we would take a look at, to see if we could find ways to make that program work even more effectively. Guess what? We did. We made the program work even more effectively and efficiently. However, there is a bit of a problem with the temporary foreign worker program and this legislation addresses that.

In my riding, unemployment is zero. The real objective of the temporary foreign worker program is that it does not take away jobs from Canadians, but helps complement the workforce where there are no Canadians to fill those jobs.

Even where unemployment is virtually zero or very close to it, there are people in the system who have abused the program, even in my riding. This needs to be addressed. In this piece of legislation, we are going after those individuals, tweaking the program and will be consulting on this program in the future to make it better so that it actually deals with what it was intended to do, which was complement and not replace Canadian workers.

There are seven ways that this piece of legislation lays out how it is going to be changed. The first one would come into effect immediately and it is with respect to the pay differential, which was brought in about a year or a year and a half ago and was not being used. Only about 5% of those using the program even bothered with it. Let us get rid of the compromised price of 15% for skilled workers or 5% for lower-skilled workers on the differential of what those individuals are being paid. That we got rid of in this piece of legislation.

We are going to temporarily suspend in this piece of legislation the accelerated labour market opinion process, which was something they were asking for. In my riding, people needed it. We are not going to cancel it in this legislation, just suspend it while we take a breather, do some consultation and look at how we build on this program to make it even better.

The third thing in this piece of legislation on the program is to make sure it has the power to deal with those who abuse the process in the sense of being able to take away, revoke or suspend the labour market opinion process, the work permit as well as the LMO. This is something we need if we are going to be able to deal with those who refuse to see it as a program to complement Canadian workers and use it to replace Canadian workers, which we are seeing even in an area such as ours.

The fourth change to the temporary foreign worker program in this piece of legislation is to make sure we stop outsourcing. The program was never intended to replace the Canadian workforce and to have people work outside our country is a total abuse. This piece of legislation deals with that as well. That is another reason for certain that the opposition should be supporting it.

The fifth reason is that we want to make certain there is a plan in place for corporations that get LMOs and use temporary foreign workers to replace them long term with the Canadian workforce. That may be the most difficult one in my riding to comply with, so we are going to go through a process of consultation on that.

The sixth thing is to make sure that the fund is self-funded. There is no way that the taxpayer should be supporting this fund. The employer should be doing that.

The seventh thing is to make sure that English and French are the only mandatory languages necessary for foreign workers.

Those are the seven changes. The agricultural community and the agriculture workforce are exempt from most of these, except that if people abuse the system, the work permits will be revoked.

These are wonderful changes to the program, but it is in a process of consultation. It is one of the most important pieces in this bill that will impact all of Canada, but particularly my riding.

We have a wonderful experience in Canada. When we were coming through the recession, my colleagues in America went green with envy. They call Canada the miracle to the north because of the jobs created, the lower taxes, how we are freeing up the private sector to grow, capitalizing on international markets and moving to balanced books. For that, we should be very excited as Canadians. We have a great story to tell. We are doing some wonderful things not only in this budget, but in past budgets. This complements past ones. All members should think soberly about that and support this piece of legislation.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, May 2, two years after the NDP was elected as the official opposition. It has bee two years, but this budget implementation bill still contains the worst of the Conservative policies, even though this legislation should only include budget measures. Therefore, I will oppose this bill because of its content and because of the process.

Bill C-60, which implements parts of budget 2013, increases the tax burden on Canadians with tax increases for credit unions and small businesses. It also includes higher tariffs on thousands of products. It gives Treasury Board very broad powers allowing it to intervene in the collective bargaining process and to impose terms and conditions of employment on non-unionized crown corporation employees. It also amends the Investment Canada Act to significantly reduce the number of takeovers that are subject to review. Finally, it proposes a symbolic but inadequate solution to the flawed approach to the temporary foreign worker program.

To fully understand the problems with Bill C-60, we must go back to its source, the 2013 budget. That budget did not include anything really new, nor did it propose anything satisfactory regarding employment. It continued to target services provided to Canadians by trying to shrink the size of government. In this budget, the government tried to pull a fast one with funds allocated to worker training, and by pretending that infrastructure funds were going to increase when in fact they have been reduced, as my NDP colleagues found out. It is very important to point out that what was announced as new money is in fact a budget cut.

This budget also targets workers' funds and all those who benefit from such funds, including small investors and businesses in our regions. Moreover, the budget does not take seriously the problems facing producers, such as the labour shortage. The changes made to the employment insurance program did not help at all, and many farmers and seasonal entrepreneurs in my riding are having a hard time hiring skilled labour this year. They worry about the impact that these changes will have on them. The budget also does not do anything to help them with risk management.

The budget also shows a lack of conviction regarding the implementation of the Emerson report recommendations. That report, commissioned by this Conservative government, was drafted by the industry. The fact that its recommendations were not fully implemented means the Conservatives are not clearly siding with the aerospace industry, even though that industry creates thousands of jobs in a riding like Mirabel.

Again, with this budget, the government missed an opportunity to reverse its decision to slash old age security and many other programs. It is really unfortunate that this budget does absolutely nothing for the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

By amending close to 50 different acts, Bill C-60 follows the same pattern as omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45.

While it is smaller than similar bills we have seen from this government, it still amends 49 pieces of legislation, which is a lot. The mere fact that the bill has fewer pages does not mean it is no worse. In any case, what Canadians want is not something that is no worse. They want something better. To achieve that, measures should be proposed properly, separately, and they should be debated fairly, based on their merits. They should be proposed responsibly in this Parliament.

Omnibus bills like this one and all the other budget implementation bills are fundamentally bad for democracy and for our Parliament.

With Bill C-60, the Conservatives are trying, for the third time, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that adds to their cost of living and does not create jobs.

I want to be clear. I will oppose this omnibus bill because it is altogether bad for the Canadian economy. Regardless of what the Conservatives are saying, budget 2013 and Bill C-60 are measures that will slow down the Canadian economy instead of boosting it.

Budget 2013 cuts thousands of jobs, cuts program spending and weakens GDP growth. The Conservatives' plan, starting with budget 2012, will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in GDP. That is far from the prosperity the Conservatives promised.

I want to talk about something other than figures, but I do want to say that I did not make them up. They came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was appointed by this government.

As if it were not enough that this budget does nothing for the economy, with this bill, the government continues to go after workers. The bill gives extensive powers to the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining process and impose terms and conditions of employment on crown corporations. This interference in the negotiating process is very disappointing. The Conservatives are continuing their direct attack on collective bargaining. What a perfect example of doublespeak. They talk about independence for crown corporations, but they want to impose their austerity ideology and they are crushing that independence by interfering in the management of crown corporations.

I also want to mention that workers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected by this bill. The Conservatives really seem to have it in for the regions. Their tax hikes for credit unions and small businesses represent a direct attack on my riding's economy. Credit unions and SMEs are an important part of our communities' economic and social fabric. The Conservatives are taxing them to benefit the major banks and big businesses.

They amended the Investment Canada Act to considerably reduce the number of takeovers subject to review. That means that businesses outside of major urban centres will no longer be reviewed and, without oversight from the government, could be taken over by foreign companies.

Furthermore, how can we forget their ill-advised EI reform, which targets seasonal workers, who are essential to rural economies, or their attack on labour-sponsored funds, which are supported by workers, investors, unions and businesses, especially in the regions?

It is clear that the budget does nothing for my riding.

In conclusion, the government is trying to say that it is doing a good job managing the economy. In this budget, there is nothing for workers and nothing for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. People deserve much more, and I hope to have the opportunity to give them more in 2015.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, ministers.

I appreciate the fact that you did not use the 10 minutes you were both allotted.

We've already had mention today of the changes in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, to the Investment Canada Act. That is interesting, but I know of at least a thousand Canadians and their families who would prefer to see you enforce the current law, and I'm referring of course to the U. S. Steel situation. From what I understand and what I've heard, the workers in that plant consider your claim that this is only a provincial labour dispute to be an insult.

So why haven't you forced U. S. Steel to live up to its commitments to maintain jobs in Canada? Why aren't you enforcing the existing Investment Canada Act?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Paradis, the NDP has introduced a motion calling on the House to review the Investment Canada Act. We presented another one in February 2012 to define the net benefit test. Those two motions were adopted with the support of all parties. Clauses 136 to 145 of Bill C-60 to implement the budget make major amendments to the Investment Canada Act.

Are you going to ask the committee that a full, in-depth review of the Investment Canada Act be conducted in committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak to Bill C-60, the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2013, I find it sad to have to remind Canadians that the bill imposes significant, in fact massive, tax hikes on middle-class Canadian families, who are already struggling to make ends meet. This is on top of massive tax increases that were included in the Conservatives' last three budgets. The Conservatives are raising taxes, because they need the money to cover for their waste and mismanagement. Unfortunately, the bill will only increase that wasteful spending by actually increasing the number of bloated ministers' offices, while at the same time cutting vital services middle-class Canadian families need. Finally, the bill does nothing to help young Canadians, who are desperate to find paid work.

As the House has heard, Bill C-60 is an omnibus bill that lumps together a large number of unrelated measures. These measures are being combined into one single bill on which we can vote yes or no. With a bill of this size and scope, with 233 different clauses, after all, it is bound to include some measures that we, in fact, may support.

For example, we are broadly supportive of some of the following measures: removing the deduction on disability benefits from the war veterans allowance; expanding the adoption expense tax credit; introducing a tax credit for first-time donors, although it is ironic that this first-time donor tax credit is not going to be utilized by too many young Canadians, given the fact that most young Canadians are having difficulty even finding jobs and opportunities or making ends meet; combatting tax evasion; extending the capital cost allowance again this year, although we would recommend that the government, instead of extending it for two years, should follow the advice of Canadian manufacturers and extend it for five years; expanding the GST and HST exemption for home care services; reducing tariffs on baby clothing and sporting equipment; supporting organizations such as Indspire, Canada Youth Business Foundation, Genome Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Pallium Foundation of Canada and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; providing funding for Nunavut housing; increasing the gas tax by 2% per year; reversing the Conservatives' earlier policy on the temporary foreign worker programs; and correcting the Conservatives' mistakes in terms of earlier changes made to registered disability savings plans when they rammed Bill C-38 through Parliament last year.

Given a chance to vote on some of these measures individually, we might, in fact, vote yes on some of them. Unfortunately, due to the approach taken by the Conservatives with this omnibus legislation, they have lumped some of these more reasonable measures in with massive tax increases on middle-class Canadians.

One measure alone, the proposed change to the dividend tax credit, will raise taxes on small business owners by over $2.3 billion over the next five years. This massive tax hike will hurt 750,000 Canadians, who will watch their tax bills go up by an average of more than $3,000 each, and it will put Canadian jobs and small businesses at risk. We cannot take $2.3 billion out of the economy without it hurting small businesses and hurting job creation in Canada. Remember, this tax hike is on top of the Conservatives' annual increase of EI premiums. Each and every year, the Conservatives increase the amount of money they take out of the economy through EI payroll tax increases by more than $600 million.

Bill C-60 also raises taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year. This is a direct attack on rural and small-town Canada, because credit unions play a vital role in the economies of small towns and communities across Canada.

The Conservatives seem to have forgotten that the goal of tax breaks for credit unions is to ensure that they can compete with big banks.

The fact is, credit unions are smaller and they face challenges that the big banks do not. That is why the tax deduction for credit unions ensures that only smaller institutions can qualify for this credit.

If the Conservatives believe that the deduction was not being used properly they could have proposed changes to the qualifying rules. It is not fair to punish all credit unions and the Canadians who depend on them by getting rid of this tax deduction altogether.

Bill C-60 also increases other taxes, some that will mean significant price increases for Canadian families and others that would nickel and dime Canadians who are already struggling just to make ends meet. The legislation would add GST or HST to the costs of certain health care services that Canadians already pay out of pocket.

For example, victims of crime would now pay GST or HST on the medical work that they need to establish their case in court, such as X-rays and lab work, which are not cheap to begin with. Bill C-60 would punish these victims by raising the costs of their medical expenses by up to 15%. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Conservative members of Parliament would want to punish victims of crime.

Bill C-60 would not only raise GST and HST on these health care services, it would make these increases retroactive to March 22. Doctors would now need to collect HST from their patients, and they are not sure which of the services would be subject to sales tax. There is a lot of confusion because the government has said that the tax is going up on health care services for non-health care purposes. What exactly does that mean?

Would couples who are struggling with fertility issues now have to pay taxes for certain lab work? Would Canadians have to pay taxes on doctors' notes they need for school or work? Would parents who have a child with special needs now have to pay tax on medical assessments they need in order to get a decision from a school board? Are the Conservatives now placing a tax on mental health services? We do not know.

While the Conservatives were quick to introduce this tax hike on health care services, they have been slow to provide Canadian doctors and their patients with the information they need.

Earlier this week the Canadian Psychological Association wrote to finance committee members asking for clarification. They wrote:

This announcement has created some confusion for psychologists, many of whom are small business owners, regarding which services are and are not HST-exempt. There is some urgency to the need for clarity given that changes outlined in the budget are retroactive to March 21st, 2013. Many of our members have spoken with their accountants but, unfortunately, this has yielded contradictory information and direction.

This type of confusion is the direct result of poorly thought out and hasty decisions brought forward by a government that is desperate to raise taxes and has not done its homework. It is what happens when a government becomes arrogant and refuses to hold public consultations and ignores the very Canadians who are most impacted by government decisions.

There are more tax hikes. Bill C-60 would increase taxes on safety deposit boxes.

Now the Conservatives will want to focus this debate on a few tiny tax decreases in the bill. For instance, they want to focus on tariff reductions for sporting equipment, those tariff reductions that we incidentally would support. However, it was my Liberal colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso, who stood in the House last November and demanded that the government remove these tariffs.

While this budget would reduce a few tariffs, it would increase many more. There is a net increase by $250 million per year in tariff taxes on Canadians. For every $1 in tariff reductions in this budget, there are $4 in tariff increases.

It is the Conservatives' tax increases that we do not support. These tax increases, otherwise known as tariff increases, which are import taxes, are a hidden tax on just about everything. Taxes on almost 1,300 different types of products would go up, everything from basic toiletries like toothpaste to home furnishings. The Conservatives would raise taxes on everything, including the kitchen sink. The fact is the import tax on kitchen sinks would more than double as a result of this budget.

The Conservatives have claimed that they are increasing these taxes because they do not want to help Chinese companies. That argument is ridiculous. It is not the Chinese companies that would be paying these taxes. It is middle-class Canadian families who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Second, if the tariff increases were not just simply a naked attempt by the Conservatives to take more money out of hard-working Canadians, then we would also see tax decreases in the budget in order to compensate Canadians.

When we tally it up, budget 2013 includes much more in the way of punishing tax increases than the pittance of tax relief. In fact, we could say there is a thimblefull of tax relief in a sea of tax hikes in this Conservative budget.

If we add up all the tax changes listed on the back of the budget, we would see that there is a net tax increase in every one of the next five years. This year, budget 2013 would impose a net tax increase of $65 million. Next year it would be a net tax increase of $615 million.

Over the next five years, the Conservatives' budget 2013 would impose a net tax increase of more than $3.3 billion. That is $3.3 billion of money earned by hard-working Canadians that the Conservatives would now be taking out of the economy. It is $3.3 billion less for Canadian families to spend on food, transportation or mortgage payments. That is on top of the almost $6.5 billion net increase in taxes imposed in the previous three budgets.

Combined, it is almost $10 billion in net tax increases on Canadians since budget 2010. That is $10 billion more that the Conservatives are taking out of the Canadian economy. It is $10 billion less in the hands of Canadian families and investors.

The government can do two things to help create jobs: cut taxes and increase public spending.

In fact, the Conservatives are doing the opposite. They are raising taxes while cutting public investment. It is no wonder that they are not creating enough jobs for young Canadians.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has forecast that the last two Conservative budgets will kill far more jobs than they create. According to the interim PBO, tax increases and spending measures in budgets 2012 and 2013 would have a net effect of 12,000 fewer jobs this year, 33,000 fewer jobs next year and 67,000 fewer jobs by 2017.

It is little wonder that the Conservatives cannot match the job creation record of the previous Liberal government. Under Prime Ministers Chrétien and Martin, the Liberals consistently lowered taxes and helped create 3.5 million net new jobs in Canada.

Looking at just the last seven years of the Liberal administration, there were over two million net new jobs created. Compare this with the Conservatives. Only 1.3 million net new jobs have been created in the last seven years.

Many Canadians have dropped out of the workforce altogether. A lot of young Canadians are giving up. A lot of young Canadians are working in unpaid internships, and the Conservatives simply have not created the jobs young Canadians need at a time when we have lost a lot of good-paying manufacturing jobs and there have been a lot of Canadians who have gone from full-time jobs to part-time work. That is why Canadian families are falling behind.

Why are the Conservatives, during this time of economic uncertainty and challenge, raising taxes? It is to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending and mismanagement of public resources.

In this budget, we get more waste from the Conservatives. Budget 2013 does nothing to curb the Conservatives' addiction to partisan government advertising. Canadians are sick and tired of watching the Conservatives throw their money away on partisan economic action plan ads. We know that these ads are not a good use of taxpayers' money. The Conservatives know that they do not provide good value for the taxpayers.

Last year the government commissioned a poll to see if the economic action plans were working. These are the ads the government took out ostensibly to promote measures in the budget. Here is the result. While 23% of Canadians who saw the ad could remember the phrase, “economic action plan”, far fewer Canadians actually knew what the ads were about.

Half as many thought the ads were about Canada or the governing Conservative Party. They did not relate them to the budget at all. While almost 5% of Canadians could remember that the ads included arrows that pointed up, less than 1% of Canadians knew the ads were about the federal budget.

In fact, when the survey went further and asked whether or not it affected the behaviour of Canadians who watched them, 92% said the ads did not affect their behaviour whatsoever. There was no result for them whatsoever as a result of watching these ads. They said that the ads had not provided them with any useful information. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians said that.

Of the people who did something, more than one in five “expressed my disbelief”. I am quoting from the actual survey commissioned by the finance department. Apparently, expressing one's disbelief about the economic action plan ads was such a popular option in the survey that it actually got its own category in the results.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in this legislation that would help wean the Conservatives off this wasteful use of partisan advertising. There is another area of spending that is covered in Bill C-60 that reflects the disconnect between the Conservative priorities and those of Canadian families: the number of parliamentary secretaries and the size of the cabinet.

The bill would not only increase the number of parliamentary secretaries, it would actually add three more cabinet positions to the list of salaried ministers. This means the Prime Minister would continue to increase the size of his cabinet and that these cabinet ministers and their parliamentary secretaries could continue to give pay increases to their Conservative staffers. If we compare this to the plight that an awful lot of young Canadians face today, it would seem that the Conservatives are only interested, in terms of young Canadians, in helping young Conservative staffers, because it seems that they are leaving everyone else out of the equation totally.

In fact, only two measures would really will help young Canadians in this budget overall; well, I would say three.

First is the Canada Youth Business Foundation. I think, broadly, that investment is a positive investment. It is not nearly enough. There is so much more that needs to be done to foster entrepreneurialism in Canada.

Second, one could argue that expanding ministers' officers would create more jobs for young Conservative staffers. I guess we could say that is helping somebody out.

Third, at a time when young Canadians cannot find work, when the youth job numbers are five points worse than they were five years ago--last summer we had the worst summer jobs numbers since Statistics Canada started tracking these numbers--the Conservatives have come up with a new super donor credit for young Canadians who contribute. It is pretty hard for young Canadians to contribute when they are suffering under staggering consumer debt. Over 30% of them between the ages of 25 to 29 are living at home, with their parents, because they cannot pay for their own apartment. Yet what do the Conservatives do? They say, “We're going to help these people. We're going to make them great philanthropists.”

There are not too many young Canadians I know who are going to have wings of hospitals named after them in the near future. The reality is unless the Conservatives are talking about kids with trust funds or something, I do not know too many young Canadians who are in a position to give significant donations to charities or who have tax planners telling them how to do that in a tax-efficient manner. That shows us how out of touch the Conservatives are with middle-class Canadian families.

The reality is young Canadians are suffering. We risk losing a generation of potential in Canada as a result of Conservative inaction.

Nothing speaks more to the degree to which the government is out of touch with the needs and the realities of young Canadians than the fact that one of the few measures it puts in the budget to help young Canadians would help them become philanthropists, at a time when they cannot even make ends meet or pay for their own apartment or get out of debt from their student loans.

In summary, the bill would do nothing significant to help young Canadians who are struggling, it would punish middle-class Canadians with massive tax increases, and it would continue with wasteful spending that reflects the Conservatives' interest in politics and not in the people of Canada. Therefore, we cannot support the budget implementation act.