Bill C-31 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit;
(b) expands the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes;
(c) introduces the search and rescue volunteers tax credit;
(d) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(e) expands the circumstances in which members of underfunded pension plans can benefit from unreduced pension-to-RRSP transfer limits;
(f) eliminates the need for individuals to apply for the GST/HST credit and allows the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive the credit;
(g) extends to 10 years the carry-forward period with respect to certain donations of ecologically sensitive land;
(h) removes, for certified cultural property acquired as part of a gifting arrangement that is a tax shelter, the exemption from the rule that deems the value of a gift to be no greater than its cost to the donor;
(i) allows the Minister of National Revenue to refuse to register, or revoke the registration of, a charity or Canadian amateur athletic association that accepts a donation from a state supporter of terrorism;
(j) reduces, for certain small and medium-sized employers, the frequency of remittances for source deductions;
(k) improves the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada; and
(l) requires a listing of outstanding tax measures to be tabled in Parliament.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) introduces transitional rules relating to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit;
(b) requires certain financial intermediaries to report to the Canada Revenue Agency international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more;
(c) makes amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permits the disclosure of taxpayer information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada and BDC Capital Inc. are not financial institutions for the purposes of the Income Tax Act’s mark-to-market rules.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) expanding the GST/HST exemption for training that is specially designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training;
(b) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors;
(c) adding eyewear specially designed to treat or correct a defect of vision by electronic means to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(d) extending to newly created members of a group the election that allows members of a closely-related group to not account for GST/HST on certain supplies between them, introducing joint and several (or solidary) liability for the parties to that election for any GST/HST liability on those supplies and adding a requirement to file that election with the Canada Revenue Agency;
(e) giving the Minister of National Revenue the discretionary authority to register a person for GST/HST purposes if the person fails to comply with the requirement to apply for registration, even after having been notified by the Canada Revenue Agency of that requirement; and
(f) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures by
(a) providing a GST/HST exemption for supplies of hospital parking for patients and visitors, clarifying that the GST/HST exemption for supplies of a property, when all or substantially all of the supplies of the property by a charity are made for free, does not apply to paid parking and clarifying that paid parking provided by charities that are set up or used by municipalities, universities, public colleges, schools and hospitals to operate their parking facilities does not qualify for the special GST/HST exemption for parking supplied by charities;
(b) clarifying that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of the GST/HST;
(c) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permitting the disclosure of confidential GST/HST information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) clarifying that a person cannot claim input tax credits in respect of an amount of GST/HST that has already been recovered by the person from a supplier.
Part 3 implements excise measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) adjusting the domestic rate of excise duty on tobacco products to account for inflation and eliminating the preferential excise duty treatment of tobacco products available through duty free markets;
(b) ensuring that excise tax returns are filed accurately through the addition of a new administrative monetary penalty and an amended criminal offence for the making of false statements or omissions, consistent with similar provisions in the GST/HST portion of the Excise Tax Act; and
(c) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures by
(a) permitting the disclosure of confidential information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(b) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency.
In addition, Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to clarify that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of those Acts.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff. In particular, it
(a) reduces the Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under the other tariff treatments on tariff items related to mobile offshore drilling units used in oil and gas exploration and development that are imported on or after May 5, 2014;
(b) removes the exemption provided by tariff item 9809.00.00 and makes consequential amendments to tariff item 9833.00.00 to apply the same tariff rules to the Governor General that are applied to other public office holders; and
(c) clarifies the tariff classification of certain imported food products, effective November 29, 2013.
Part 5 enacts the Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act and amends the Income Tax Act to introduce consequential information reporting requirements.
Part 6 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 6 provides for payments to compensate for deductions in certain benefits and allowances that are payable under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act.
Division 2 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Division 3 of Part 6 amends the Hazardous Products Act to better regulate the sale and importation of hazardous products intended for use, handling or storage in a work place in Canada in accordance with the Regulatory Cooperation Council Joint Action Plan initiative for work place chemicals. In particular, the amendments implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals with respect to, among other things, labelling and safety data sheet requirements. It also provides for enhanced powers related to administration and enforcement. Finally, it makes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.
Division 4 of Part 6 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to authorize individuals to transport beer and spirits from one province to another for their personal consumption.
Division 5 of Part 6 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Division 6 of Part 6 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to prohibit parliamentarians from contributing to their pension and accruing pensionable service as a result of a suspension.
Division 7 of Part 6 amends the National Defence Act to recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force while preserving the integration and the unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and to provide that the designations of rank and the circumstances of their use are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 6 amends the Customs Act to extend to 90 days the time for making a request for a review of a seizure, ascertained forfeiture or penalty assessment and to provide that requests for a review and third-party claims can be made directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Division 9 of Part 6 amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to provide for the dissolution of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board and to repeal the requirement for the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to submit a comprehensive report every five years on the Agency’s activities and on the impact those activities have had on regional disparity.
Division 10 of Part 6 dissolves the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and authorizes, among other things, the transfer of its assets and obligations, as well as those of its subsidiaries, to either the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It also provides that the employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries are deemed to have been appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and includes provisions related to their terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, it amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to, among other things, confer on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the authority that is necessary for the administration, management, control and disposal of the assets and obligations transferred to the Agency. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act.
Division 11 of Part 6 provides for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the programs known as the “Online Works of Reference” and the “Virtual Museum of Canada” from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History.
Division 12 of Part 6 amends the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act to remove certain restrictions on the acquisition of voting shares of Nordion.
Division 13 of Part 6 amends the Bank Act to add regulation-making powers respecting a bank’s activities in relation to derivatives and benchmarks.
Division 14 of Part 6 amends the Insurance Companies Act to broaden the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting the conversion of a mutual company into a company with common shares.
Division 15 of Part 6 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to support the objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council to enhance the alignment of Canadian and U.S. regulations while protecting Canadians. It introduces measures to accelerate and streamline the regulatory process, reduce the administrative burden for manufacturers and importers and improve safety for Canadians through revised oversight procedures and enhanced availability of vehicle safety information.
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 modernize the legislation by aligning it with the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.
This Division also amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting activities related to specified fresh fruits and vegetables, including requiring a person who engages in certain activities to be a member of a specified entity or organization. It also repeals the Board of Arbitration.
Division 16 of Part 6 amends the Telecommunications Act to set a maximum amount that a Canadian carrier can charge to another Canadian carrier for certain roaming services.
Division 17 of Part 6 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to interrupt their compassionate care leave or leave related to their child’s critical illness, death or disappearance in order to take leave because of sickness or a work-related illness or injury. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of compassionate care benefits or benefits for parents of critically ill children.
Division 18 of Part 6 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide that fees fixed under that Act for the use of a facility provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the Safe Food for Canadians Act as well as fees fixed for services, products and rights and privileges provided by the Agency under that Act are exempt from the application of the User Fees Act.
Division 19 of Part 6 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, enhance the client identification, record keeping and registration requirements for financial institutions and intermediaries, refer to online casinos, and extend the application of the Act to persons and entities that deal in virtual currencies and foreign money services businesses. Furthermore, it makes modifications in regards to the information that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada may receive, collect or disclose, and expands the circumstances in which the Centre or the Canada Border Services Agency can disclose information received or collected under the Act. It also updates the review and appeal provisions related to cross-border currency reporting and brings Part 1.1 of the Act into force.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 to, among other things,
(a) require certain applications to be made electronically;
(b) provide for the making of regulations regarding the establishment of a system of administrative monetary penalties for the contravention of conditions applicable to employers hiring foreign workers;
(c) provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence in respect of which a decision as to whether the selection criteria are met is not made before February 11, 2014; and
(d) clarify and strengthen requirements related to the expression of interest regime.
Division 21 of Part 6 amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to clarify that an adjudicator may grant systemic remedies when it has been determined that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice.
It also clarifies the transitional provisions in respect of essential services that were enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.
Division 22 of Part 6 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to clarify how payments to provinces under section 99 of that Act are to be determined.
Division 23 of Part 6 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 so that the aggregate amount of payments to provinces and territories for matters relating to the establishment of a Canadian securities regulation regime may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Division 24 of Part 6 amends the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act and the National Housing Act to provide that certain criteria established in a regulation may apply to an existing insured mortgage or hypothecary loan.
Division 25 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, make that Act consistent with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and add the authority to make regulations for carrying into effect the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The amendments include the simplification of the requirements for obtaining a filing date in relation to an application for the registration of a trade-mark, the elimination of the requirement to declare use of a trade-mark before registration, the reduction of the term of registration of a trade-mark from 15 to 10 years, and the adoption of the classification established by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.
Division 26 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to repeal the power to appoint the Registrar of Trade-marks and to provide that the Registrar is the person appointed as Commissioner of Patents under subsection 4(1) of the Patent Act.
Division 27 of Part 6 amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent the payment of Old Age Security income-tested benefits for the entire period of a sponsorship undertaking by removing the current 10-year cap.
Division 28 of Part 6 enacts the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, respecting the construction and operation of a new bridge in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge and the Nuns’ Island Bridge.
Division 29 of Part 6 enacts the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which establishes the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC) as a portion of the federal public administration. The ATSSC becomes the sole provider of resources and staff for 11 administrative tribunals and provides facilities and support services to those tribunals, including registry, administrative, research and analysis services. The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Acts establishing those tribunals and to other Acts related to those tribunals.
Division 30 of Part 6 enacts the Apprentice Loans Act, which provides for financial assistance for apprentices to help with the cost of their training. Under that Act, apprentices registered in eligible trades will be eligible for loans that will be interest-free until their training ends.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There are 272 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-31.

Motions Nos. 162 to 165 will not be selected by the Chair, as they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied they meet the guidelines expressed in the note of Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

The motions will be grouped for debate as follows.

Group No. 1 includes Motions Nos. 1 to 12.

Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 13 to 160 and 166 to 272.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 12 in Group No. 1 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

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

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak at report stage to Bill C-31, which is entitled an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. New Democrats oppose this initiative both on the basis of content, as I will describe, and perhaps equally on the basis of the process that has led us to this stage this evening.

This process includes an anti-democratic effort by the government to push through yet another omnibus budget bill. By my count it is the fifth or sixth, I cannot remember, in Parliament since it achieved a majority in 2011.

These omnibus budget bills, as Canadians know so well, have included measures that have absolutely nothing to do with fiscal or budgetary measures, making enormous changes to our society and to our environment through matters that the government puts in an omnibus budget bill so that it has its way. The opposition, who may oppose or like some of the initiatives, is put in a position deliberately so we have to oppose all initiatives, even those with which we agree. That is the process that has led us to here.

I can also, of course, talk about time allocation, otherwise known as closure, which has also led us to this situation.

By way of introduction on content, the bill fails to take action to create jobs in Canada, using an austerity approach that is so obviously unsuccessful in our country, and would do nothing to reverse the Conservatives' cuts to infrastructure and health care funding, which are having such a devastating effect on so many of our communities.

It also fails Canada when it comes to protecting the privacy of Canadians, an issue that has been in the news so much this week as a hand-picked privacy commissioner was introduced to the Canadian public and to the privacy community with whom he has absolutely no connection.

Members may ask when I say privacy what that has to do with a budget bill. Once again, it is an omnibus budget bill and so our government decided to accept almost holus-bolus things such as the decision to allow the IRS to have some of the most sensitive information Canadians hold namely, their personal financial information, under an American initiative called FATCA.

This is a budget that most tellingly would do little or nothing to address the almost 300,000 Canadians who are unemployed, 300,000 more than after the recession of 2008. Those people are not back to work. Nor would it help to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost under the watch of the Prime Minister.

Let me begin by talking about the process that has led us to this report stage. After barely 20 minutes of debate at second reading, the Conservatives moved to impose time allocation on debate in the House. Let me repeat that, 20 minutes of debate at second reading for a budget bill consisting of hundreds of clauses covering myriad legislation.

Furthermore, let me outline the motion for the process of the study of Bill C-31 at committee. At 11 o'clock at night on May 29 at finance committee it was deemed that all clauses that had not yet been voted on would be deemed adopted and that all amendments not yet voted upon would be deemed rejected. Once the magic hour appeared, that was it for any kind of debate. Finance committee, of which I am proud to be a member, had to address this. At 11 o'clock at night we all turned into pumpkins, all the amendments were rejected, and it was over. That was the end of it. As I said, 20 minutes of debate and then closure, or time allocation as it is known, occurred. This is democracy I understand.

At committee stage, New Democrats put forward several amendments to insert judicial oversight into dubious information-sharing schemes found in the budget, like the provision that would allow, believe it or not, any CRA official to give information to police without a warrant or any kind of judicial oversight. That will be one of the amendments that will be before us this evening. This is in a budget bill.

In our judgment, the Conservatives voted against all reasonable amendments, with no real consideration of the content. Unless the idea was theirs, it could not have been good enough and would have to be rejected. That is the way business is done at the committee.

We also put forward several amendments to the very controversial FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, implementation aspect of Bill C-31, which was an attempt to make it a little better, this deeply flawed initiative that the Conservatives put forward, which has no business being in a budget bill in the first place, but there it is.

Serious issues were raised at the committee stage regarding the implementation of this statute. I had hoped that the Conservatives would carefully consider and support the NDP amendments, which had been the subject of evidence from very notable experts, such as Professor Christians, the Stikeman Chair in Tax at McGill University, Professor Cockfield at Queen's, who cautioned us that it was not necessary to proceed and jam this through, as they did, with no amendments whatsoever. Nevertheless, that is what is before us tonight.

We say rushing this through in an omnibus budget bill without proper study is not only reckless but is entirely unnecessary. Why? Because the United States had recently delayed the application of FATCA sanctions until January 2015. We were told that Canada was already deemed in compliance with U.S. law, and legal experts told the committee that there was ample time to properly study and amend the agreement.

More than one million Canadians will be affected by this draconian legislation. The Conservatives demonstrated they did not understand that dual Canadians were just as much Canadians as those of us born in this country. They did not understand the case of an individual in Calgary born of two U.S. persons who came to Canada decades ago, but were deemed to be U.S. persons by our American friends and therefore subject to this draconian statute. They did not understand that, and the evidence was shocking in that regard.

Yet again, we are at report stage asking the Conservatives to slow down and remove FATCA from the budget so it can be properly scrutinized, so we can ensure the privacy and, indeed, the constitutional rights of those dual Canadians, our fellow Canadians, are protected. I assume we will find another negative answer to that question.

As a result of a lack of willingness on the government side to make any amendments to the omnibus legislation, the New Democratic Party has moved to delete 266 clauses at report stage, and that is what is before us.

I do not want to sound like there is nothing in this vast bill that we do not support. We support the fact that in the bill the Conservatives decided to rectify errors in the last budget. Finally, they listened and caught up. The example of that I like the best is their previous attempt to levy GST or HST on hospital parking rights. This is an insensitive and unfair section included in budget 2013. We fought against it and they actually changed their mind, something which is so rare, but there it is. Therefore, I do support that belated attempt to do the right thing on that issue.

In a major blow to small business, such as in my community, I have heard from many small business people about the fact that the bill fails to renew the small business job creation tax credit that was first proposed by the NDP in 2011. The hiring credit for small business is gone. Changes to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation were proposed. Believe it or not, there were hazardous materials issues in this legislation, rail safety powers, and the like.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve investment, innovation, economic development and high-quality middle-class jobs. They deserve support for infrastructure in communities in a realistic way. Canadians deserve help to save and invest for their retirement and make life just a little more affordable through measures that would reduce household debt, and for the government to provide those services they rely upon.

Unfortunately, this budget bill does none of those things. That is why the New Democrats will not be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, my neighbour, for delivering a clear and concise address to yet again, as he pointed out, another omnibus budget bill that combines many pieces of legislation into one. Unfortunately, that means something as egregious as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA, as well as changes to the trademark regime, which will hurt Canadian business, as well as changes to the Hazardous Products Act and the WHMIS system are all wrapped up into one piece of legislation.

Does hon. friend from Victoria not agree with me that it is entirely likely that once again the House is passing legislation that will find its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where FATCA will be ruled to violate Canadian charter rights?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to salute and thank my neighbour and friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her intervention and her wisdom in pointing out the FATCA provisions in the bill. We already know those provisions will go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We already know the Conservatives have received legal advice and are moving in that direction. It was Peter Hogg who the government relied on for its ill-fated attempt in yet another omnibus budget bill to deal with Mr. Justice Nadon and that debacle. He was its expert, he prepared a written legal opinion to the effect that it was unconstitutional, so it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We made many amendments that are before us tonight which we will ask the government to vote on. They would clarify that it need not occur. They would clarify that FATCA would not override other sections, such as the human rights legislation or, indeed, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At committee stage, those were voted down. They will be before us again at report stage.

There is no doubt that this is headed to the courts for yet another useless waste of taxpayer money as the Supreme Court will tell us once again that the government initiative is ill-considered.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the same legal expert who the government relies on and lauds, Mr. Hogg, is the same expert who has warned it about this tax treaty that is buried within this 360-page omnibus bill. This one bill will affect more than 60 laws in Canada. Maybe later on in my speech, I will read out all the quotes of the Conservative members, including the Prime Minister and a whole bunch of folks who are now in cabinet, who hated this kind of process when Conservatives were in opposition. They said that it was undemocratic. They said that omnibus bills designed this way were unfair. They have taken what the Liberals were doing when they were in government and have put it on steroids. They actually ram even more into their omnibus legislation than the Liberals did, who were abusing the process.

To the specific piece of this one bill that my friend raises around FATCA, witnesses at committee reported that up to one million Canadians might be exposed to this agreement. What it would do very explicitly, with no notice whatsoever, is affect people suspected of having some sort of relation or experience with the U.S. Maybe they were U.S. citizens at one point or maybe children were born in Canada to U.S. parents. The definition of a who a U.S. person is will not be made by the Canadian government; it will be made by Washington. Rest his soul, Mr. Flaherty spoke up against FATCA and this process, worried about the very thing that I am addressing now, which the Conservatives are choosing to heckle me on. He was worried that accidental Americans, which is what Mr. Flaherty said, would get swept up into this process.

People's private banking information will be collected by their banks, passed on to the CRA, and then on to the IRS without being notified at all. Personal banking information, as we know, can reveal a lot.

Could my friend speak to the effort we are making as New Democrats right now to simply pull this piece of the bill out so we can understand what its implications are before the Conservatives impose this on up to a million Canadians?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is absolutely right. Mr. Flaherty spoke up compassionately against these accidental Americans who would be caught in what I call the FATCA web. There are a million of them and the government is standing by and waiting for an inevitable lawsuit because it did not stand up for our sovereignty when this was before us initially. It is shocking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak to Bill C-31, yet another omnibus budget bill.

The bill has many provisions which are non-controversial and would not excite concerns from myself or very many members of Parliament. There are technical changes to the tax code that are certainly acceptable.

However, we are now being told that the process, once again, of including things in omnibus bills is a tradition. There is a spring omnibus budget bill and a fall omnibus budget bill, which means that since 2012, each federal budget has had approximately 800 pages of ancillary legislation, described as an omnibus budget bill, but which in point of fact often has provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the budgetary process.

Again, I know it is popular on some sides of the House to say that what is happening now is just like what the Liberals used to do. The longest Liberal omnibus bill, which was the one that was brought in 2005 under Paul Martin's administration, was about 100 pages.

By 2009, we were seeing 800-page omnibus bills from the Conservative minority. Another one in 2010 was closer to 900 pages. Now they are split between spring and fall and the combined legislative package is over 800 pages.

It is certainly anti-democratic. It certainly defies the meaning of a proper omnibus bill, which is many different parts of the bill, all meeting the same purpose, serving the same theme and delivering a policy instrument through the changes in numerous pieces of legislation.

I also appeared before the finance committee to speak to the bill. Under the new rules developed by the Conservatives ensure that at report stage members of Parliament in my position are no longer allowed to submit substantive amendments. They have actually changed the legislative process. For the first time in the history of our country, a majority party has found it so inconvenient to allow smaller parties to put forward views at report stage and has changed the legislative process to deny me my rights.

I have a simple amendment at this point. It is deletions. However, let me speak to Bill C-31 in terms of the pieces that disturb me the most.

Report stage should not go by without it being noted that the Canadian Bar Association, among others, has identified that the trademark changes in the bill will hurt Canadian business. This is found in part 6, division 25. These are completely new changes. As far as anyone can find, the most knowledgeable experts in trademark law were not consulted.

The changes will, on the advice of expert witnesses before the committee, hurt Canadian business. In their view, the change has probably been driven by the internal inefficiency of the trademarks office. It does not meet a public policy purpose. In fact, after some time, we will have to go back to try to fix the mistakes that are being made by ramming through changes in trademark legislation.

We also have changes in hazardous products and materials. Most of those are non-controversial, but they were pushed through and the committee did not even have a chance to hear witnesses on those sections.

The Conservatives were in such a rush that when I brought forward amendments to this, even the experts from the department dealing with that policy area were unable to answer questions. It was because there had been no study and no witnesses. When we got to clause by clause, suggestions for changes to the hazardous products aspect of the bill left members of the committee, as well as technical experts from departments, unable to answer simple questions.

When things are rushed through in an omnibus bill, mistakes are made and things are passed without study. In the case of this legislation, everything in here on hazardous products had no study and no witnesses. That needs to be underscored.

The piece my hon. friend from Victoria mentioned is the most controversial. It will certainly be the piece that will cause the greatest grief to this administration. It could cause real grief and hardship for about a million Canadians who may find themselves swept up, not as U.S. citizens, but described as U.S. persons.

I refer again to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This is unusual in a lot of ways. My friend from Victoria and I are both lawyers. I no longer practise in a way which anyone would notice. I am not a practising lawyer. I am not insured to practise law, but I know my legal principles.

It is certainly remarkable that U.S. legislation has been accepted in Canada as having extraterritorial application. Canada is prepared to say okay. I do not know if this would be allowed if, say, Iran decided to pass legislation to say that anyone with an Iranian connection in Canada had to be treated differently than other Canadians.

In the case of the United States and this piece of legislation, it is based on the implementation of something called the Intergovernmental Agreement, or IGA. Obviously, the United States is our greatest trading partner and closest friend. This is nothing against the United States, but as a matter in principle of law, one nation's laws do not apply extraterritorially to citizens of other countries. In this case, we have agreed, as though it were a treaty, to implement the IGA.

What is fascinating about this is that the United States does not treat it as a treaty at all. It has not been sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification. In other words, the U.S. does not treat it as a treaty. The U.S. treats it as sort of a clarification of previous agreements. However, it contains substantive new obligations for foreign countries, and somehow Canada feels that we are obligated to enforce it.

Not all experts in tax law accept that. There was a particularly useful submission to Finance Canada prepared by Allison Christians, who is the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law at McGill University, and Professor Arthur Cockfield of Queen's University. Together they have looked at this and have urged Finance Canada to slow down. They say that the steps we have already taken completely vouchsafe Canadian business and protect Canadian banks. We do not need to push FATCA through, and we certainly should not be pushing it through in an omnibus budget bill.

Their recommendation I think is worth reading into the record this evening:

...we recommend that the government delay passage of the Implementation Act until: (a) the issues surrounding Charter protections, other taxpayer protections, and global cooperative efforts have been thoroughly studied and addressed; and (b) the U.S. government agrees to reciprocal treatment with respect to the tax information reporting system that has been unilaterally imposed on Canada.

We are looking at a piece of legislation that imposes on Canada requirements that the U.S. does not have to reciprocate without a treaty having been ratified in the United States.

What are the implications for Canadians? Well, as I just mentioned, Professors Christians and Cockfield talked about charter implications. My office some time ago filed an access to information request. That is how Professor Peter Hogg's constitutional advice to Finance Canada became public.

Professor Hogg's letter, dated December 12, 2012, was advice to Finance Canada that what he saw in FATCA definitely violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 15 of the charter, which says:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...

This is clearly discrimination, and Professor Hogg went on is his letter to point out the following:

There is no mechanism in the Model IGA whereby individuals who are suspected to be U.S. citizens would even know that their personal information was provided to the IRS.

Further on in his letter, he puts it very strongly and clearly:

In my opinion, the procedures mandated by this Model IGA [FATCA] are discriminatory in a way that would not withstand Charter scrutiny. These procedures effectively treat individuals differently, and adversely, based on immutable personal characteristics, specifically citizenship (whether or not acknowledged or desired by the individual) or place of birth. If Parliament were to enact legislation authorizing and permitting this type of differential and adverse treatment, the legislation would contravene the equality protections in section 15 of the Charter.

That is not a tentative conclusion. It is an authoritative conclusion from the most respected constitutional law expert in the land. He wrote the book on constitutional law that I studied when I was in law school. He taught constitutional law to our dear late friend, Jim Flaherty. Jim claimed that he gave him an A, but we cannot verify that.

However, we know that this piece of legislation, I say without qualification, clearly is unconstitutional, and it brings shame to this place to knowingly pass an unconstitutional act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the speech by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has left me scratching my head. I do not know why, but at the beginning she seemed to be trying to absolve Liberal governments or indicating that, when they were in power, introducing omnibus bills was less serious than it is today.

We should not ignore the fact that the Conservative government is going much further compared to what we have seen in the past. It is a complete abuse of our institutions. The government is doing away with our right to defend the opinions of our constituents. It is holding that right hostage.

However, I would like to understand what motivated the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to downplay the Liberals' actions when they were in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

My motivation is that I like the truth. I think it is important that we tell the truth in this place. It is not true that former Liberal governments have the same record as the Conservatives when it comes to introducing omnibus bills.

When Mr. Martin was prime minister, he introduced a 100-page omnibus bill. It was the biggest in Canada's history. I believe that the current government's abusive practice truly threatens real democracy.

I believe that it is important to tell the truth. In recent years under this Conservative government, we have had bigger and more egregious omnibus bills, which are unparalleled in Canada's history.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for raising the issue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because we in the Liberal Party are also concerned, based on what we have seen from constitutional experts, that there may be violations of the charter.

Let me get to my question, which deals with FATCA. As we know, under FATCA, Canadian banks must report to the IRS the accounts held by clients who happen to have U.S. citizenship. In Canada there are about a million of them. Otherwise they face the prospect of a 30% withholding tax on their U.S. income.

The government seems to have been very motivated to protect the banks from this. It has come up with some alternate arrangements and changes. As it turns out, the banks would report to the CRA, which would then report to the IRS.

However, there does not seem to be the same concern for the citizens themselves. In fact, it seems that the government has folded its tent here, and it seems quite happy to do the work of the IRS insofar as citizens are concerned.

I would like to hear more from my hon. colleague on why she thinks the banks would be protected but not Canadian citizens with dual nationality.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, you have one minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to use less than that in case there are other questions.

I think what has happened here is that there have been threats made by the U.S. administration to sanction Canadian banks. The expert legal advice we have is that the best approach would be to push back on that internationally and to say that there is no right on the part of the U.S. government to penalize banks operating within the United States on the basis of this treaty, which the U.S. has not even ratified itself.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was there at the committee stage. Why does she think the government would not accept an amendment that would say, for greater certainty, that the provisions would comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act, and it would not accept the need for notice of Canadians before their information was released?

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

Mr. Speaker, there were some concessions the Canadians officials gained, such as making sure that RRSPs and other pension and tax savings funds would not be caught under this web. They felt so good about those that they felt they did not dare do anything to protect Canadians and that they got the best deal they could get. They should be listening to legal advice, particularly constitutional law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Newmarket—Aurora to talk about some of the excellent measures contained in Bill C-31, the first implementation bill for budget 2014.

Last January I held extensive pre-budget consultations with Newmarket and Aurora residents to find out what their priorities for the budget would be. The top three requests were these: one, reduce government spending; two, reduce business red tape to stimulate job creation; and three, make government operations run more efficiently.

Economic action plan 2014 delivers on all three. It focuses on returning to budget balance in 2015, promoting jobs and economic growth, and supporting families and communities.

The bill before us today would implement several measures important to Newmarket--Aurora, and I will highlight some of these in my remarks.

Economic action plan 2014 proposes a number of investments and legislative measures to honour the sacrifices made by veterans and their families, facilitate their successful transition to civilian life, and provide them with better access to services.

There are many active veterans and seniors organizations in my riding, including the Royal Canadian Legion Colonel Fred Tilston VC Branch 385 in Aurora, the Royal Canadian Legion Milton Wesley Branch 426 in Newmarket, of which I am a member, and the Newmarket Veterans Association.

In addition to assisting veterans, they do a wonderful job organizing important remembrance events. These events help the community to learn about the sacrifices veterans past and present have made so that we today are able to live in a free and democratic society. Indeed, I am looking forward to attending this Saturday's 40th anniversary celebration of the Aurora Legion, which will also commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-Day.

One such measure in Bill C-31 that would support veterans is a compensatory payment for eligible veterans, survivors, or dependants. This payment relates to a May 29, 2012 announcement by Veterans Affairs Canada that VAC would change the way it calculates its earnings loss benefit, Canadian Forces income support, and war veterans Allowance by stopping the practice of offsetting disability pension benefits.

The offsetting practice ceased on October 1, 2012 for the earnings loss benefit and Canadian Forces income support recipients and on October 1, 2013 for war veterans allowance recipients. Eligible recipients of these three benefit streams, who were impacted by disability pension offsetting between the May 29, 2012 announcement and the day before the offsetting practice ceased for each benefit, will receive compensation. Over 5,000 eligible individuals are expected to benefit. It is a well-deserved payment, and Bill C-31 would ensure that veterans, their survivors, or dependants would receive this additional support.

Our government has also taken significant action to support and protect Canadians consumers since 2006, and economic action plan 2014 is no exception. Bill C-31 would amend the Telecommunications Act to prohibit Canadian carriers from charging their Canadian competitors roaming rates that are higher than what they charge their own customers. Upon coming into force, this cap would apply to all inter-carrier roaming charges.

Capping domestic roaming rates will help Canadian consumers benefit from more competition in the wireless market by removing disincentives for new entrants. This action would continue our commitment announced in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to protect Canadians and their families by encouraging healthy competition and lower consumer prices in the telecommunications industry. Residents in Newmarket--Aurora wholeheartedly support this action to broaden competition in the wireless sector, and I look forward to its implementation.

Students participating in Canada's education system are the largest source of new labour market supplies. Providing them with the skills they will need to be successful is essential to furthering our economic growth.

Canada has one of the highest youth employment rates among its OECD peers. However, more can be done to ensure young Canadians receive the training they need to realize their full potential. Economic action plan 2014 would make over $100 million available to apprentices registered in Red Seal trades in the form of interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. A new Canada apprentice loan would assist more apprentices in completing their training and encourage more youth to consider a career in skilled trades.

Bill C-31 would support this initiative by introducing measures that would ensure that eligible apprentices were treated the same as other student loan borrowers. A lack of skilled help is one of the most common complaints I hear from business owners in Newmarket and Aurora in the manufacturing sector. Some of these businesses offer excellent programs for qualified graduates, but they still have difficulty in attracting good candidates to fill available jobs. The new Canada apprentice loan would assist them in hiring the help they need.

Our government understands that time spent navigating unnecessary bureaucratic red tape is time small business owners could otherwise use to grow their businesses and create jobs. Reducing the administrative burden on small and medium-sized businesses is a key priority of this government. Economic action plan 2014 continues this focus, and Bill C-31 contains several measures to help, including to reduce the frequency of source deduction remittances. These can be onerous, particularly for small businesses. This proposed change would mean the elimination of more than 800,000 payments, helping small businesses in Newmarket—Aurora and across Canada.

Another measure in this bill that perhaps has not received much attention but helps many low-income earners and seniors on fixed incomes in Newmarket and Aurora is the GST-HST credit administration amendment. Currently, individuals may apply for the goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax credit by checking the appropriate application box on their annual income tax returns. The amendment would eliminate the need for individuals to apply for the GST-HST credit and would allow the Canada Revenue Agency to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive it. A number of my constituents have been to my office who have missed out on this credit simply because they were not aware of the need to apply every year. I look forward to this particular measure being passed in time for the 2014 taxation year, as I know it would help thousands of Canadians, including those in Newmarket—Aurora.

There are many other improvements for Canadians contained in this bill. For example, it would better recognize the costs unique to adopting a child by increasing the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 per child for 2014. This maximum amount would be indexed to inflation for taxation years after 2014. A number of people have come into my office, particularly those who are doing overseas adoptions, who are very interested in seeing this implemented.

It would expand the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans. This would include plans for applied behaviour analysis therapy for children with autism. It would also include, if certain conditions were met, the costs associated with service animals for people with severe disabilities. GST-HST exemptions would also be extended for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include those by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors.

Our government has never strayed from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and to put money back into their pockets. Bill C-31 marks the next chapter in keeping that commitment. I urge all members in the House to support its swift passage, so that Canadians may begin to reap the benefits.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a large bill that has many component parts. Obviously, from her position in government and her speech, she will be voting for it.

I wonder if she could comment on the aspects of the bill about trademark policy. It is a major component. The chambers of commerce of Canada have opposed this section of the bill, as has every intellectual property agency that testified and wrote to the committee. I wonder if she could comment on what she suspects the likely impacts would be to the Canadian intellectual property regime and Canadian businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to work on all aspects of intellectual property. We know that needs to be protected in order to keep innovation in Canada.

Let me talk a bit about supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, because that is what is going to make our economy grow, make our economy boom, and provide jobs and opportunity for young people who are coming into the economy.

Let us look at making a landmark investment in post-secondary education by creating the Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion over the next decade. This investment would secure Canada's international leadership in science and innovation. We would support leading-edge research by investing $46 million a year, ongoing, to granting councils across Canada in support of advanced research and scientific discovery. That is where the intellectual property is going to be housed. We are going to be sure we secure that.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Conservative member's remarks with a great deal of interest, and to her comments about the role veterans have played in the kind of country we enjoy today, the freedom and the respect, and I share those sentiments.

Therefore I was very surprised to hear the member talking about the section in this bill, clauses 102 to 107, which are about the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act, as though that were an adequate and proper measure to reflect the importance of veterans in Canada.

What, in fact, this bill would do is end an unfair clawback that has been happening since 2006 under the current Conservative government. However, instead of making those payments retroactive to the time when the clawback first started, which would be April 1, 2006, this bill would only make those payments retroactive for a few months, so it is a government that has essentially been forcing veterans to take it to court to get the due benefits to which they are entitled. Now they would be gypped out of years of past—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I would ask all members to keep their questions short.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no government in the history of Canada that has done more to help our veterans for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. There is a point of order from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not in relation to my friend's answer; it was more in relation to the question.

An unfortunate term was used by my friend. It is a term that has some history in this country. The term “gypped” is not an expression that is in common usage anymore. I am sure my friend did not mean it with any mal-intent, but particularly with the Roma and other communities, it is a derogatory term that is connected to a group of people who are considered miserly and whatnot. I would seek my hon. friend to retract the use of that particular term.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I retract the term and I certainly meant no offence. I was not aware that the word is taken that way, but I appreciate that being pointed out and I retract the word.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is no government in the history of Canada that has recognized and done more for our veterans. We thank them for their service.

In fact, my father-in-law was 34 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. He was one of the soldiers who were responsible for all of the goods and services going in and out of Italy. He was at Monte Cassino during that terrible battle. He was the youngest soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces who was credited for transport by land, air, and sea. Therefore, there is nobody in this House who would stand up more for our veterans than I would.

Our government has done an immense amount for our veterans. When I look back at the things we have done since 2006, I see that this document we are talking about tonight just continues to build on our strong record of support for veterans: $2 billion to enhance the new veterans charter programs in support of seriously injured veterans, $65 million to enhance the funeral and burial program, and $52.5 million in additional support for seriously injured Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

I could go on with that list. We respect our veterans. We are going to continue to help them in every way we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am speaking tonight to Bill C-31.

We see a pattern in these massive omnibus bills from the Conservative government. First of all, the Conservatives stuff these bills with measures that have no business whatsoever being part of a budget implementation act. In the legislation before us, in fact, there are rule changes around administrative tribunals, trademarks, hazardous products, and even rail safety, and these are just a few examples.

The Conservatives have introduced these changes without any public consultation, in most cases. Then they wait and hope that nobody notices the problems in the fine print. However, the problems and the mistakes in the Conservative omnibus legislation always come out in the end. Sometimes they are so blatantly obvious that they are identified in committee. Sometimes it just takes a little time.

The reality is the Justice Nadon fiasco resulted from changes to the Supreme Court Act made in a previous budget implementation act. Had those changes been subjected to more thorough scrutiny at the justice committee, and had the justice committee had the opportunity to actually propose and move amendments and vote on them, we might have actually avoided some of the embarrassment around the failed appointment of Justice Nadon.

There are measures put forward by the government in each of these omnibus budget bills that are there, in fact, to correct errors in previous omnibus bills. It is a deeply flawed process. It creates bad laws that create uncertainty. Ultimately, that is bad for business. It is bad for the Canadian economy. These bad laws hurt the ability of Canadians to grow their businesses, create jobs, and build more prosperous lives.

I would like to identify a few examples of mistakes in this deeply flawed bill. On trademarks, two weeks ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce took the important step of issuing a call to action to its members in response to the trademark provisions of Bill C-31. It is worried that Bill C-31 would remove the requirement to use a trademark before it can be registered.

As a result to this call to action, we have heard from countless chambers across the country, from Surrey, B.C., to Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, to the Northwest Territories. Each and every one of these chambers is warning us that these provisions would increase the cost of doing business in Canada.

They are worried that this would lead to greater levels of litigation and to trademark trolling. They also complain that they were not consulted or engaged by the government. They are asking that these trademark provisions of the bill be removed.

Now, these types of changes ought to have been considered more thoroughly by the industry committee, as an example. We are worried upon hearing these concerns from the chambers.

We are also worried about what we are hearing from individual employers. We have heard from Canadian retailer Giant Tiger. We have heard from food manufacturer PepsiCo Canada, which is a significant employer in my riding. Its Frito Lay plant in the Annapolis Valley provides good jobs to the people in my riding. We take these important employers' concerns very seriously.

The government is not listening and is, in fact, heaping scorn on these Canadian businesses for actually having the audacity—or, I would say, courage—to speak truth to power and express concerns about this bill.

These local chambers represent the business leaders in our communities. We have a responsibility to listen to them.

At the finance committee, the Conservatives attacked the credibility of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its members. They dismissed the concerns of these prominent employers in our communities by suggesting that they were just self-interested lawyers who want to maximize their fees.

I would like to speak about some regional issues, as well. It is not a stretch to say that some of the flaws in this bill would actually threaten jobs in Canada. However, some of the flaws in this bill would actually protect jobs for some specific Conservatives.

Last week the public sector integrity commissioner published his report into wrongdoing by the CEO of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, John Lynn. The investigation found that:

Mr. Lynn committed a serious breach of ECBC’s Employment Conduct and Discipline Policy, which was ECBC’s own code of conduct at the time. This finding is as a result of the appointment of four individuals with ties to the Conservative Party of Canada...into executive positions at ECBC with little or no documented justifications and without demonstrating that the appointments were merit-based....There was an element of deliberateness to Mr. Lynn’s actions...Mr. Lynn’s actions were incompatible with the trust that the Government of Canada and the public has placed in him as Chief Executive Officer.

That is a scathing condemnation of the over-the-top pork barrel patronage engaged in by the government with Enterprise Cape Breton.

Under Bill C-31, the individuals who were improperly hired by Mr. Lynn and who are still at ECBC would now become permanent employees of the public service. Furthermore, Bill C-31 singles out the CEO as the only member of the board eligible for termination pay. That is actually part of this legislation.

In light of the commissioner's findings of wrongdoing, the Liberals moved two important amendments to the bill at committee. These amendments would remove the special deal for the CEO to be eligible to receive termination pay and they would also ensure that the employees who were hired as part of the CEO's wrongdoing would not automatically become permanent members of the public service. This cronyism should have been overturned, not entrenched. However, the Conservatives have put their own interests ahead of Canadians' and they voted these amendments down.

There are some other mistakes in the bill. For instance, correcting previous omnibus bill mistakes, in Bill C-4, the government forgot to include the provincial nominee program as a category when it used a budget bill to establish the immigration department's expression of interest program. That is actually corrected in this bill.

During the committee study, we saw something new on the OAS side. The government showed up to clause-by-clause study and actually introduced amendments to correct mistakes in the current omnibus budget bill, not the last one. It showed up at clause-by-clause study to introduce amendments of its own to fix problems created in its own legislation. It is not thinking this through.

It seems the government has made a fairly basic error in the division concerning OAS. The first reading version of the bill would have resulted in the government actually taking GIS away from some of Canada's poorest seniors who had legitimately qualified for it. In this deeply flawed process, the government gave us zero notice of these amendments. Instead, they were introduced as the committee was about to vote on the measures during clause-by-clause study. The government could not tell us when or how the mistake was discovered. It forgot to bring copies of the OAS Act, so we could not actually see how the amendments to the act would change it. We must remember, this act is one of over 40 laws that are being changed by Bill C-31. The government did not even bring enough copies of its amendments for everyone to see. To think this is how we are asking parliamentarians to make important decisions and to change laws in Canada.

It is not just the Conservatives who have looked like the Keystone Cops during the consideration of the bill. The NDP is actually voting against measures to fast-track the new Champlain bridge. Part 6, division 28 of the bill is dedicated to a new Champlain bridge. It would streamline the development and construction process of the bridge so it would be operational by 2018. It is true that this division would also include measures to implement tolls on the bridge, which Liberals oppose. We introduced amendments to remove all of the toll provisions from the bill, but when our amendments were defeated by the Conservatives, we still voted to go ahead with the bridge because building a bridge with a toll is better than no bridge at all and a new government could cancel the toll before it went into effect. ·It is illogical for the NDP to try to halt plans toward the new bridge because of a toll provision that is four years away. That is exactly what would happen if the NDP motion to remove division 28 actually passes.

The bill continues to ignore the challenges faced by veterans in Canada, continues to show contempt for veterans. The bill, through the FATCA provisions, makes the CRA effectively the tax collector for the IRS, and continues to demonstrate disrespect for Parliament and democracy by putting all of these poorly thought out provisions in a budget implementation act as opposed to free-standing legislation, dealt with by committees with the expertise to make the best possible legislative decisions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote to my friend from Kings—Hants, and I wonder if he could tell us who first said this:

When the bill was rammed through the House with closure, it really did not present a lot of opportunity for meaningful public debate. We had begun to hear...from provincial and territorial governments, from many academics and experts and from many individual Canadians.... The interests of all of Canadians must be served, not the interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political self-interest.

I will give the hon. member a hint. He is the current Prime Minister. He very much disliked this process when, I hate to say it because I know my friend was not a part of that at the time, Liberal governments used omnibus legislation to ram through a whole bunch of measures, thereby depriving members of Parliament and the public their democratic right to debate a bill, and even to understand it.

My friend raised the trademark issues about which the Canadian chambers of commerce wrote to the committee, and many dozens of chambers from across the country. I asked my Conservative colleague to explain that. She had no idea. I am sure she will vote for it happily without even understanding it.

I want my friend to expand a bit on not just the process, but on the issue of FATCA, this agreement with the U.S., and how little information has gone forward to Canadians, how there is no legislative rush that the government has put on this, that it is ramming something through that would affect up to a million Canadians and their private banking information, sending it on to the IRS.

Could my friend expand both on the process and those two substantive pieces that right now exist in this behemoth of a bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, if we look at the omnibus bills, budget bills, or budget implementation bills of previous Liberal governments, they were minute, they were tiny compared to these ones, both in terms of volume, but also in terms of the number of pieces of related legislation. There is even no comparison.

My colleague from Prince Edward Island is reminding me of balanced budgets and paid-down debt and cut taxes. Those were the good old days.

In terms of FATCA, I can say absolutely that when the minister appeared before the committee he did not even know how many Canadians would be affected by this. In fact, the government has said at various points that no Canadians would be affected, because they are exempt. They negotiated an exemption.

The exemption is for the banks. It does not protect individual citizens. The most offensive part of this is the registered savings plans, like RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs into which Canadians contribute for their families and into which the Canadian government contributes matching grants. That money from the Canadian government would be funnelled toward the U.S. treasury as a result of this government's failure to negotiate a better deal in Washington.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to part 5 of Bill C-31. The government says it is doing a lot for Canadians. There is a significant number of Canadians who happen to be dual nationals who are not getting very much out of this, in fact, they are being abandoned, because the government is caving in to American pressure and, as my hon. colleague said, it is doing the tax collecting for the IRS. Banks in Canada would have to report to the CRA about client information for those who happen to be dual nationals. That would then be passed on to the IRS.

In finance committee, when officials were asked what kind of information would be passed on to the IRS, they could not answer, which means the government does not know either.

This is an attack on our privacy. I would like to hear my colleague on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government failed to negotiate effectively to defend Canadian interests. Effectively, the Americans are involved in an act of extraterritoriality in this case.

Beyond that, one of the reasons given by government was that the Americans would effectively shut down Canadian banks operating in the U.S. Canadian banks are very powerful in the United States. Banks like TD, BMO Harris, and Royal Bank are among the most successful banks in the world. Post-global financial crisis, where a lot of the American banks were sucked into the vortex of the mess caused by deregulation in the 1990s, our Canadian banks have been very powerful.

Some witnesses agreed with us that it was a straw man argument, and that it was ridiculous to say that the American financial system would effectively shut down the operations of Canadian banks if we did not capitulate to the Americans by agreeing to this bad deal. It is another example of the economic cost of bad relationships with Washington under the Conservative government.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, an act to implement economic action plan 2014.

Before I begin, I want to first pay tribute to the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, who first tabled the budget back in March. He was referred to as the best finance minister in the world. We all hold him close to our hearts, and I think that the passing of the first budget implementation bill is due in great part to the effort he put in to develop this budget, which was tabled, as I said, earlier this spring.

One thing that happened when Jim Flaherty first became finance minister was that we were soon into the largest global recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Thanks to the leadership of Jim Flaherty as finance minister and thanks to the Prime Minister, Canada has been able to recover from this great recession more strongly and more quickly than any other country in the G7.

One of the reasons we were able to do so was that between 2006 and 2008, we took $40 billion off the federal debt, giving us the flexibility we needed when the recession hit to engage in stimulus spending, to keep our tradespeople working, to keep the economic engines that make Canada flow churning. Because of the decisions that were made early on in this mandate by that finance minister and the Prime Minister in support of Canada, we were able to go into that recession in a strong enough fiscal position that we could take strong action at the beginning of that recession to limit its damage to the Canadian economy.

As we emerged from the greatest recession since the Great Depression, we made a commitment during the 2011 election to return the federal government to a balanced budget. This is a daunting task. Many people across Canada said it would be impossible in such a short time or that if we took strong steps to do that, we would be destabilizing the economy and hurting the future of Canada if we tried to do it by 2015.

As I see it, there are three ways for a government to balance the budget.

The first is a path that we did not choose, a path that I call the easy path to balance a budget. It is to simply raise taxes. We have seen other governments attempt to balance budgets by raising taxes across Canada. Not only did we not raise taxes on Canadian taxpayers, families, and businesses, but we actually made a decision and a commitment to lower them, and today in Canada, the average family of four is paying over $3,200 less federal tax than they did when we took office in 2006. That is a testament to the courage and determination of the Prime Minister, finance minister Flaherty, and the current finance minister.

We also lowered corporate taxes, which encourages investment in Canada and keeps our economic engines running. It gives our small businesses and medium-sized enterprises the ability to pay low taxes so that maybe they can hire one or two more people to help us encourage employment in this country. Low corporate taxes, low personal taxes, and lower taxes on families are the direction we chose to go. We chose this path instead of raising taxes, as we see some of the opposition parties pushing for on a continual basis.

The second direction we could have taken to balance the budget would have been to slash transfers to the provinces. These are the funds provinces need to provide the services that Canadians hold so close to their hearts: health care, education, community services. Provinces across Canada need those valuable transfer dollars so they can deliver on these services that Canadians not only need but expect. These transfer payments are very important for the provinces to do their job as partners with the federal Government of Canada. In fact, we have not lowered those transfer payments, as we saw the former Liberal government do in the 1990s when it tried to balance the budget after an earlier recession and cut billions and billions of dollars from federal transfers to the provinces, particularly in the area of health care.

The billions of dollars that the previous government cut in health care saw nurse layoffs, hospital closures across this country, and doctors fleeing to the United States for better deals because the provinces could not afford, with these federal cuts, to provide adequate health care of a competitive nature in North America.

We believe that was the wrong way to go, and I personally believe that we still have not fully recovered from that the cuts made early on in the previous government's mandate during the 1990s.

Instead of cutting transfers to the province in an attempt to balance the budget, we have made a commitment to the provinces and increased those transfers. In fact, we would increase the transfers envelope to the provinces from $42 billion in 2005 to $65 billion in 2014. That would be a $23-billion increase in these valuable transfers to the provinces.

The health transfer alone would go from $20 billion in 2005 to $32 billion in 2014, and it would reach $40 billion for health care alone by the end of this decade. That is a true commitment by the Prime Minister, from finance minister Flaherty, and from the latest Minister of Finance to health care across the country.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, in 2005 the total transfer envelope for the Province of Nova Scotia was $2.2 billion. This year, for the first time, the federal government would transfer $3 billion to the Province of Nova Scotia. Almost a third of the total revenue of the Province of Nova Scotia comes directly from these transfers from the federal government.

Can members imagine how difficult it would be for the provinces to meet their commitments to the people of this country if those transfers were slashed by the government in some sort of random, willy-nilly attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those transfers to the provinces? We chose not to do that. We chose a different path.

The path that we chose under the leadership of finance minister Flaherty and the Prime Minister was to look inside government spending itself first. We made precise and needed cuts and reductions to government departments across the board, making sure that we took the time to make sure that the front-line services for Canadians were protected.

We made good reductions so that Canadian taxpayers could have lower taxes, the provinces could have their transfers protected, and we could balance the budget. That was the decision that we made under the leadership of the finance minister and the Prime Minister.

With the implementation of this budget, we would be facing a balanced budget moving forward. Out of all the countries in the G7, Canada is the one best positioned to seize the next 20 years as decades of growth for this country. We will achieve a leadership position unannounced and unknown to us well before that recession took place. We would emerge stronger and better than we ever expected Canada to be at this point.

I know that I only have a couple of minutes left, but I would like to talk about one more issue contained in this act. It has to do with a challenge we face as we move forward and engage in this positive future for the country. It is the paradox of having too many Canadians still unemployed in this country, despite our recovery from the recession, while at the same time having many jobs across Canada for which employers cannot find skilled people to fill them.

That is why, in this budget implementation act, we would implement the youth apprenticeship loan. This would be a $100 million program that for the first time would enable young people across Canada who are engaged in the trades to count on the federal government to help support them, to the tune of a $4,000 interest-free loan for each year of their training. This is so that they could engage in a trade that would lead to a job so that they could get married, raise their own families, and be confident that they could provide a solid basis for family life and provide for their families as they raise their children.

This is a commitment that we made in this budget. We think it is the proper route to take.

As Canada now emerges from the largest recession since the Great Depression in a strong fiscal position, we now have confidence that we can engage in a robust recovery, create jobs, and have the skilled Canadians to fill those jobs.

This is the challenge we face, and we are up to the job. We look forward to the opposition's support for this bill. I encourage them to support it. Help us make Canada the strong, proud nation we know it can be.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech. The credit I will give him is that he is one of the few Conservatives over there who, while he has some notes, will speak extemporaneously from time to time. It is great. It is a tradition in the House that we have sometimes lost. Certainly from the government benches, we see page after page of prepared notes from the Prime Minister's Office. They read them off faithfully, and that is very nice.

With respect to this budget bill, because that is what we are dealing with, while I am tempted to get into the larger economic issues that the hon. member talked about, what we have in front of us tonight is a bill of over 360 pages that affects more than 60 laws currently on the books. One of the aspects buried within this bill is a tax treaty with the United States. The U.S. is our largest trading partner, and it is the most significant tax treaty that we could see.

I wonder if the member has any misgivings at all about the implications for the up to one million Canadians who would be impacted and have their personal tax information sent on to the IRS without their even knowing.

We asked for a notification in the bill to simply say that the bank should notify those people who have their information passed to the IRS.

I wonder if the member would be in support of that amendment to this very bad deal, an amendment to at least allow Canadians the knowledge that their information is being passed on to the IRS.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member refers to is a conversation I had with the former finance minister, as I had several constituents in my riding come to my office and inquire about the FATCA situation and how it was going to affect them.

I was told at that time by the finance minister that we were in heavy negotiations with the United States of America to make sure that we negotiated a deal that would protect the rights and privacy of Canadians who could be affected by this legislation enacted in the U.S.A.

I can remember the finance minister standing in the House announcing the deal that had been made with the United States in order to protect Canadians. We hear the fearmongering by the opposition side, but we know that RESPs and RRSPs are protected. We know they were excluded from any deal. We are making a continued strong effort to negotiate with the United States to make sure all Canadians are protected from these measures.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my Conservative colleague congratulate his government for having paid down the debt in the early years of government, when the Conservatives were left with a $13-billion surplus by the previous Liberal government and proceeded to quickly get into a deficit that has lasted seven years.

With regard to those funds that were saved, he was congratulating the government for having money to spend in this budget, but how does he feel about the fact that veterans have had their disability payments, which are payments for pain and suffering, clawed back since 2006 under his government's watch? Some of these clawbacks are being replaced, but only between May 29 and September 30 of 2012. That is it. It is just several months' worth, when it was years—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member talked about the surplus the Liberals apparently left our government with. However, back in those days, around 2004-2005 and before our government took over, there was a huge issue in this country that was called the fiscal imbalance between the provinces and the federal government. We had provinces across the country complaining about the federal government's cuts in transfers and the way it had treated the provinces and caused this fiscal imbalance.

We do not hear the provinces complaining about the fiscal imbalance anymore, because when this government took over, the finance minister and the Prime Minister made changes to the equalization formula and fixed that problem.

When the member talks about the $13-billion surplus, that was done on the backs of the provinces. We did something different. We have done it in a different way.

On the member's second issue, veterans, we are investing more than $700 million per year, which more in support of our veterans than that party did when it was in office. No party has invested more in support of the health and welfare and future of our veterans than the Conservative Party of Canada. I stand firmly behind the supports we are putting forward to veterans.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that the FATCA buried in Bill C-31 requires that the bank search every single customer record with a fine-tooth comb, does the government have any estimates for what that is going to cost and how much of those costs will be passed on to every bank customer across Canada?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I can remember the finance minister standing in the House and addressing opposition questions similar to this one on this deal. This government conducted a tough negotiation with the United States of America, and we made sure that we put a negotiation in place to protect the privacy and the economic concerns of people who might be affected by this legislation that was put forward in the United States.

As for the actual financial costs, those will have to be determined as we move forward, because we cannot predict what is going to happen in the future. However, I can say that we will invest whatever money it takes to protect the finances and privacy of all Canadians who could be affected by this legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak in Canada's Parliament, in our House of Commons.

It is an incredible privilege and honour, certainly to do so on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest of British Columbia. This is a region of the country that is incredibly proud, with its diverse and important history. Also, it has struggled, particularly with regard to creating jobs, and it has watched many of the major sectors suffer.

One of the great abuses that has been heaped on that challenge by successive governments is the inattentiveness to what actual Canadians are concerned about, the proper way to create jobs and wealth in this country.

We have struggled, particularly when we watch governments that grow so arrogant over time that they choose a form of governing that is disrespectful and disregarding of some of our most primary and fundamental democratic instincts.

I have some quotations, because it is not just me saying this about the process we are engaged in here today on this particular bill. Let me quote from somebody sitting in cabinet right now.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Minister of Industry said when the previous Liberal government used an omnibus bill, this technique of ramming all sorts of pieces of legislation into one. That omnibus bill was one-third the size of the one the Conservatives have just introduced. This must be three times the size of the Grand Canyon with respect to arrogance.

This happens to governments, especially ones that age badly over time, as the government has done. We can look at the list of omnibus legislation over the last number of years. Bill C-13 was 644 pages; Bill C-38, which was often called the pipelines enabling act, gutting environmental and safeguards we have within the Fisheries Act, was 425 pages; Bill C-45, further gutting protections for Canadians, was 400 pages. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-60, and now this one, Bill C-31, at almost 300 pages affecting 60 pieces of law.

I have a stack of quotes from Conservatives, from the Prime Minister to many ministers in his cabinet, decrying the abuse of Parliament that had been done under Liberal majority governments. It seems that they paid too close attention, but took all of the wrong lessons from the previous government. In fact, they took that and somehow tried to normalize it.

We do not think it is normal. We do not think it is proper and good for a government to try to ram these pieces of legislation through, invoking what is called time allocation or closure, shutting down the debate at every stage. In this case, the government shut it down after 20 minutes of debate. It brought in time allocation and said, “That is enough of this whole debate thing, this whole democracy thing. Let us allocate the time and shut down opportunities”.

I remember the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, decrying the fact that he might only get 10 minutes and that many members of Parliament would not get any time at all. That is exactly what the same Prime Minister is now doing.

That is on the process. It is an absolute farce when the government pretends that any sort of proper oversight was given to this bill. I have sat on the committee, and my Conservative colleagues know full well that as the shutting down of witnesses and debate at committee happens, the government starts racing through pages and pages of legislation. In fact, it had to amend its own bill before it even left the committee stage, because it had made so many fundamental errors. It was going to deprive seniors of some of their pensions, inadvertently.

Constitutional experts that the Conservatives say are the best, like Mr. Hogg, who the Conservatives rely on for advice, have come forward and said there are whole sections of this bill that will not only be challenged in our courts for charter infringement, but those challenges will succeed.

The government is going to introduce legislation that it knows full well is likely to fail a charter challenge, which is going to cost Canadians millions through our tax dollars for all the lawyers that it takes to go through all the series of courts up to the Supreme Court, but it will also cause all the pain and aggravation for those who suffer under a law that is not constitutional in the first place.

This is a movie we have seen before from the government. Time and time again, when we get references for bills that are unconstitutional from all the advice we can gather, the government chooses playing politics over good policy and brings them in anyway.

Let us look at aspects of this 360-page monster.

Let me start with something that is not in here, which the small businesses in Canada were calling for. It was a proposal first put forward by New Democrats in the last election: a small-business hiring tax credit.

Here is the fundamental idea in this very good idea. This was a small-business initiative that Jack Layton and the NDP proposed that said, “Let us help out small businesses in hiring those people, but in giving that tax credit we want to connect it to an actual job being created”. I know this is radical economics over here, where we suggest that if we give a tax credit to the private sector from the public, there should be something in return, like a job created.

The tax credits and the tax breaks that the Conservatives prefer and, to be fair, so did the Liberals before them, in the order of tens of billions of dollars, had no strings attached. I remember Mr. Flaherty, our dear friend, criticizing the private sector for sitting on half a trillion dollars of what is called “dead money”. This is money that had been accumulating in the private sector in the private enterprises in Canada that they were not reinvesting. It was just a hope from the Conservatives: here are the tax breaks to the banks and the oil sector; here is a hope that they will actually do something with the money rather than sit on it or just do stock dividends. They hope that they are going to reinvest it back into research and development, reinvest it back into hiring more Canadians and expanding their business, but there are no strings attached to that deal. The Conservatives were very happy to let that go.

Also, many of those tax breaks were done when the government was running a deficit, so it was borrowed money. As all Canadians know, because they have borrowed money at some point, borrowed money always costs more. It was borrowed money that was then sent to the private sector in Canada with no strings attached.

This was one good idea that over half a million Canadian small business owners applied for and used, this small-business hiring tax credit. We would think that, somewhere in the 360 pages, the Conservatives would have found a way to include that one measure in this budget implementation act. It is one measure that worked, that was being applied for, that Canadian business owners enjoyed, and that had helped create more than half a million jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. However, it is not here.

What is in the bill is interesting. There is the Hazardous Products Act. There are all sorts of changes to how we would handle hazardous products. There are changes to the Supreme Court. There are changes to our privacy rights in this bill.

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

These are in a budget bill?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Well, Mr. Speaker, we would ask what that has to do with the economy. Why would the Conservatives use a budget bill to infringe on the privacy and the rights of Canadians? The Privacy Commissioner herself stepped forward and said she had grave concerns about what is being presented and how it is being presented because it is not getting the proper scrutiny and is likely in contravention of the Privacy Act. The government and its officials said that if there were parts of this bill that would override the Privacy Act, then that was okay; that was how they saw it.

However, there is this one small problem, which is that the Privacy Act is a quasi-constitutional act, and they cannot just simply override it because they want to. That is a very good idea, to have in our laws that we see privacy as so important that we include it at the level of importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have instituted in this country. We New Democrats think that is a fantastic, very good piece of legislation, yet here the government is proposing that we simply override it, never mind it; and there will be yet another court challenge.

We talked about injured vets. I heard my Liberal colleagues talking about this. The Conservatives talk about vets and how much they care about our heroes. Theirs is a government that was clawing back from veterans who had been injured while serving Canadians. These are people suffering physical ailments and also those suffering from things like PTSD. They had some of their benefits clawed back by the government since 2006. The Conservatives said they would redress this in this budget bill, and they went back three months, ignoring the six years prior, and said that was good enough and the vets should be happy. In fact, they came before the committee and said that the vets should be grateful for what they have done. They cannot imagine why Canadian veterans and their spouses have to chase this Minister of Veterans Affairs down the hall just to be shown a modicum of respect.

Regarding FATCA, I could do an entire speech on this agreement. The Conservatives said they wrestled hard with those Americans and they really brought them to their knees, and they got basically nothing. According to StatsCan, up to a million Canadians could be impacted by this. This is how it would work under this bill that these Conservatives are voting for and passing. The private banking information of Canadians, if judged by their banking institution to have some connection to the United States, as ephemeral as it wants, will be passed on to the IRS by the CRA, which will play some kind of middle-man, enabling role.

Why would the private banking information of Canadians be passed on to the IRS? It is because the Conservatives could not get a deal, and they were more interested in protecting their friends on Bay Street and making sure the banks did not have any trouble, but they did not protect the privacy rights of Canadians.

That is why we are voting against this bad legislation. That is why Canadians can count on New Democrats to stand up for their rights here in Parliament and across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question recently of my friend on the Conservative side, and I wonder if my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley could share his view with the House.

I do not think we have had any estimates put forward of what it would cost the Canadian banks, which we know they would not absorb but pass on to consumers.

Not only is FATCA discriminatory towards approximately one million Canadians, not only is it likely to waste government resources in fighting off a Supreme Court challenge on its constitutionality, which the federal government is undoubtedly going to lose, but what will it cost Canadians?

I know that the official opposition has been involved on the banking charges and fees. Has the hon. member seen any estimate anywhere of the cost to Canadian banking customers?

Imagine the cost of every single account of every single customer having to be examined by the banking institutions and, for those who have any U.S. connection, having to be turned over to the CRA to turn over to the IRS.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen some estimates. When FATCA was first introduced, Scotiabank estimated that it had to set aside $100 million to gather all of this information, and that was just for Scotiabank alone.

It is an incredibly expensive thing to do. There are 17 million Canadians who have accounts that may potentially be exposed, and just one chartered bank alone is setting aside $100 million.

We asked the government what its estimates were on the cost of implementing FATCA for the Government of Canada. What was the answer? This Conservative government that claims to have respect for taxpayers' dollars had not done an estimate. It had not bothered. The Conservatives negotiated and signed a deal that we know is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, but they never bothered to ask. They just signed the deal and said they would worry about the costs when they came.

If this is Conservative economics, then I do not want any part of it, and neither should Canadians.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member speak a lot about the small business tax credit that was removed, or not included in this budget. It created a lot of jobs, especially in places like Nickel Belt and small communities. It kind of reminded me of the ecoENERGY program that was cut back in the previous budget. That also created a lot of jobs and helped many Canadians remodel their homes, so they could save a lot of energy.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on those two issues that have been removed in this budget and previous budgets.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost as if the Conservatives have an allergy to good ideas when they are working and helping Canadians, if they do not actually fit the Conservative ideology at the time. The ecoENERGY retrofit program was a great example.

The Conservatives started up a program, which was supported broadly by the building trades community in Canada and by Canadians who wanted to do something about climate change and reduce the cost of home heating. The Conservatives started the program up and then killed it. Then they realized it was working really well, because their own analysis said it was, and they started it up again, and then they killed it again.

They cannot imagine why the building sector in Canada has no faith in the Conservative government. It is because they cannot keep a straight thought consistent for more than two times in a row.

We have also seen this with the Conservatives getting rid of the small business hiring tax credit, which is a program that was obviously well applied.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Conservative minister about the ecoENERGY program, but in this case it was specifically about a program to help Canadians get into more efficient automobiles. When we were on the plane, he said it was unbelievable that the program was oversubscribed and there were so many people coming into it. My first intuition was that if it was working for the Canadian auto sector building cars here, and it was working for Canadians by lowering the cost of filling up at the pump, and it was helping out the environment, then an oversubscribed program is a wonderful problem to have. His response was so indicative of how Conservatives think about these things, because he said, “No, no; we're cancelling it”, and they did. Two weeks later they cancelled the program outright.

At some point one has to say that Conservatives never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

They are Kijiji facts.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, Kijiji is a wonderful example of how the Conservatives set out the temporary foreign worker program. Kijiji told them that there were so many job needs, and they believed what they read online, so they brought in a bunch of temporary foreign workers and completely distorted the Canadian economy. It is one of the most interventionist governments in Canadian history.

We say let the free market do what it will, and if we need to raise wages in this country, then Canadians deserve that raise for the hard work they do each and every day.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise tonight and debate Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014, act no. 1.

I will not go into a huge amount of detail on all the various parts of the budget. There is a lot in the budget that is good for Canadians. I will zero in on a couple of points. I want to explain those points so Canadians thoroughly understand them. Anyone listening to the debate tonight would have a very difficult job separating fact from fiction on the opposition side. Those members make outlandish and wild accusations with absolutely no proof or credibility to back it up.

Year after year, budget after budget, our government has created the fiscal and policy conditions that help Canadian businesses prosper. Canadian citizens benefit from a high standard of living. That is a sentiment shared by many. Globally recognized authorities, from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development to the International Monetary Fund, have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. In fact, they expect Canada to be among the fastest growing and strongest economies in the G7 over this year and next.

I bring that up for a very simple reason. If anyone is listening to the rhetoric in this place tonight, that is fact. That is not fiction. That is not made up. That is reality. If we stick to reality, we could actually have a good, solid discussion about the budget, but if the opposition members only want to engage in fiction, then we cannot have a proper debate over the budget. The reason is simple: facts speak for themselves. Over one million more Canadians are working today than during the worst part of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any G7 country during this period.

Of course, there is ongoing uncertainty in the global economic environment. That is why we must continue to encourage job creation and economic growth, the twin pillars of our economic action plan since its inception in 2009. It is also the reason why we must keep our sights firmly set on the goal of balancing the federal budget by 2015.

In economic action plan 2014, our government renewed its commitment to returning to balanced budgets, fostering jobs and economic growth, and supporting families and communities across Canada. Economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1 contains important measures that build on these three key priorities.

Today, I would like to highlight two measures in particular: the search and rescue volunteers tax credit and important amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act.

Since 2006, our government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to support hard-working Canadians and their families: the first-time home buyers' tax credit, registered disability savings plan, the family caregiver tax credit, pension income splitting and many more.

In Economic action plan 2014, we announced a new tax credit for ground, air and marine search and rescue volunteers. We are proud to publicly recognize the important role these brave men and women play and the difference they make in their communities. The non-refundable search and rescue volunteers tax credit is similar to the volunteer firefighters tax credit, which our government proudly introduced in 2011. Eligible search and rescue volunteers could claim it for 2014 and subsequent tax years.

Search and rescue volunteers are an integral part of Canada's emergency response network, supporting the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other such agencies. Often working in dangerous conditions, they put their own welfare at risk time and again to ensure the safety and security of their fellow citizens.

To qualify for the new tax credit, an individual must perform at least 200 hours of volunteer search and rescue services in a tax year, for one or more eligible search and rescue organizations. Eligible search and rescue organizations include those that are members of the Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada, the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, and search and rescue organizations whose status as such is recognized by a provincial, municipal or public authority.

Search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of eligible service during a year can begin to claim the new non-refundable credit on their personal income tax and benefit returns starting next year, on their 2014 tax return. Eligible service includes responding to and being on call for search and rescue and related emergency calls, attending meetings, and participating in required training related to search and rescue services, all of these activities taking place on a volunteer basis, of course. The credit will be calculated by multiplying the lowest personal income tax rate for the year by $3,000. For 2014, the credit will be 15% of $3,000, or $450.

It should be noted that the hours volunteered for eligible search and rescue along with firefighter services can be combined. However, only one credit for the year can be claimed, either the volunteer firefighters tax credit or the search and rescue volunteers tax credit. Volunteers with at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue and volunteer firefighting services in a year will be able to choose between the two tax credits. Individuals who receive honoraria for their duties as emergency service volunteers will also be able to choose between the new search and rescue volunteers tax credit and the existing tax exemption of up to $1,000 for honoraria.

Our government is proud to add the search and rescue tax credit to the long list of tax relief measures we have already introduced for Canadians.

With my remaining time, I want to discuss our government's plan to modernize legislation left over from the prohibition days. The Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act is a federal statute governing the interprovincial transportation and international importation of intoxicating liquors. It was enacted in 1928 at the request of the provinces after the repeal of their liquor prohibition laws. This legislation controls and restricts the movement of liquor from one province to another, as well as its importation into Canada.

Currently, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act prohibits Canadians from taking beer or spirits across provincial boundaries. In Bill C-311, which was sponsored by my colleague from Okanagan-Coquihalla and received royal assent in June 2012, we updated some of the archaic provisions of the act by removing the federal barrier on transporting wine from one province to another for personal use. Bill C-31, the legislation we are debating two years later, contains the next logical step in the process of modernization.

The amendment we have proposed removes the federal barrier that prohibits individuals from moving spirits and beer from one province to another when it is for their personal use.

Our government is taking action within its jurisdiction to strengthen internal trade by removing barriers to the movement of goods within Canada. It is important to note that there is no change to the province's authority to set limits on personal importations of spirits and beer and that change to provincial liquor laws may also be required to allow the interprovincial movement.

I am proud of our government's record of achievement and our sound fiscal policies. We have invested in job creation and training, supported trade and innovation, and improved the quality of life for families and communities from coast to coast to coast. At the same time, we brought the overall tax burden to its lowest level of tax in 50 years. We have introduced measures that will keep us on track to a balanced budget in 2015-16.

I will conclude by simply saying that I am honoured to do my part to advance economic action plan 2014. I sincerely hope all members will join me in giving Bill C-31 their full support.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to questions and comments, I see there is a lot of interest in questions and comments this evening. I would ask all hon. members to keep their interventions brief, no more than one minute, so we can move on to the next participant.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Victoria.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the finance committee, of which we are both members, an official from the Department of Finance confirmed that one million people in Canada, so-called dual citizens, would be affected by FATCA and the government's implementation of that.

At the finance committee, the New Democrats moved two important amendments, one that would confirm that this bill would not override the Privacy Act and the charter and another requiring notice before personal financial information would be sent to the U.S. IRS.

Would my colleague comment on those amendments and would he be in a position to support them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague who is absolutely correct. He sits with the opposition members on the finance committee. I thought we had a very conclusive and thorough debate on the implications of FATCA to American citizens living in Canada and their tax obligation, which they have always had. However, now it will be legislated through the United States.

We believe FATCA is charter-proof and the Privacy Act will not be impinged upon by FATCA. Also the reality is that any American citizen or dual citizen has always had an obligation to file income tax in the United States.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member from Nova Scotia with interest. He talked about the tax credit for search and rescue and tried to explain that if people were search and rescue volunteers or firefighter volunteers, they could combine their hours. Why would we not give two separate tax credits, one for the volunteer firefighter who spends 200 hours in his community with the fire department and then also spends 200 hours with search and rescue? Why would we not give both tax credits to that individual for over 400 hours of community service?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member would know that the reason this volunteer tax credit was brought in for search and rescue, and the reason we allowed those hours to be combined with volunteer firefighter hours was so many of volunteers would have enough hours to qualify for the tax break. He certainly would have some volunteers in his communities. I know I have many in my communities. Volunteers in some of the smaller departments, such as the volunteer fire departments, and some of the smaller search and rescue groups would not get enough hours to qualify for a tax break. Therefore, we allowed the combination of both search and rescue volunteer hours and volunteer firefighter hours so people would be eligible for a tax break. It is not a matter of being eligible for both; it is a matter of hopefully being eligible for one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up that question with my hon. colleague. He lives in the Maritimes and I am sure there are a lot of search and rescue activities that go on in the area in which he lives. Could he comment on what this means to the people in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a great tax credit for the volunteer search and rescue personnel, the auxiliary coast guard, the volunteer firefighters, especially in smaller communities.

I live in rural Nova Scotia. The largest community in the riding that I represent has only 8,000 people in it. Most of the communities have 1,000, 1,200, 600, 300 people or smaller. In many places there are not a lot of centres. In the community I live the centre is New Ross where 36 people live. We are talking small rural communities with a lot of volunteers, and a lot of volunteerism throughout Atlantic Canada. This tax credit is a great boost to those organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to make a fairly critical comment to the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margaret's. His complaints about the opposition are quite pathetic, given that the government holds a majority in both the House and committees.

If the government wants to earn the respect of Canadians and the opposition parties, it needs to show some courage and admit that all of the MPs who sit in the House are presenting sensible ideas—which may even be constructive—and that it is possible to discuss them. In the three years since I was elected, I have seen how this government operates. In this case, with this particular 360-page omnibus bill, all of the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party were systematically rejected, even the ones that dealt with details that have limited scope and would not have affected the substance of certain measures included in Bill C-31.

My speech will have two parts. First, I will talk about this government's approach, about how it refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with it and about how it simply imposes its will. The government's lack of courage is incredible. Moreover, this all started with the help of the Liberals, when we returned to the House for the last four weeks. They forced longer sitting hours on us and restrictions on procedural rules, which is surprising for the Liberals.

It is as though having a majority and the power to repeatedly shut down debate was not enough for the government. We saw it again today, when it invoked closure for the 69th time. It is absolutely unbelievable. I do not know how some of my colleagues can look at themselves in the mirror every morning or how they can sleep at night. When I see them with their eyes glued to their desks, it strikes me that wilful ignorance is the only way they can live with themselves.

I would like to reiterate that this bill is 368 pages long and contains a variety of measures. It is a hodgepodge of legislative measures that affect dozens of different laws. It is absolutely vital that the government consider the fact that the official opposition did not disagree with everything in the omnibus bill. Anyone can see that if they look at the work that has been done recently by the Standing Committee on Finance. Had some of the measures proposed by the government in this omnibus bill been examined separately, the NDP would have either fully supported them or supported them on the condition that discussions be held so that we could propose amendments to correct certain specific flaws.

Unfortunately, rather than having an open debate with all of the stakeholders, the government is imposing its will. It is particularly ridiculous to see the Prime Minister lecturing people left and right in Europe when his track record over the past 10 years is so poor that he could not even lecture someone as extreme as Vladimir Putin.

In January 2015, it will have been 10 years since this government began using all the procedural tools it could to try to impose its will, while defying traditions, legislation, and the operations and legitimacy of some of our institutions.

The government really has a very poor track record. Had this government implemented some measures to renew the CF-18 fleet, for example, we could have said that at least the Conservatives had managed to do something. Instead, by trying to find an aircraft to replace the CF-18 after over nine years in office, the government has left the skies empty of any new, safe and effective aircraft that would allow our air force to defend the country and finally do its job. It is absolutely unbelievable.

It is really shameful that the government is patting itself on the back when it has proposed very few practical measures to the public and has denied the legitimacy and the very basis of our work here in the House of Commons.

The second thing I would like to talk about affects me personally as the member of Parliament for Beauport—Limoilou. A major railway line passes right through the downtown core of Beauport—Limoilou, not far from the Port of Québec, where many of the riding's industrial plants are located. The trains travelling on that railway line transport a large variety of products, including solid and liquid bulk commodities. A number of those liquid bulk products are hazardous, volatile and explosive materials, such as jet fuel.

All of these products are moving through the downtown core of Limoilou, just a few metres from four schools that are located along the railroad track. There is an elementary school, a high school, a vocational school and the Limoilou CEGEP.

This is obviously a legacy of the past. I am absolutely not denying the importance of port activities or transit activities that require this means of transport. However, a few months ago, I met with a group of concerned parents, led by Xavier Robidas and Sébastien Bouchard, who were calling for more transparency and rigour with respect to rail safety.

There are some clauses in this bill that pertain to rail safety. However, it is very disappointing. Instead of correcting the problems of transparency, reassuring parents and addressing their very legitimate requests, Bill C-31 will impose a code of silence on all cabinet decisions. That is absolutely intolerable.

As far as I know, cabinet members are elected members and they are accountable. Why impose secrecy for something as vital as rail safety?

The same thing will happen every time regulatory changes are made or certain regulations are rescinded. Heaven knows that many problems with rail safety inspections were brought to light after the terrible Lac-Mégantic disaster. These problems resulted from a lack of resources and very lax compliance with regulations. This is contrary to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board.

This bill does not promote transparency and public information. The public will not be notified of these changes. When you play the game of democracy, you have to go all the way.

This government has shown a lack of transparency for more than nine years, especially since it gained a majority and has systematically refused to account to Canadians for its legitimacy.

I will end there. I no longer have much hope of making this government listen to reason. It is not complicated: in 2015, the government will be booted out and we will be there to take its place.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 minutes, I have listened to the hon. member make some disparaging comments and complain about his inability to comment on the bill before us, Bill C-31. For 90% of the time, he complained about the process instead of commenting on the bill.

However, I did hear him make one comment about the bill. He said that there were some good things in the bill that the NDP actually liked. If he cannot find anything to complain about in the bill, I would like him to use his time to tell us what is good about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I agree with what my colleague just said. I did spend a lot of time talking about the process, which is deeply flawed.

I want to help my colleague understand that there has been a fundamental shift in the legislative process. Bills can be introduced in radically different ways, but if the government truly wants to earn respect, then it should not impose such ridiculous working conditions on all the representatives in the House. If we look at the number of hours we have compared to the number of clauses to be studied, that leaves just a few minutes per clause. That is absolutely unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member would be aware, Canada's health care accord expired this year, and Canadians are very much concerned about health care and the future of health care. They want to see assurance from the government in the form of another accord, an agreement between Ottawa and the provinces, that would ensure ongoing support of health care into the future.

These are things that could have been part of the budget implementation bill. Maybe the member could provide some comment on that being one of the major shortcomings of this particular budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. That is an important aspect to consider, especially when we put it into perspective over the past 20 years.

Let us not forget that in the 1990s, the Liberals made things extremely tough for the provinces by unilaterally reducing general transfer payments and health transfers in order to balance the budget and make themselves look good. I know that my colleague has already made the argument that he was not in the House at the time. Nonetheless, he does carry the Liberal banner. At some point he is going to have to accept that legacy, including the reckless cuts that had major consequences. I know all about it. In Quebec we saw massive retirements and it was disastrous.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. He talked about people's concern about dangerous goods transported on our railways. It is the same in my riding. People are worried and they talk to me about it when I go door to door.

With respect to tax measures, what are his thoughts on the fact that the government did not renew the job creation tax credit for small businesses, considering that small businesses create so many jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for her question. Had I wanted to look at every item in this omnibus bill, it would have taken me at least five hours, and that would have been just my speaking time.

My colleague from Joliette made a very good point about a very simple, direct measure that was very popular with small businesses. The government never gave us a reason for unilaterally getting rid of that measure. It did not explain why it decided to cut such a popular, direct and active form of support for small businesses. We are still waiting for answers from the government.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud and pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre tonight on this budget implementation bill. I can assure the members opposite that these words are mine and mine alone, so any errors or omissions are attributable to me.

Before coming to speak to the House tonight, I looked up the word “responsible” in the dictionary. This is what I found: “Based on or characterized by good judgment and sound thinking”. Nothing could describe this budget better than those words.

With the leadership of the Prime Minister, Canadians can be assured that this budget, and their tax dollars, are being managed with sound thinking and good judgment. Of course, this is completely in contrast to what the New Democrats have shown us they are capable of.

I do not mean to sound like I am giving an English course here, but I also went and looked up the word “irresponsible”. Here is what I found: “Lacking a sense of responsibility; unreliable or untrustworthy”.

An example of that would be someone who thinks, for example, that budgets just balance themselves. It is clear that the Liberal leader has no idea what it actually takes to balance a budget. That is missing a pretty essential attribute for someone who would like to be the prime minister.

Can members imagine, just for a moment, what would happen if they ran a small business and did not take the operating budget seriously and if they did not take into account revenue versus expenditures and the cost of running the business and just spent whenever, whatever? I guess if people grew up with everything handed to them on a silver platter, they might think that way. They might think budgets just balance themselves, but I can assure the House that it is not the case for the rest of us. Average Canadians, like the amazingly resourceful people in my riding of Calgary Centre, remind me of this every day. They know that balancing the budget takes a lot of hard work. It takes a lot of tough choices, and yes, it does take leadership, but the rewards are many.

When I go door knocking in Calgary Centre, people tell me the same thing every time. Their number one priority is seeing a balanced budget, and they are exceptionally happy to know that economic action plan 2014, along with this implementation bill, would return us to a balanced budget in 2015. That is a promise delivered.

An interesting thing happens when we balance a budget. Suddenly we have more money, money that would have gone to the banks to pay interest. We have that money to put toward program spending and also to pay down our debt so that we are not leaving that debt for our children. We do not believe, on this side of the House, that we should be spending our kids' money.

As I said already, this did not happen by accident. For example, since budget 2010, we have done very broad based reviews in every single department that have focused on achieving savings without compromising service to Canadians. In fact, direct program spending has declined for three consecutive years. That is a trend Canada has not seen in decades.

Canadians have told us what is important to them. It is things like old age security and major transfers to other levels of government for health care and social programs. Therefore, health and social programs would continue to grow through transfers through 2018-19.

We have heard from some of the other members this evening about how important those transfers are to the rest of Canada. Our Conservative government knows that, and it continues to increase them. It is amazing that we have done all this while reducing spending on federal programs for three consecutive years while increasing the federal transfer payments to the provinces.

This has been important, too, for my province of Alberta, because we have rectified an old wrong that was perpetrated by the Liberals that previously gave Alberta less money per capita for health care than all other provinces. This budget, this year, would rectify that with $1 billion owed to Alberta coming back to it.

There is much more in this budget that deserves highlighting. For instance, last year Calgary was hit with a devastating flood. I have talked about that in the House before. It was one of the worst natural disasters in Canadian history, and I saw first-hand how people's lives were turned completely upside down.

Hundreds of my constituents asked for a national disaster mitigation program. This budget would deliver that. Once passed, it would provide $200 million over five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program.

We will work with provinces like Alberta and the territories and municipalities to build safer communities and to minimize the risk of repeating what happened last year in Calgary.

Economic action plan 2014 would also initiate a very important element, which is consultations with the insurance industry to explore a new approach to residential flood insurance.

I was amazed when I heard that Canada is the only G8 country that does not have residential flood insurance coverage. People can get flood insurance for their businesses, but not for their residences, generally. This leaves a lot of homeowners without adequate protection in the event of loss from overland flooding. We want to start that dialogue and will have it with insurance companies, along with the provinces and territories, to solve this problem.

We are not paying lip service here. These are concrete moves that are helping my constituents of Calgary Centre and all Canadians.

Even in the toughest economic times, our government has worked hard to reduce taxes for Canadian families and businesses, and these again are things from which we all benefit, even the members of the opposition. The federal tax burden is now the lowest it has been in 50 years. That is quite incredible.

Since taking office, our Conservative government has cut taxes 160 times. We have lowered the GST from 7% to 5%. We have introduced pension splitting for seniors, which leaves more money in their pockets. Did members know that now a single senior can earn $20,054 without paying any tax? A senior couple can have income of $40,108 and pay no income tax. Three hundred and eighty thousand seniors have been removed from the income tax rolls. That is real progress.

We have created the working income tax benefit to help ensure that low-income workers are now better off by taking a job than by not working.

Now an average family of four pays $3,400 a year less in tax. That is money in their pockets they can use or spend as they see fit.

However, we all know that taxes also help fund programs and services that Canadians rely on, so we are doing things like helping the sandwich generation. That is all of us who are looking after our moms and dads and our kids at the same time and are feeling stressed because we have jobs as well. The Canadian employers for caregivers action plan would work with employers to help people stay in the workforce while they are looking after that very important loved one.

We are going to keep closing tax loopholes so that all Canadians pay their fair share.

Quality of life is also important to us, so I want to spend a minute talking about quality of life initiatives for all Canadians.

Did members know that arts and culture contribute $8 billion every year to Canada's economy? That is not to mention the thousands of amazing rock performances and piano concertos and everything we love to go see. In my riding alone, this budget would help fund non-profit arts and culture events like Expo Latino, GlobalFest, the International Children's Festival and the Calgary Stampede. I look forward, as do my constituents of Calgary Centre, to attending a lot of those this summer.

Last, I want to talk about my second favourite colour, next to blue, and that is green, and that is because our government is making Canada greener every day. This Conservative government has added an area the size of Greece to our national parkland, and that is a legacy for us to enjoy now and for our kids to enjoy in the future. It is a real game-changer. The former U.S. energy secretary, Steven Chu, says that it is one of our country's most amazing accomplishments, and he does not know why we are not touting it elsewhere. I want Canadians to know that we are protecting our parkland.

This budget would also invest $391.5 million over the next five years for Parks Canada to make improvements to highways, bridges, and dams that are located in our national parks and along historic canals. This would build on our commitment to preserve Canada's natural heritage. We have continually allocated money to do this in iconic places like Sable Island, the Nahanni, and Waterton National Park. These are for future generations to share.

I am proud of this budget. This budget is a rock-solid example of balance, good judgment, and sound thinking.

I would be remiss if I did not add my thanks and those of my constituents to the late Jim Flaherty, on whose foundation our current finance minister is building.

This is a responsible budget that will continue to build on the Flaherty record and will continue to build on the Conservative strength of job growth and long-term prosperity.

Finally, I am also proud of what is not in this budget. There is no reckless spending, no NDP carbon tax, and no pie in the sky Liberal thinking.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, what is in this budget and what I would like to ask the hon. member opposite about is the lack of transparency when it comes to railway safety. This particular omnibus budget bill, for some reason, includes railway safety provisions, except that what it would do is weaken and undermine railway safety. It would allow the government to change and repeal a wide range of safety regulations in the railway sector without informing the public. This would include standards for engineering, worker training, hours of work, maintenance, and performance. I know that in my community, constituents are very concerned about railway safety and the transport of hazardous goods.

Can the member tell us why the government would undermine railway safety with secretive measures that are going to negatively impact Canadians?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this, and I thank the hon. member opposite, because the hon. member knows that the Minister of Transport has been working very hard to improve rail safety. A number of measures have already been announced, which I am sure she is well aware of.

There is another thing the NDP could be doing. New Democrats know that the safest way to transport many of the goods that are going by rail now is through pipelines, yet the party opposite continues to oppose pipelines and even goes so far as to undermine efforts by Canadians to build pipelines in other countries by going down to the States and working against our industry. If they want us to use the absolute safest method to transport things like oil and gas, for example, they should get on the pipeline bandwagon.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre said the number one concern in her riding was having balanced budgets. If we put that into perspective, the Conservative government has not had a balanced budget, not one balanced budget.

The government it replaced had numerous balanced budgets. Given that her number one priority for her constituents is a balanced budget, I would ask her if she does not think she might be in the wrong political party.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I love the hyperbole coming from the other side.

The member opposite is well aware that the world went through the worst recession since the 1930s in 2008, and this country emerged with the strongest economy of the G7. That was an incredible accomplishment. We did it without cutting transfer payments to the provinces, like the Liberals did, without cutting transfer payments to Alberta, like the Liberals did, and we have restored those injustices and have increased transfer payments while moving to a balanced budget next year, which the residents of Calgary Centre heartily applaud.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Calgary Centre seems to think we are debating the budget. In fact, we are debating an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, which makes no reference whatsoever to national parks.

However, since she did, I would like to point out that while it is commendable that we have extended the boundaries of national parks and have added new ones, it is lamentable that the fundamental purpose of national parks, the highest possible category of protection for ecological integrity, is being systematically undermined by decisions of the government, such as privatizing the hot springs in Banff, creating a privatized ice walk in Jasper, privatizing golf courses in Nova Scotia, and worst of all offences, creating a national park on Sable Island where the primary regulator will be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, to allow seismic testing and drilling in that park. The national park system is being undermined as they expand its boundaries.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government consistently hears from the opposition how X, Y, and Z are not being done to protect the environment, when it is actually this government that is doing the most to protect Canada's environment that we have seen.

We are reducing greenhouse gas levels. That is something that went up 30% under the Liberals. We are making sure that our parkland is protected, and this budget implementation bill would go further to help us do that in the budget, which is supported by the implementation bill. We would see an increase in money going to our national parks, and we would be supporting conservation and encouraging donations to ecologically sensitive land by providing tax relief for people who give donations. We have seen a large amount of ecologically sensitive land that has been donated because of these kinds of tax measures. Those are real things that are happening to improve Canada's environment.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that I have no intention of supporting this shoddy budget, not only because of its content, which I will talk about later, but also because of the fact that the government frequently resorts to an undemocratic process.

Omnibus bills have almost become a tradition in the House. This one is 360 pages long and has 500 clauses. It amends more than 60 acts, and the official opposition is not allowed to divide the bill to study it properly in committee. Furthermore, as usual, we do not have enough time to properly study the bill and propose amendments to improve it. There is no way to properly study this budget, which I find particularly disgraceful.

I am sick of the government introducing such measures and playing games with our laws without consulting the public. I think it is disgraceful and undemocratic. I am not the only one who feels this way, since my colleagues are in the same situation as I am. We need a change, and it will come soon, since 2015 is not far off.

I also find it particularly disgraceful that there is absolutely nothing in this budget to help the 300,000 additional Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession. The government has not come up with anything to help these people or deal with the loss of 400,000 manufacturing jobs during this government's reign.

There are many measures I disagree with in this bill. However, since I do not have unlimited time to talk about them, I chose to concentrate on the measures that affect my riding and my constituents.

We have been hearing a lot about rail safety for almost a year now, since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. This tragedy affected many people, and my constituents are particularly worried. There are many railways, and dangerous goods are transported in close proximity to homes in many of the 25 municipalities in my riding.

When I was reading the budget, I was very disappointed to learn that decisions about the standards related to the transportation of dangerous goods will now be kept secret. Canadians will no longer be informed of those decisions. I do not understand. It would be nice to have some sort of explanation about that. These decisions need to be transparent. The government should be consulting Canadians, the official opposition and experts. That would be helpful.

As for the temporary foreign workers program, it has many flaws. The minister tried to fix them, which is great. However, penalties are not being imposed on employers who break the rules. Can we really believe the Conservatives when they say that they will enforce the rules? I have my doubts.

I would like to be wrong though, because the temporary foreign workers program is very useful and helps many employers. However, we have to prevent abuses, and we first have to make sure that people here have work.

I am somewhat skeptical about that, so I am looking forward to seeing what will happen.

I would also like to talk about the Champlain Bridge. It is not in my riding, but many people from my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, work in Montreal and have to cross the bridge every day.

The NDP proposed four amendments at committee stage to find other solutions that would not involve a toll on the Champlain Bridge. All of those amendments were rejected and the government is imposing its unilateral decision. The Champlain Bridge will be built, but it will have a toll. I do not know how much the toll will be, between $1 and $3, perhaps. It does not seem like much, so some people might not think it is a big deal. Going to Montreal once in a while and paying $2 is not a problem. However, middle-class families use the Champlain Bridge every day. Let us do the math: $2 per trip equals $4 a day, $20 a week, or more than $100 a month. That is a lot of money for a middle-class family. A family can buy a lot of groceries for $100.

I am therefore wondering why it is necessary to make people pay for this bridge when Canada has the money needed to provide this sort of thing without making them pay. The government does not need to apply the user-pay principle to every new piece of infrastructure.

In that regard, the government announced $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure. I cannot believe that the government is letting our infrastructure deteriorate so much. I do not understand it. Right now, I am touring the 25 municipalities in my riding. I am meeting with all the mayors and administrators to talk to them and see how things are going. Everyone is telling me that our infrastructure is aging. They all need money from the federal government. They cannot keep endlessly taxing residents and increasing municipal taxes. They have needs. They have to repair roads, sewers and many other things. However, the federal government is announcing $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure. I do not understand the logic behind that. Is the government going to abandon our country like this? Is it going to let everything fall apart until we can no longer travel on our roads, until our sewers no longer work and until our municipalities are crushed by debt? I do not think that makes any sense.

What my party and I expect from a responsible government is for it to reverse the cuts to employment insurance, for example. We do not want people to have to travel 100 km from their home to work for 70% of their previous salary. That does not make sense. We want the age of eligibility for old age security to go back down to 65.

We also need to fight against tax havens. Rather than making billions of dollars in cuts to key areas such as infrastructure, the government could recover a lot of money by fighting against tax havens. What is more, $36 billion in cuts were made to health transfers to the provinces. It makes no sense. I am also going to promote my own cause. The bill that I introduced a year ago on a national housing strategy would help a lot of people.

I would like to send a message to the government. It would be great if it would soon realize that investing in social programs pays off.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been wanting to speak since the evening began. I very much appreciate my colleague's speech and comments.

She knows what kind of impact a budget like this has on affordable housing in her riding. It does not really help people, especially not seniors.

I sent a questionnaire about seniors to my constituents. Ms. Lebrun, who is from Moonbeam, replied saying that we need support for family caregivers, more home care for people who want to remain in their homes, and an end to the billion-dollar gifts the Prime Minister is wasting.

Does my colleague agree with Ms. Lebrun's comments? The government often says that Canadians are not interested in what we do here. I think that what we do in the House is very important. We really need help for our seniors and our veterans. We cannot forget our veterans.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question.

I too get lots and lots of comments from people in my riding who need help. These people are veterans and folks who have worked hard all their lives and do not really want to work two more years before they can retire. That is totally legitimate.

I agree with my colleague. I think that a responsible government should invest in social programs to make sure that people are okay and can live good lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about rail safety earlier. I wonder what this is doing in a budget bill. Does my colleague know why it is in the bill?

Since this is a budget bill, I wonder what my colleague thinks of the fact that municipalities will not find out until three months after a train has passed whether it was carrying dangerous goods and what those dangerous goods were. Does she think that makes sense?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this really does not make sense. I find it interesting that my colleague raises the fact that rail safety does not really belong in a budget. I was not concerned about that. However, the government seems to be in the habit of bundling together everything it wants to pass. It puts all kinds of things in the same bill, in this case the budget bill.

This comes back to what I was saying about the undemocratic process related to this bill and the fact that we do not have enough time to properly review each clause or each law that is amended in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It is clear that she works very hard for her constituents.

Earlier this evening we saw that no costing had been done for certain aspects of this budget.

What does the member think, and what do the people of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot think, about a government that does not even cost its budget?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

As I was saying earlier in response to another colleague, I hear from constituents every day, because they send me emails and letters, or drop by my office to complain about this government's schemes. They think this is particularly appalling.

People do not like this government's current approach to passing its budget and many of its bills, not to mention all the closure motions imposed this year.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak tonight in support of this bill.

Before I start, I want to take a moment to mention that there is a dangerous situation unfolding as we speak here tonight in the city of Moncton in New Brunswick, my home province. I just want to let the people of Moncton know that they are definitely in our thoughts and prayers this evening. I ask that they listen to the authorities and stay inside and stay safe until the situation is over. Thank you for the opportunity to say that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to echo the words of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley when he paid homage to our good friend and former colleague, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, because what we are talking about tonight are the fruits of the former minister's labour.

He worked very hard over his time as Minister of Finance to bring us back to balance. This budget, this economic action plan 2014, puts us squarely on track for returning to balance. It does exactly what the minister set out to do. I am very pleased to be able to stand here tonight to speak to this bill, because it speaks very firmly to what is so important to my riding.

I truly believe that all politics are local. That is why, when I speak about this bill this evening, I want to speak to how it impacts my riding and my province and what it will do to enable our province to take advantage of the opportunities that are there in front of us today. I say this because the Province of New Brunswick, not unlike a lot of other provinces, has been having a rough time, to be frank. Our fiscal situation and fiscal outlook have not been very rosy.

This budget does exactly what it should be doing: it respects the provinces, it does not cut transfers, and it does not try to bring the budget back to balance in the same way that previous governments did. It does not do that. It does not balance the budget on the backs of the provinces. It respects the provinces for what they have to do. It respects the taxpayer. It respects Canadians. That is what is important. It is important that we do that.

It is not just words that I am echoing here tonight. Our government has been solid on respect for the provinces and on growing the transfers to the provinces. To a province like New Brunswick, those transfers are very important. In this fiscal year, those transfers will total $2.6 billion for the Province of New Brunswick. Of that $2.6 billion, $1.7 billion will be through equalization. There will be $682 million under the Canada health transfer and $267 million will be through the Canada social transfer. Those dollars are extremely important, and those dollars have been increasing over the life of our government.

Since 2006, our government has increased those numbers. In equalization alone, those numbers have increased by 24%. In health, they have increased by 37%, and for the Canada social transfer, they have increased by 26% since 2006. That is important.

I talk about these numbers and about how important they are because I have a background with the Province of New Brunswick, which many members in this House have heard me speak about different times. I was a provincial member of the legislative assembly. I know how important these transfers are and I know what they do for the work that the province does on an ongoing basis.

The fact that we have been able to bring our budget back to balance without doing it on the backs of the provinces is laudable. We have done it by providing tax relief to Canadians and we have done it by providing new investments to provinces such as New Brunswick. Those new investments are very important, and that tax relief is so important to a province like New Brunswick.

As I said, our fiscal outlook is not very good. Our fiscal situation is rough, although there are some good signs on the horizon. There are some good things happening in New Brunswick. There are some real opportunities, and this budget allows us to take advantage of those opportunities. There are opportunities out there, such as our resource sector, which remains undeveloped for the most part. We talk about a resource sector that is just waiting for us to develop it.

I talk about shale gas development. I talk about potash. I talk about some of the things we have within my own city. I talk about the port and the opportunities that lie with the pipeline from western Canada. That energy east pipeline will come to Saint John, New Brunswick. Something that puts us in an enviable position is our deepwater ice-free port. Not only do we have a deepwater ice-free port, but we have the largest refinery in North America, and we are anxious to see the pipeline come to Saint John, New Brunswick, so that we can support and grow our industry and take advantage of some of those opportunities.

I talk about having the largest refinery in North America. I talk about our ice-free deepwater port, but we also have an LNG terminal that is anxious to transform itself from an import LNG terminal to an export terminal. Those opportunities come from the fact that we have this port.

The market is craving energy, and the people of New Brunswick have been waiting for some time to see their economy transformed. We have been waiting to see this happen. Unlike most New Brunswickers, I was born there, I was raised there, and I have watched a lot of my friends and relatives have to leave there for the opportunities that are sitting on our doorstep. They have to leave our province. Many of them go to western Canada. Many of them go to Newfoundland on a weekly basis.

I travel here to take my seat in the House of Commons to represent the people of my riding. I sit on airplanes with many people leaving my city and province to go to Newfoundland or western Canada as they look for opportunities. Those opportunities are right there at home for those people; we just need to take advantage of them.

The economic action plan gives us the tools to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. It invests in job creation. It gives us the opportunity to develop the skills and develop the workforce. Through the Canada job grant, we will be able to work with the provinces to develop our workforce so that when these opportunities come forward, people will be able to take full advantage of them.

We talk a lot in the House about temporary foreign workers. We have to bring temporary foreign workers into New Brunswick, and one might wonder why. It is because a lot of our trained workforce has left the province and there are situations that need temporary foreign workers, but we want to see our people come back home. We want to work with the province to bring our citizens back to New Brunswick to take advantage of these opportunities. They want to come back to do the same thing they are travelling west to do, the same thing they are travelling to Newfoundland to do: they want to develop our natural resources, and they want to do it at home. They want to contribute to the economy. They want to see their families, and there is nothing wrong with that.

We want to give them the opportunity. We want to give them the ability to do that. It is so important for this budget to move forward so that we will be able to do those things. We have to have a strong economy in the province. We have to have the tools in place to do it, and this government has done that through economic action plan 2014.

We provided funding of $28 million over the next two years to ensure that the National Energy Board review process goes smoothly. It is important that we put our money where these opportunities lie. There are many opportunities out there. We have supported these things and we want to see them move forward.

I could talk for quite some time on the budget and what it means to the people of New Brunswick and to the people of Saint John. Most of all it means that we will have the opportunity and the ability and the tools to take advantage of what lies in front of us, and that is all we are asking for.

We are asking for the chance to do that. We want members of the House to help support us and give us the ability to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I think that he does not grasp the real scope of this budget bill. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. I know this because I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the bill.

If he has read the bill, I would like him to talk about the impact of the provision pertaining to the Champlain Bridge, which is actually in this budget implementation bill. We know that 19% of Quebec's GDP crosses the Champlain Bridge, which needs to be replaced immediately. However, the bill is proposing a toll and does not mention the impact this will have on the other entry routes to Montreal.

I would like to know whether he thinks it is okay to study such a bill as quickly as we did at the Standing Committee on Finance. We had very little time to study a measure that is so vital to the Quebec economy. I would like to know whether he believes it is appropriate to impose a toll without consultation—in fact, the bill prohibits it—about the new Champlain Bridge, given how this will disrupt other entry routes and the Quebec economy.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked if I have read the bill. Of course I have looked at the bill. I have read through the bill.

As I said in my comments tonight, I want to talk about how the bill would impact my local area and the benefits that would come to my local area through this bill. I am very pleased about the opportunities that would be there for us to take advantage of in Saint John and in New Brunswick as a whole, because we need those opportunities and we look forward to them.

I have been very clear that the situation in New Brunswick has not been the best in the last few years. However, the outlook is very positive, and that is what we are looking for. We are looking for the opportunity to take advantage of that rosy outlook.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a great deal about the issues in New Brunswick, where he is from, and he commented briefly about the $28 million that would go to the National Energy Board for the review of TransCanada's energy east project.

I wonder if he could talk about how that, combined with the money that we would be putting into apprenticeship programs to help young people get skills training, would affect the economy in New Brunswick.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I did mention the $28 million that would go the National Energy Board to review the energy east pipeline project. One of the things that I am excited about in that regard is that our government has ensured that there would be a firm timeline attached to this review process.

When I talk about these projects or a project of this nature, we want to ensure that we can get to it and have a definitive answer very quickly. We also want to ensure that the review process is done thoroughly. That is what this bill would do. It would enable that review process to be done thoroughly and within a definitive timeline. That would work well for my constituents, because they are anxious to see this process move forward so that they would be able to take advantage of the opportunities in this pipeline project.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend has claimed to have read the bill. I wonder if he can comment on the changes to the trademark provisions that are contained within the bill and on the effect they may have on the Canadian economy.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague across the way comment earlier to one of my colleagues here in the House about how my colleague spoke without notes. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said my colleague talked about the budget implementation act without using talking points or notes from the Prime Minister's Office.

I laughed when I heard him say it, because I can tell members the Prime Minister's Office did not write my comments. The Prime Minister did not write my notes. Well, he might have. They are handwritten notes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

What was the question?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way can stand and talk all he wants, but I am talking about what is important to my riding. I am talking about what is important to New Brunswick. If the member does not want to hear it, that is too bad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to debate Bill C-31, the 2014 budget implementation bill.

With this bill, the Prime Minister is handing us another deficit budget and further proof of the Conservative government's mismanagement. This government is completely out of touch with Canadians.

The Liberal Party and our leader have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to listen to the needs of the middle class. We have asked for specific actions. This budget does not give the middle class the help it needs even though that should be a priority for the Prime Minister.

The only thing this government cares about is balancing the budget in an election year because it wants to change its disastrous reputation on the economy. The only thing this government cares about is its political interests. It is ignoring Canadians' pressing needs.

Every year, the Prime Minister promises to balance the budget, but he never succeeds. Ever since day one of their mandate, the Conservatives have been announcing supposed improvements in the economy, but we are actually going backward. All this budget has to offer is temporary, vague measures that will not improve people's quality of life.

The government has given us a discouraging budget. Canadians need investments that will stimulate economic growth. This budget is no better than the ones that came before, yet as we all know, the needs are many.

The Liberal Party knows that the middle class needs to be heard. The budget should always be in line with the middle class's interests, not the Prime Minister's election interests.

I would also like to emphasize the government's incredible lack of respect for Canadian democracy. I oppose this budget implementation bill because it is rife with changes and amendments that should not be in this financial document.

For example, there are amendments to rail transportation regulations, food safety, the number of federal judges and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. This is a catch-all bill that amends a vast number of bills that we should have been able to debate separately in the House.

As we all know, the government is perfectly aware that it can use this technique to avoid a lot of debates. We also know that it is not right for a government to do this. This is the Conservatives' way of avoiding debate in the House.

In terms of budget measures for post-secondary education, the government needs to co-operate with the provinces instead of getting in their way. All of the education measures announced in this budget had already been promised before. The government is serving up old promises that it never fulfilled. The budget does not offer any solutions to student debt, nor does it improve access to education.

What we really needed in terms of education was a much more focused plan to work with the provinces, so that measures would be successful. We need skilled workers and we want the majority of people to have access to post-secondary education. I think the best way to stimulate our economy is to focus on education and innovation. We cannot improve our education outcomes when the government acts as though it has power over the provinces.

As for employment, the government needs to work with the provinces to find solutions that work for Canadians. The provinces were largely critical of this budget. It does not offer them much in terms of education or employment. The employment action plan should not involve putting massive amounts of pressure on the provinces.

For example, negotiations should not in any way undermine or result in cuts to professional training programs for the most vulnerable workers. Furthermore, since the government's proposed Canada job grants were a failure, I think it is up to this government to find alternatives, to offer real support to workers and to help the unemployed find work. These are the kinds of things that middle-class Canadians worry about on a daily basis.

The Conservatives are demonstrating, yet again, that we cannot trust their promises about employment assistance. The government must do more to help create jobs and increase the number of skilled labourers. These are the things that Canadians worry about on a daily basis: the economy, debt, retirement, education, access to employment and so on. How is it possible that the Conservative government is not listening to what Canadians are saying? What right does it have to refuse to listen and think only about its own self-interest?

Economic growth requires significant investment if we want to see surpluses in the long term. The government cannot expect that repeatedly slashing spending in order to balance the budget will have a positive effect in the future. The government needs to work to increase employment opportunities, offer better opportunities for the middle class and young families and implement the many announcements made in the previous budget, including creating a code of conduct for the financial sector and eliminating fees for paper bills.

I urge the Prime Minister to honour his previous commitments. We need a far more ambitious and flexible economic plan for the middle class and Canadian families.

In addition to not thinking about the need to invest in order to stimulate the economy, the government is making improper cuts. For example, cuts to the defence budget are just an inappropriate way of maintaining a balanced or surplus budget. The government is simply putting off buying military equipment. By eliminating those expenses from the 2014 budget, the Conservatives are showing Canadians that they are neither responsible nor honest. They are just putting off that spending, which they had already committed to. Next year, $3.1 billion will have to be found somewhere so that the Conservatives can deliver on their promises.

Is that a responsible, honest way of balancing the budget? I do not think so. How can we legitimize those types of cuts? The Canadian Forces require certain equipment to ensure that each mission is successful. Be it major equipment, basic trucks or supplies, our troops must not face equipment shortages. It is irresponsible of the government to cut the defence budget in order to balance the budget.

It comes as no surprise, but the government broke an election promise it made in 2011. When income splitting did not garner the support he hoped to get for the next election, the Prime Minister cut his promise from this budget. We all knew this program would not last because it is far too expensive and it does not really benefit the middle class.

The Conservative Party campaigned on this economic promise, but now it is dropping it because it did nothing for the party. Again, the government is starting to lose people's trust, and no wonder. This is not the first time the Conservatives have made these types of mistakes. True to form, they are concealing information to hide their mistakes from the public. This example shows that the government is unable to ensure that its promises are feasible.

One of the most important aspects of this bill for my region is the confirmation that there will be a toll on the Champlain Bridge. I will not get into that just yet because I have some questions about that. The public is calling for clear and tangible benefits for families and members of the middle class who are concerned about their future and their children's future. The measures introduced by the minister in his latest budget do not put the public in a better position.

Is it not the role of the Prime Minister to find effective ways to help families and improve their living conditions? I believe he has a responsibility to provide a budget centred on Canadians who are concerned. They are concerned because the budget does not offer them anything meaningful in terms of education, employment and infrastructure. Families, the middle class, public servants and soldiers are losing out. It is high time that the government realized that taxpayers are sick of seeing their interests and demands left out of the federal budget.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member talked about a lot of things, but I would like to ask him a question about one in particular.

He said that the Canada job grant, proposed by the government in the 2013 budget, was a failure. Does he not know that 13 provinces and territories signed a agreement in principle for the Canada job grant, that we concluded final agreements with 12 provinces and territories to provide the grant to those jurisdictions and that the Canada job grant was endorsed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Polytechnics Canada and the National Association of Career Colleges?

That is almost all of the business organizations in our country, such as the building trades council of the AFL-CIO and many other labour unions. Is the member saying that all the major business organizations, many of the major unions and all of the provinces and territories are wrong about the Canada job grant?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge the presence of the minister in the House at this hour. I commend him.

That is a very good question. That is odd. Last year, by the time the program was announced, there were already ads saying that jobs had been created. Now, the minister just admitted that the program did not exist and that it still does not exist. The only thing that has happened is that an agreement has been made. However, the agreement was forced on the provinces because this government threatened them and forced them to accept the money or lose it.

Has the program created a single job? Is there a single student who has registered for these educational programs? I do not know of any.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the things in this omnibus bill have nothing to do with a budget. This bill amends over 60 laws.

However, one very important thing, a very important tax measure for small businesses, was left out of this bill: the job creation tax credit, which was first proposed by the NDP in 2011. This hiring credit helped small businesses hire people. It created lots of jobs, but it has been left out of this omnibus budget bill, forgotten.

What is my Liberal Party colleague's opinion on this? Does he have any idea why the government has turned its back on unemployed people and small businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and I thank the member from the Toronto region.

Once again, we are different from the New Democrats. Yes, the program was a success, but it did not create a single job. It gave employers a tax credit because their insurance premiums had gone up. There was no evidence. As an accountant, I know the program.

Yes, it was a success, but the previous government, the Liberal government, did the same thing. It was not an NDP idea. The program helped small businesses. I think it would have been possible to maintain the program, to help small businesses because it was easy for them to access the program and the money. There was no more paperwork to fill out. However, there is no evidence that a single job was created because of the program.

Once again, our opinion differs from the NDP's.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise in the House and participate in this debate tonight on Bill C-31, the budget implementation act.

I would like to start with a bit of a tribute. I have had the opportunity, in the three years that I have had the honour and privilege of representing the people of Mississauga—Streetsville in the House of Commons, to work with a phenomenal individual who, unfortunately as we all know, is no longer with us. Of course, that is the Hon. Jim Flaherty, who was the architect of the budget that we are talking about tonight. I have not yet had the opportunity since his very untimely and sudden passing to pay tribute to Jim Flaherty, to his wife Christine Elliott, and his three sons, and to just let the entire family know how much we miss Jim, how much Canada has lost in this great public servant of our country. He was a man who led Canada through the most difficult economic recession since the Great Depression, who was recognized as probably the world's best finance minister during that very difficult time, and certainly who is revered and respected on both sides of this House. I wanted to start off tonight by saying that and ensuring that all members of this House, and I am sure they all do, remember Jim very fondly and thank him for his tremendous contribution to this great country of Canada.

We are here tonight to talk about Bill C-31, the budget implementation act. This is a very important budget that sets Canada forward for next year, having us return to balance. We look at where our country was and where we, like most countries around the world if not all during that very difficult economic recession, had to go into deficit financing and spending to ensure economies did not collapse, ensure we kept people working, and ensure that we invested in infrastructure. We certainly did. There is no doubt that at that time we ran deficits that would have been larger than anyone would have thought, but it was done in a responsible and prudent way. I might note that it was actually done, and budgets like those were actually passed, during minority Parliaments so we had support of other parties in this House for the kind of investment and spending that we did and the levels of deficits that we accumulated as the Government of Canada at that time. However, times improved and, just like families in Mississauga—Streetsville would do if they have to spend a bit more today and then save up in the future and pay back that money that they have borrowed, we do that. It is a prudent and responsible thing to do.

I am delighted and the constituents in my great riding of Mississauga—Streetsville would agree that they are delighted and proud to see where Canada has come and that in the next fiscal year we will achieve a balanced budget. Hopefully there will be a surplus and we will begin to pay down debt and we will continue to offer tax relief for Canadians.

Tonight I just want to highlight a few things that are in Bill C-31. It is important that we remind people of the very positive measures that are in this bill. One of the main focuses of our budgets since I have been a member of Parliament here has been on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. This is another budget that focuses exactly on those core areas.

Bill C-31 would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

It provides $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system to support Canada's labour market needs. It provides apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons With Disabilities, our committee held the hearings and listened to witnesses, who were very excited about the prospect of this new apprentice loan that I am so proud to talk about in this budget tonight.

We are cutting red tape on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

We are continuing our focus on more jobs and better jobs for all Canadians.

The budget also continues our support for families and communities. We are encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies, that may be their competitors, more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data, and text services.

We are introducing a search and rescue volunteers tax credit for our search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service in a year.

We are increasing the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. That one is particularly important to me because I served for six years, two 3-year terms as a member of the board of the Peel Children's Aid Society. One of our major challenges was how we could get our kids in care adopted by families. Adopting children out of the children's aid system is challenging enough. These are very vulnerable children who are in the care of our local children's aid societies. I have to say, if we can improve the financial ability of families to adopt those children, and other children, but certainly those most vulnerable children, into a loving and welcoming new family home, that is one of the most important things we as a government could ever possibly do. I am very proud about that initiative in this budget.

We are exempting acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors' professional fees from the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax. The budget would expand the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit to include costs associated with service animals that are specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, such as our diabetes alert dogs, as well as amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan.

We are enhancing access to employment insurance sickness benefits for claimants who receive benefits for critically ill children and compassionate care benefits.

The budget sets forth a renewed investment in infrastructure. I want to say how proud I am of our government for renewing the build Canada fund for 10 years. I come from the city of Mississauga. We know infrastructure is important and investing in our urban areas is crucial. Our government has made the largest commitment to infrastructure in the history of our country. We have a true partnership with provinces and municipalities, treating them as equal orders of government in the important work of investing in our communities and in our cities. The budget does that.

The last item I will talk about, because it is one of my passions from my previous life, is housing. The budget commits to the five-year renewal of the affordable housing initiative and the homelessness partnering strategy. Adding those two together, that is almost $2 billion over the next five years.

This is a good budget. This is an excellent bill. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that the member talks about everything that the Conservatives have done and yet in this budget there is very little for veterans.

There was a rally today. Some veterans were on the Hill rallying against cuts to benefits for veterans.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

There are none.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may say there are none, but there are lots of cuts. At the end of the day, we have to recognize how much veterans have given to our country.

What looks like good news in the budget is actually bad news in another way for many across Canada. Again, let me talk about the veterans for now and the fact that the government has cut the number of offices. We need to remember that the Conservatives were able to find $36 million to fight veterans in court on this particular matter with respect to the clawback, just to be proven wrong. They also found $28 million for the War of 1812 and another $103,000 for Twitter.

How can they justify wasting all of this money as opposed to improving the services for veterans? Why did they not also include money to provide support and tools for the families of veterans?

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, as usual, on that side members' facts are completely wrong.

First, the Veterans Affairs Canada budget is $700 million more this year than it has been in previous years. The budget has been increased by over $5 billion since 2006. I am very fortunate that my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville has one of the best Legions in all of the country, Branch 139, Streetsville Overseas Veterans Club.

I have spent a fair bit of time there and I talk to real people on the ground, veterans who live in my community and are involved in the Legion movement. Let me tell the House what they say. They say the best country in the world to be a veteran is Canada, because Canada takes care of them, Canada looks out for them, Canada supports them. Veterans know this government is behind them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to infrastructure dollars. We need to look at what the Conservative government is actually doing. It is putting its own self-serving political interests ahead of the needs of our communities across Canada. The reality is that there is an 80% cut in actual expenditures this year compared to last year in infrastructure dollars. It is a cut and yet the government says it is giving an increase. It is talking about into the future. Over the next five years, yes, there is an increase, but this year there is actually a cut, and it is a substantial cut.

My question for the member is this. Why did his government decrease the actual spending this year in infrastructure dollars?

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, only from the party that believes budgets balance themselves can we get a question like that.

We have something called the gas tax. The gas tax is permanent and indexed every single year. How can it be a cut if we increase the gas tax funding to municipalities every year, which is indexed to inflation? Only Liberals think that is a cut.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that I only have 10 minutes, but I will resume my speech when this bill is at third reading. We are at report stage now, and I have 10 minutes to summarize my thoughts on this budget bill and on the budget as a whole.

I listened to a number of speeches tonight. Unfortunately, it seemed obvious that many of my Conservative colleagues had not even read the bill. They were asked questions about very specific parts of the bill and they gave us the runaround.

We ask these questions to try to illustrate, once again, that we have a budget bill that is more than 380 pages long and that amends, eliminates or adds some 60 acts in a single bill. At third reading, we will ultimately have to decide, with a single vote, whether we agree with a bill that contains a wide variety of measures.

Let us take a look at that variety. This bill contains clauses that will increase the number of federal judges in Alberta and Quebec courts. The bill amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act and the Museums Act, it makes changes to demutualization, makes changes related to the Champlain Bridge and makes changes related to measures for veterans, in response to a Supreme court ruling. All that in just one bill. Many of these elements should have been studied separately.

During his speech, my colleague from Victoria said that the most complex aspect of the bill was probably the one pertaining to the House ratifying an intergovernmental agreement with the United States. This is an agreement with the United States, which wants to tax Americans who live in Canada. We are not talking about citizenship. This measure contains elements that could well jeopardize the privacy of our citizens.

To add to what my colleague from Victoria said in his eloquent speech, this will obviously affect Canadians who have dual citizenship, Canadians who have not been to the United States in 20, 25 or 30 years, who no longer consider themselves to be American and who have always paid their taxes in Canada. In the end, they may be forced to pay back-taxes to the United States for the entire period during which they lived full time in Canada.

What is more, their own banks could send their banking information to the Canada Revenue Agency, which will act as an intermediary and relay that information to the American revenue agency, the IRS. These elements are extremely complex. Our constituents talk to us about them regularly, and I am certain that the constituents of Conservative members, the government members, talk to them about it too. These are major concerns. I would like to add that, after the testimony we heard before the Standing Committee on Finance, it is clear that this provision will be challenged in court. Did the government listen to the comments and criticisms about these aspects of the bill? No, it did not. It is going ahead with them.

There is another aspect of this agreement that is very relevant to my riding. Many Canadians have never been American, but they live near the border. That is the case in my riding, which shares a border with Maine. Many people in Témiscouata who do not live close to a Canadian hospital gave birth to their babies in American hospitals. They then returned to Canada. There was a time when that happened quite frequently. Because these individuals were technically born in the United States, they could be considered American, have their file referred to the IRS and eventually be forced to pay taxes in the United States, a country that they have never lived in.

I am not the only one. One of my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, is in the same situation because his riding also shares a border with Maine. These are extremely complex situations that should have been carefully examined in a separate bill. The government refused to do that.

Now, the government is saying that we have had plenty of time to examine this bill in the House and in the Standing Committee on Finance. This bill is 380 pages long and it amends 60 laws. We did not even have the opportunity to call witnesses to speak about certain parts of the bill because we did not have enough time.

The NDP does its homework. We tried, within the framework imposed on us by the government, to bring in witnesses to talk about as many issues as possible and cover as much material as possible. Despite those efforts, we were not able to properly examine some important parts of the bill.

This is not the first time this has happened. This is the fourth omnibus bill I have seen since I became deputy finance critic. The government would have us believe that it respects the opinion of the House and particularly the opinions of opposition members. We often provide constructive criticism because the opposition's role is not just to oppose, but to point out weaknesses in the bills that the government introduces. One would think that we would be right about something every so often.

After examining four omnibus bills in the Standing Committee on Finance, we still have not managed to get a single amendment passed. It was not until we examined this budget bill that we finally managed to get an amendment through, and even then a Conservative subamendment had to be made to it.

This government is not doing its duty when it comes to the parliamentary work we are responsible for doing as representatives of our ridings, our own little corners of Canada. The government is not demonstrating good governance and is not evaluating every aspect of its bills on the basis of merit. Bill C-31 and what is happening at the Standing Committee on Finance is not an isolated case. It is the general rule.

The Standing Committee on Finance addressed other specific and complex aspects of the bill, and I know that members of the Standing Committee on Transport did the same, just as quickly. The matter of the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States on taxation is complex, but other aspects of the bill are also worth examining.

The matter of the Champlain Bridge, which I just spoke about with one of my Conservative colleagues, is one example. The Conservatives want to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge without having conducted appropriate studies on the impact that this would have on access to Montreal or on the other points of entry, such as the Victoria Bridge, the Jacques-Cartier Bridge and the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine Bridge–Tunnel. How will these points of entry be affected?

The Champlain Bridge is a major gateway not only for Montreal, but also for Quebec. What would a member from Toronto think if the government decided to patch up the Don Valley Parkway and impose a toll? What impact would that have on Toronto's economy? That is the same situation Montreal is facing.

Once again, the government is not listening, even though it was unable to provide a single witness who supported its proposed toll. The government is not being responsible; it should be working for the common good. I would like to talk about so many elements, but my time is limited. I will talk about demutualization, another complex issue.

Last year there was a case of demutualization, and the Standing Committee on Finance studied this issue. We know about mutual insurance companies in general. However, some of these companies want to demutualize and become share capital companies. One case was reported to the committee at the time.

The mutual company in question had 943 mutual policyholders or subscribers. However, these 943 policyholders were not the only ones who were insured by the mutual company. There were one million insured people. The 943 policyholders in question saw a good opportunity: if the mutual company was privatized and transformed into a share capital company, it could eventually be sold, amalgamated and bought by another company. They would make a tidy profit because the company's capital was assessed at more than $1.3 billion. Thus, every one of the mutual policyholders could make up to $1.3 million. That was clearly an incentive to demutualize, to the detriment of those who had an insurance policy. We tried to clarify this complex situation.

I want to talk about so many other aspects of the bill, including the issue of labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the tax credit that the government is still planning, which will have adverse effects on job creation. In fact, this could lead to job losses in Quebec, and the government continues to turn a deaf ear.

I have no lessons to learn from this government when it comes to job creation. They are all talk and no action. That is why I will have no problem voting in favour of our amendments and against Bill C-31.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent intervention.

As he indicated, there are so many elements to this omnibus budget bill. I would like the member's views on one that he talked about in passing. Canada's venture capital industry has warned that the changes to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations could have dire consequences for the rejuvenation of our venture investment sector in Canada, critical to high-tech and bio-tech, the jobs of the future.

However, without any reason, it appears that the government is phasing out the federal tax credit for these labour-sponsored venture capital corporations.

I would like the member to elaborate, if he would, on why he thinks that has occurred and what the consequences might be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. It allows me to elaborate on the subject.

This decision will be extremely detrimental. The government has not proven that the tax credit should be eliminated. On the contrary, the witnesses we heard from in committee criticized this government measure, especially the witnesses from Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, which represents private venture capital and labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

Canada is at the back of the pack when it comes to venture capital. It is very hard to raise venture capital in Canada. Quebec accounts for 90% of the tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, which shows how important labour-sponsored funds are to Quebeckers. Quebec is at the top of the list after the United States and Israel, when we look at OECD countries.

Some 45% of the venture capital invested by private venture capital organizations comes from labour-sponsored funds. A symbiotic relationship between private funds and labour-sponsored funds is what makes the Quebec model work.

Currently, 169,000 jobs are being maintained or were created by labour-sponsored funds in Quebec. Again, 169,000 jobs. In the past 10 years, more than 500,000 jobs have been maintained or created by labour-sponsored funds.

The last thing I want to say about this is that the testimony in committee showed us that getting rid of the tax credit might lead to the loss of 20,000 jobs in Quebec. Is that what the government calls job creation?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech on this bill.

He made a very important point, not only for Quebec, but also for all of Canada, about the Jacques-Cartier Bridge. The Conservatives want to put a toll on this bridge without consulting Quebeckers or Canadians. That tells me that the Conservatives are not really interested in hearing what Quebeckers want or what they have to say.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that question is very relevant to this debate, and it is far more relevant than much of what I have been hearing from the government benches.

My colleague spoke about the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, but I believe he meant to say the Champlain Bridge. However, this decision will also affect the Jacques-Cartier Bridge.

In general, tolls are used as a traffic control measure. The decision to place a toll on this specific piece of infrastructure will clearly have an impact on the other entry and exit routes.

If a toll is specifically imposed on the Champlain Bridge, many motorists and truck drivers will choose to use other routes, such as the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, the Victoria Bridge or the Louis-Hippolyte-LaFontaine tunnel. That tunnel will also likely need some work done.

In that context, this one decision will have a major impact on the city and on the provincial economy. As I said, nearly one-fifth of Quebec's GDP now crosses the Champlain Bridge.

We cannot call it ignorance, since the Conservative government has five Quebec MPs. However, we can say that the government is showing its contempt for the vision that the Quebec government and the Montreal authorities have for Montreal and the new Champlain Bridge.

The Champlain Bridge needs to be replaced because it is falling apart. The federal government failed to meet its responsibility to take good care of the bridge and now wants to make commuters pay the bill, even though the bridge serves Quebec's entire economic community.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31, an act that will implement important measures contained in economic action plan 2014.

It is a pleasure to speak to the budget this evening, since the provisions it contains would bring us to our long-term goal of balancing the budget.

Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy and helping create jobs. Canada has now created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. Since coming to office, our government has had one of the best job creation records in the G7, and we are leading overall in economic growth.

While Canada is doing a better job than our international allies, we are not immune to economic challenges beyond our borders, and indeed, our finance ministers have warned us that the economies are still very fragile. That is why our Conservative government is continuing to work hard at home to ensure our economy stays strong.

Most of the over one million net new jobs that have been created since the recovery began in July 2009 are high-wage, full-time, private-sector jobs. That said, our government acknowledges that imbalances between unemployment and job vacancies persist.

It was highlighted in the Department of Finance's “Jobs Report: The State of the Canadian Labour Market”, that too many Canadians are still out of work or underutilized at a time when skills and labour shortages are re-emerging in certain sectors and regions. A shortage of skilled labour is an impediment to growth, and that is why our government constructed a strategy to address this and to develop a skilled, mobile and productive workforce.

Our government acknowledges how important apprenticeship programs are for those in skills training. Employer surveys have indicated that skilled trades are among the most difficult jobs to fill. Our budget has included measures to encourage the take-up and completion of apprenticeships by providing support to apprentices and the employers that hire them.

In particular, the Red Seal apprentices would be able to apply for interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. Canada's Red Seal program allows qualified tradespeople to practice their trade anywhere in Canada where that trade is designated, without having to write further examinations.

It is expected that at least 26,000 apprentices will apply for the $100 million in loans. This is critical, when we consider the significant costs apprentices can face in the periods of technical training required by their programs. Aiding our apprentices to the completion of their training would directly contribute to the supply of skilled labour across Canada.

Our role does not end there. Even with the appropriate qualifications, it may take time for job seekers to connect with employers. Our government will help Canadians connect to jobs that match their skills.

The economic action plan proposes to launch an enhanced job-matching service to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs in their local area. Through this program, job seekers will be provided with modern and reliable tools to find jobs that match their skills, and provide employers with better tools to look for qualified candidates. We want to ensure that Canadians acquire the skills they need for the workforce, and that employers are matched with the skilled labourers that they need.

With that said, our government also acknowledges that immigration plays a significant role in the continued success of our economy. Economic action plan 2014 outlines a plan to launch a new recruitment system, the expression of interest system, to be implemented in January 2015. Fourteen million dollars will be provided over two years, and $4.7 million per year ongoing to Citizenship and Immigration Canada to support the successful implementation of the system.

Under the expression of interest system, candidates would make an online submission to express their interest in coming to Canada and to provide information about their skills and experience. The information would be ranked, sorted and allow the Government of Canada, provinces and territories and employers to actively target highly skilled immigrants. The government would invite only the most highly ranked candidates to apply for permanent residence.

It is a privilege to address Canadians and my constituents with practical measures that would, without a doubt, continue job growth in our country. I am also pleased that our government continues to support and invest in job markets that are, and always have been, major economic drivers in our country.

As Canadians, we are blessed with an abundance of diverse natural resources. Major natural resource projects are an important source of development and job creation in all regions of Canada. We, as Canadians, must be responsible stewards of the land, while utilizing the resources given to us. Our government has done both. Mining, forestry and agriculture represent important contributions to the Canadian economy and create jobs, particularly in many rural areas. In fact, Canada's natural resource sector represents 18% of the economy, over half of our exports, and supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly.

I understand the importance of the government's support in Canada's natural resource sector, and that is why I am glad to see continued incentives in this area. One of the measures in this bill would permanently eliminate the tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used on offshore oil and gas exploration and development. This would continue to improve the global competitiveness of Canadian energy projects, while increasing the potential for valuable resource discoveries.

Our government is also pleased to support mining and exploration in this budget. Canada is one of the world's leading mining nations. According to the Mining Association of Canada, over 90,000 Canadians are employed in the mineral extraction in mining support activities across the country. That is why we are proposing to extend the 15% mineral exploration tax credit to junior mineral exploration companies for an additional year. Since 2006, the mining exploration tax credit has helped junior mining companies raise over $5 billion for exploration. It is not difficult to see why extending this credit will continue to create jobs and development across the country.

I am also encouraged to see our government's support of the agriculture industry in the economic action plan 2014. The agriculture and agri-food sector plays a significant role in the Canadian economy, accounting for over $100 billion in economic activity and providing employment to over 2.1 million Canadians in 2011.

Agriculture plays a vital role in Canada as a whole, but it also plays a vital role in my riding of Provencher. I spend lots of time listening to my constituents to understand how we can continue to improve the lives of farmers. I know all too well that sudden drops in market prices are a major source of risk for livestock producers. Starting this spring, a new pilot price insurance program will be available to cattle and hog producers in western Canada, offering insurance against unanticipated price declines. This will directly impact the lives of hard-working farmers in my community.

It is with great regret that in this time allotted to me I can only share with members a few important measures that would positively impact my constituents and all Canadians. It is measures such as the ones I have detailed that deliver results for all Canadians.

In fact, according to a recent study, Canada's middle class, after tax income, is the highest in the world. Canadian families in all income groups have seen increases in their take-home pay since we have come into office. There are now 1.4 million fewer Canadians living in poverty than under the previous Liberal government.

Not only that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently found that federal tax cuts since 2005, mostly by our government, are saving Canadians roughly $30 billion per year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also determined that the most significant share of tax savings went to low and middle-income earners, thanks, in part, to our government's 2% cut of the GST.

These results reaffirm our Conservative government's focus on jobs and growth and that it is making a real difference in supporting prosperity for all Canadians.

In our home, my wife Irene and I know the importance of keeping a balanced budget. It is something we take seriously, always bearing in mind that it is not a good practice to spend more than we make. We have seen the consequences of overspending and the rewards of sound budgeting. We make cuts when we need to and we make investments when we can. Budgets are important and I am well aware that budgets do not simply balance themselves.

Likewise, my fellow Canadians value fiscal responsibility. That is why I am proud to represent a government that practices values at the highest level and to speak on the measures tonight.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government often talks about creating jobs. It told us that it has created a million jobs. That is great, but the Conservatives have yet to put forward a strategy to help the 1.3 million Canadians who are without work. There are 6.3 unemployed workers for each available job; in the Atlantic provinces, that figure rises to 10 for each available job.

How will the government get these six unemployed workers back to work, since there are six unemployed workers for every job? They will have to drive an hour from home to take a job at 70% less pay. What is the government doing to encourage them to go back to work?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for asking that question because it is something I did address in my speech.

Our government has created an enhanced program for matching employers with employees. That will be useful for matching up the skills out there that are being underutilized with employers that require services of employees in areas where labour is hard to get.

I am proud our government has taken action on the issue that the member has raised.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the theme of employment insurance. One thing this budget does not get and does not understand is seasonal employment, seasonal unemployment and employment insurance for seasonal workers. The Conservative government does not get that people cannot just pick up and travel for work from a community that is hours away from where employment is needed, and it will try to cut back on their employment insurance benefits.

What is in this budget for seasonal workers?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers are all kinds of workers. I have a business myself that employs many seasonal workers in heavy construction and mining. Many of these people are Red Seal apprentice type people. They qualify for $4,000 per period of training. If they get that training in the off season, they can better utilize it in the on season. That money will be useful for them and will help them bridge the gap between those employment seasons.

Our government is committed to looking after all workers, including seasonal workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout the night we have heard speeches. I do not think I have heard anybody speak about the First Nations Inuit people. The government is saying that it is the best government and the best manager. However, we recently saw the government cut 50% from the first nations national child benefit reinvestment initiative. This program deals with accessible and affordable daycare, which allows parents to hold down jobs, and we talk about jobs here, or even something as simple as a child nutrition program that helps send kids to school with a full belly. That is what the dollars are used for. This can help turn lives around and ensure our young first nations people of today can get back to work.

We did not hear the Conservatives talk about any investments with respect to policing on first nations, which is in dire need of funding, yet the government turns its back on first nations.

Could the member tell me how the government will turn that around? Will it ensure that it provides funding for policing and increase the first nations national child benefit reinvestment initiative?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to supporting families, whether they be first nations families or otherwise. We have enhanced the flexibility and access to employment insurance and sickness benefits. We have increased the adoption expense tax credit. We have removed the GST on more health care products and services. We have expanded the tax relief under the medical expense tax credit. We are standing up for victims of crime and we are bringing closure to families of missing person. This does not apply only to first nations people, it applies to all Canadian citizens.

These measures have been brought in by our government and they are very good measures.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for that enthusiastic and warm welcome this evening at this advanced hour. I really appreciate the encouragement.

We are here this evening examining Bill C-31, another one of the omnibus budget implementation acts of the Conservative government, and yet again we find ourselves presented with a massive bill. The bill is over 360 pages long, and it changes a number of pieces of legislation, more than 60 acts in all.

I want to begin my remarks by pointing out again the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the government throwing into one omnibus bill much of its legislative agenda, including many measures that have nothing to do with the budget and including whole bills that should be separate pieces of legislation that come before the House and are voted on at separate committees by the members. Instead everything is thrown into one budget bill.

Because there are so many areas that the bill touches on, I am only going to be able to mention three or four this evening, unfortunately, but I want to speak first of all about the changes to FATCA. This is the foreign account tax compliance act, and Bill C-31 moves to implement a Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement about FATCA.

What is FATCA? The bill means that Canadian-U.S. dual citizens would find that they would have their financial information scrutinized by the American government, even though they perhaps have not lived or worked in the United States for many years, and this would include people who happen to be born in the U.S. but have not lived there perhaps most of their lives.

What the agreement would do is facilitate the transfer of sensitive Canadian financial information, individuals' financial information, to the United States. There are serious concerns that this would violate the privacy of a number of Canadians. In fact, it could adversely affect up to one million Canadians who could be affected by the bill, people who happen to be here but also hold American citizenship; so this is a great concern. In my constituency, many people have written to me or visited me, very concerned about what this means.

It appears that the agreement was negotiated with the protection of the banks in mind, as opposed to the individual protection of individual Canadian citizens. This entire agreement is included in this omnibus budget bill, as opposed to having something that is so fundamental and so important and affects so many Canadians carved out as a separate bill that could be debated and given due consideration. That is very troubling.

One of the key problems with the FATCA provisions in the bill is that there is nothing in this that would inform Canadians that their privacy is being violated, that their information is being turned over to the IRS. We proposed some reasonable amendments to these provisions, but as usual, they were all rejected by the Conservatives.

Next, I want to talk about the rail safety provisions, or lack of rail safety provisions, in the bill.

The bill would allow the government to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations, including standards for engineering worker training, hours of work, and maintenance and performance, all without informing the public. There would be no public debate on these changes. These could be done in secret, by cabinet, and could affect the transport of dangerous goods.

Now, I do want to say that, in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, in Toronto, we have three different rail lines that traverse our riding. Community members there have been very concerned about the transport of dangerous goods. Certainly, they have seen what happened in Lac-Mégantic and other parts of the country and in the U.S. and have expressed serious concerns. They have signed petitions. They have been trying to have a meeting with Department of Transport officials. I am hoping the minister will approve that, at some point, and allow the officials to come. They are very concerned about this, and to have a situation where changes could be made that could affect community safety when the public may not even be aware of it is the opposite of transparency and a cause for great concern. I do want to flag that.

Third, I want to flag the issue of trademarks and copyright.

I sit on the industry committee—I am the industry critic—and parts of the bill did come to the industry committee. Although we did not get to vote on anything, because it all goes back to finance, one thing we did hear was testimony about trademarks.

I want to quote the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada because, while the government says that the changes it has made on trademarks are to have compliance with international agreements, in fact, the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada says that the proposed elimination of the need to use trademarks prior to their registration presents a serious concern. These are the experts saying this. It goes beyond what is required by accession to the three international treaties and may disadvantage Canadian trademark owners.

What we heard in testimony reinforces that and amplifies that because, going against all past practice and previous legislation, trademarks could now be registered without ever using them and so we could have trademark trolls, who register all of these trademarks and then a legitimate business that wants to get that trademark for its legitimate business concerns would have to get into expensive litigation and take on these trademark trolls just in order to brand their small business. This is the opposite, again, of transparency and of even logic. We have heard no good rationale from officials, from the minister, or anyone as to why this is taking place.

Therefore, there are serious concerns. Again, these trademark changes are something that should be in a separate piece of legislation and be made available for adequate study at the industry committee. Instead, they are rushed through the finance committee with this omnibus budget bill.

Last, I have to talk about the lack of commitment to infrastructure.

We already have a $300 billion infrastructure deficit in the GTA, in Toronto, where I am from. We finished last out of 19 global cities, when it comes to commute times, yet we have a government that, in the previous budget, cut $5.8 billion in infrastructure funding. There are future commitments to infrastructure, but they are way down the road, and our city and, indeed, the country are in urgent need of quick action. We need to see spending, now, by the government. We should be doubling the gas tax, so we can invest in our communities across the country. The budget would do nothing to help redress the infrastructure deficit.

I look forward to the questions from my colleagues in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, today there were representatives of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada on the Hill. They were there to ask the government to renew social housing agreements. I know that there are co-operative housing units in my colleague's riding and that social housing is an important issue for her.

I would like to know what she thinks of the fact that there is money for social housing in the budget, but there is absolutely nothing about the renewal of long-term agreements between CMHC and social housing groups such as co-operatives.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague opposite. I would like to correct what I said earlier. When I talked about doubling the gas tax, I meant doubling the transfer of an existing tax. I want to clarify what I said about that.

I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her question about affordable housing and co-operatives.

It is just disgusting. The Liberal government cut funding for the national affordable housing strategy. Now agreements on affordable housing and co-operatives are about to expire. The people who live in these units are really worried because of the lack of funds and the lack of a government plan for the future of their housing. The government needs to invest in affordable housing and co-operatives to protect the housing that hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the gas tax, which she talked about in her speech.

What I hear from a lot of municipalities is that they are finding it difficult to use the gas tax money because it is so restrictive in terms of what they can use it on. A lot of smaller municipalities that could really use the gas tax money are finding it very restrictive.

The government has made some changes but not a lot of changes. I wonder if the member could comment a little bit further on that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, so much of our infrastructure across the country is the responsibility of the federal government, yet there is a real lack of strategy and clear commitment about how this infrastructure will be maintained and future infrastructure invested in.

I will say that the new Building Canada plan would not correct these deficiencies, because the problem is that under this new funding scheme, only a maximum of one-third of the cost of any given project would be funded. Many cities and municipalities across the country are already cash-strapped. They do not have the means to be able to raise funds. They cannot just go out and raise taxes. They do not have the wherewithal, yet to get the federal money, they have to put in a third of the money themselves or find it from some other source. We are finding that much of this money cannot be accessed by municipalities.

The other thing is that the requirement of public-private partnerships delays projects. It means there are other hurdles that have to be faced, and it is not always clear that it is going to provide a better, more cost effective access to public infrastructure. That is what is needed across country.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the federal member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to represent the interests and concerns of my constituents as their representative in the Government of Canada.

I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my Conservative caucus colleagues on the finance committee as we debate Bill C-31 as reported from their committee. A line-by-line review of any legislation is a tedious yet very necessary process. This is how we make good legislation better.

As I reviewed the committee testimony as well as the previous debates surrounding the budget implementation bill, there seemed to be a considerable lack of understanding on the part of the opposition in the complexity of running a G7 economy and the measures necessary to keep an advanced industrialized economy running efficiently.

More important, the type of interventions promoted by the Liberal Party in finance committee demonstrate how far the party has shifted to the left under the influence of the disgraced former Ontario Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty's adviser, Gerald Butts.

Residents of Ontario, who are suffering from paying the highest electricity rates in North America, will recognize the name Gerald Butts as one of the authors of the so-called Green Energy Act—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my hon. colleague, but I wonder if the Speaker has any views as to relevance. I do not see Mr. Butt's name in Bill C-31 anywhere.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order. Certainly the relevancy issue, it seems to me, is quite clear on the point that the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is making.

Continue, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I mention the name of the individual, who the Ottawa media have labelled “the puppeteer” because of his Rasputin-like control over the Liberal leader, to give a sense of the type of ruinous policies that would be implemented in Ottawa if Liberal Party insiders like Gerald Butts or Mike Crawley ever had their way.

The only green in that Ontario Liberal policy is the green that it put in the pockets of Liberal Party insiders like party president Mike Crawley, who received a $475-million contract to build industrial wind turbines nobody wants at prices nobody can afford. Worst of all, electricity from these wind turbines is then dumped, at a loss, to our economic competitors, costing Ontario taxpayers over $1 billion last year and countless lost jobs. Ontario's poor economic performance is dragging down Canada's economy.

Those are the findings in a recent study co-authored by economics professor Livio Di Matteo of Lakehead University. The study, “Can Canada Prosper Without a Prosperous Ontario?”, examines Ontario's shift from the economic engine of Canada to a have-not province that received $3.2 billion in equalization payments—handouts—from Canadian taxpayers in 2013-14. “Ontario’s poor record on GDP growth, employment and business investment reflects a damaged provincial economy that’s dragging down the national economy...”, Professor Di Matteo comments.

If Ontario adopts smarter policies focused on competitiveness and economic growth rather than interventionist government, it could unleash its private sector and improve Ontario's economy for the benefit of taxpayers in Ontario and across Canada. In other words, follow the lead of the federal government.

He goes on to say that Ontario's economic struggles over the last decade, which led to becoming a have-not province, receiving federal transfers instead of serving as a foundation for the national economy, has implications beyond its borders. Ontario is facing an $11.7 billion deficit in the current fiscal year as well as a manufacturing industry hobbled by high electricity rates.

Professor Di Matteo blames an incomplete transition to a more competitive world economy aggravated by high energy costs and interventionist government policies.

Ontario's failure to come to grips with its economic productivity and growth issues has serious implications for itself as well as the future growth of the Canadian economy.

“Ontario is a vast pool of human, physical and financial capital that is not living up to its potential”, Professor Di Matteo wrote.

As I have noted on previous occasions in this chamber, it is important for Canadians to take note of who is providing economic leadership in Canada. Only a Conservative government led by our current Prime Minister can be trusted with our nation's finances.

In Ontario, thanks to interventionist policies, seniors and others on fixed incomes are now faced with energy poverty, a new term in what was Canada's most prosperous province. Only a strong, steady hand on the finances of Canada by our Conservative government has prevented the Ontario economy from becoming something even worse.

The high level of youth unemployment in Ontario is a direct result of the Liberal electricity rate policy. It does not matter who—

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize on a personal level to the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, because I am very fond of her, but with all due respect, where on earth is there anything in Bill C-31 relevant to this speech? Perhaps the hon. member could direct us to something in Bill C-31 that has any relevance to this speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is using a very common strategy of debate in the House. We see it all the time. What she is saying is this is not the way to do it. Do it this way. That is what she is doing. It happens in the House all the time by members on all sides of the House. One may question the tactic, but it is still relevant to the debate that is before us this evening.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, it does matter who is in control of Canada's national finances. Bill C-31 proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014, which commits to a return to a balanced budget in 2015. It is clear from the many consultations I have had with my constituents that the main issues for them are jobs, taxes, and the economy.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, one of the largest employers is Atomic Energy of Canada. With close to 3,000 employees, it has been recognized by groups like the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, which said that without the presence of AECL, the economic malaise brought on by the disastrous electricity rate policy of the Ontario Liberals would be much worse in this part of rural small-town eastern Ontario.

The economic action plan provides $117 million over two years to provide for the continued safe operation of Canada's world renowned nuclear research facility. It was extremely disappointing to the tens of thousands of nuclear workers in Ontario and Quebec's nuclear supply chains to listen to the ill-informed remarks of the opposition regarding Canada's success story, CANDU, following the last time I spoke in the chamber on this issue. It is clear that the opponents of the Canadian success story have done a job spreading misinformation, robotically repeated by the opposition, using events in other parts of the world, which are not the Canadian experience.

The money for AECL is money well spent, and here are a few reasons why. Number one is its groundbreaking research. AECL is one of Canada's scientific leaders. A patent is an exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years. Patents are granted on a country-by-country basis and can only be granted in countries where formal applications have been filed. AECL submitted 18 applications during the 2012-13 fiscal year, achieving 13 patent approvals. That is more than one a month.

Among the many other AECL patents included the invention of a valve lantern ring packing cutter used in the maintenance of reactor components, an ingenious fuel bundle design to help improve reactor safety, and a novel core design allowing for a thorium fuel cycle in a heavy water moderated reactor.

For more than 60 years, AECL has served as Canada's premium nuclear science and technology organization. AECL and its laboratories are a strategic element of Canada's national S and T infrastructure as well as a national innovation system.

AECL is one of the reasons our Prime Minister can proudly refer to Canada as a clean energy superpower. AECL is science at work for Canada. The breadth and depth of the work in the nuclear science and technology carried out at AECL is obviously a surprise to anyone who does not take the time to learn the facts. AECL's mandate is to deliver energy, health, environmental, and economic benefits to Canadians. This is founded on the principle of customer focus and collaboration.

AECL has a wall and curtain system, among many other things, and these are just a few of the recent examples of the scientific, groundbreaking research that is taking place in the Ottawa Valley in Chalk River, just miles down the Trans-Canada Highway from Ottawa. I am honoured to have AECL in my riding and proud to stand in support of a budget that recognizes its contributions in Canada.

If I am allowed in questions and answers, I will go on to describe the many other technologies AECL is patenting for the good of Canada and the good of the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very ironic that my colleague talked about electricity rates and tried to blame it on the Liberals. The Liberals had something to do with it, but let us be very clear. Under the Conservatives, most of them on the front bench there, we started to see the hydro rates go up. This only proves that there is no difference between the Tories and the Liberals, for heaven sakes.

If people really want change, they are going to vote for Andrea Horwath in this provincial election, and that is coming up very quickly.

The Conservatives are quick to talk about how good they are trying to make the economy, but, all in all, we see the job situation in Canada. Under the Conservatives, almost 300,000 more people are unemployed, and there will be another 100,000 less jobs if Hudak gets in.

What do the Conservatives have against workers in our country? Why do they not ensure there are proper training and proper safeguards for people who lose their jobs? Why are they not creating the jobs they should be, as opposed to low-paying jobs and part-time jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, since that was blatant propaganda, I will let Canadians know about another such invention in the area of three-dimensional gel dosimetry:

Canadians fight cancer with radiotherapy every day. Prior to treatment, each patient’s dose must be accurately calculated - not too much and not too little. And the dose must be targeted for an exact location in the body. AECL scientists set out to devise a system that allows faster and more economic dose assessment for physicians. The more accurate this dose determination, the more precise the treatment, and the lower the overall radiation dose to the patient. AECL's 3-D Gel Dosimeter uses a gelled scintillator, a material which glows when struck by high-energy particles such as radiation. When viewed by a digital imaging system, this scintillator provides accurate, real-time 3-D dose distributions.

This is saving lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague started her speech by saying she represented the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and was bringing their concerns to the table.

This is a list of the people, and I am sure there are many in her riding, who would be affected by FATCA. It is far more than U.S. citizens. According to a legal expert, it would apply to Canadian citizens who are also U.S. citizens; Canadian citizens born in the U.S. who thought they lost their citizenship; Canadian citizens born in the U.S. who have lived their whole lives in Canada, having come here at maybe six months old; Canadian citizens with green cards; Canadian citizens who physically spend a certain amount of time in the U.S.; or, Canadian citizens sharing financial accounts with U.S. persons, for example one who is married to or shares a business venture with a U.S. person.

This is why it is estimated that approximately one million Canadians will be affected by FATCA.

Does the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke have some concerns for those constituents within her riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who pay their taxes, who are not hiding money, do not have to worry. They are in touch with my office and we are helping them through this.

However, let me tell some more facts. AECL is a key player in the global non-proliferation and de-proliferation efforts by doing the following:

—increasing the need for alternatives to highly-enriched uranium. As part of the Global Threat Reduction Initiative’s goal to reduce and protect vulnerable nuclear and radiological material located at civilian sites worldwide, AECL leads the development of a uranium molybdenum dispersion fuel....U-Mo is a high density fuel which allows the use of low enriched uranium to achieve the same fuel equivalent as some highly enriched fuels.And the spent fuel is much cleaner as well.

Therefore, not only are we doing great things in medicine and producing economical, sustainable, clean energy for electricity, but we are helping to keep the world a safer place.

Bill C-31—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Report Stage

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the government right now, moving a time allocation motion on this particular bill. This is an important bill that needs to be discussed in this House. When this bill was introduced, I was hoping, since it is 360-odd pages, that we could look at this bill and see some things that would help my community of Surrey North. As always, it is an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North. When I looked at the bill, I was hoping that here be something there for jobs. Jobs are needed in my community, well-paying jobs. What did I find? There are no initiatives in this bill that would address that issue.

We have asked for a hiring tax credit for small businesses, because small businesses generate jobs in our communities across this country, hundreds and thousands of jobs. What do we find in this particular bill? Nothing to help the small businesses that actually generate well-paying jobs. I am very disappointed that this bill did not address any of the issues in regard to generating new jobs in my communities.

Let us take a look at another issue in my community. There are long wait times for surgery. What did I find in this bill? Nothing to help provinces bring down the wait times for surgeries. People have to wait for months and months before they are able to get the elective surgery that is much needed.

The member across the way is saying that it is a provincial issue. Yes, it is, but we can transfer money. Federal transfer payments do go to provinces. What has the government done? It has actually cut $36 billion of transfer payments for health care in the provinces.

There was an opportunity for government to help reduce the wait times for elective surgeries. What did it do? Nothing.

Another issue in my community is crime. Again, the House leader of the soon-to-be opposition is interrupting me.

I looked at the bill, and what is in there in regard to crime prevention initiatives? Nothing. There is nothing in there to increase the RCMP numbers in my communities so that we could have more RCMP patrol our streets. There is nothing that will address the crime issues in my communities.

There are other issues in my communities. Affordable housing. When I look at Bill C-31, there is nothing in there to help provide affordable housing in my communities.

I could go on. I looked at infrastructure. I have a bridge in my community that is 75 years old. The life of the Pattullo Bridge was supposed to be 50 years. It is supposed to be torn down. When I looked to see if the government was looking at increasing the infrastructure funding for our municipalities, there was nothing in there.

Summer is coming. When I go back home to Surrey and look at the gas prices, they are ballooning. Our wages are not going anywhere. There is nothing in this bill that will actually put money into people's pockets.

I could go on. There are seniors in my communities. Seniors could use an increase in CPP payments. There is nothing in this bill to help our seniors.

I could go on and on in regard to this. Here is something I said on October 29, 2013. I spoke on Bill C-4, another budget implementation bill, and here is what I said:

Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

Here we go again. Bill C-31 is 360 pages long, amends 60 acts, and has almost 500 clauses. What is more, the bill includes a variety of measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech. As is typical of this government, the Conservatives are trying to force the bill through the House and the committee as fast as possible.

I know that the Conservatives have given notice of time allocation to cut down debate on the bill. I have seen that picture over and over on many different bills. I know I sound like a broken record, but no matter how many times this is talked about, the Conservatives just do not seem to get it. Time and time again, Conservatives demonstrate their inability to learn from their past mistakes. This will be their fifth straight omnibus bill. This is astounding to me. Canadians are not fooled by the government's tricks. They know the Conservatives are ramming through unfair legislation buried in hundreds of pages of this bill that is disguised as a budget.

How are we supposed to evaluate which bills MPs support or oppose, when the only choice they are given is to vote for this overarching legislation that contains all of them? There is nothing that ties these bills together. It makes absolutely no sense that they are lumped together, but here we are, being forced to vote on a mishmash of legislation. Not only that, but the speed at which the government is trying to push the bill through, and we saw the time allocation notice served today, means that entire sections of the bill have yet to be discussed in the House. They will not be discussed because of the time allocation that will be moved.

How are we supposed to present the views of our constituents when the Conservatives move time allocation and we cannot even speak? I am fortunate that I can speak, but many other colleagues in my caucus will not be able to speak to the bill, because the Conservatives are trying to shut down the debate on the bill.

It is crystal clear to me that the Conservatives remain committed to their omnibus bills and time allocation rather than to following due democratic process. However, it is not only the process that is being followed to ram the bill through the House that is objectionable. There are huge problems and omissions from the bill itself, as I have highlighted.

I talked about the needs in my community: the need for creating well-paying jobs, the need for reducing wait times and elective surgeries, the need for housing, and the need for crime prevention programs that would help make our communities safe. None of that stuff is here.

I could spend all night here talking about the issues with Bill C-31, but I want to start by talking about the economic situation in Canada right now. To be frank, the facts and figures do not paint a very cheery picture of Canada's economic situation. I am disappointed to say that the budget is not doing anything to address these problems.

The Canadian economy continues to underperform under this Conservative government. The Conservatives are offering no strategy to help unemployed Canadians. There are 1.3 million Canadians out of work, and there are 6.3 unemployed workers for every job available. I am not even sure if the jobs available are actually jobs that are available, because we know where the Conservatives get their facts. The Conservatives get their facts from Kijiji. We have seen that. They make up facts. If they cannot make up facts, they will go to Kijiji. Kijiji, for those people at home, is a website that one can buy a used tie on. One does not look for facts on jobs to validate what the Conservatives are saying.

Bill C-31 is basically inadequate. There are many flaws and omissions in it, and I have barely scraped the tip of the iceberg with my speech.

The Conservatives are again demonstrating that they are out of touch with the views of real Canadians. They are focusing their efforts instead on producing a do-nothing budget that ignores what Canadians need right now, and are in pursuit of a balanced budget during an election year. This is unacceptable. and Canadians deserve better.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for participating in the debate at this late hour. I would, however, take exception to many of his assertions, which are counter-factual.

One assertion in particular that I would like to rebut—and I know it is a popular and fun talking point that is always good for a chuckle—is the notion that the government's labour force information comes from one particular online job-posting service. That is ridiculous. In fact, the government primarily gets its labour market information from the labour force survey conducted by Statistics Canada.

I think the member was referring to a Conference Board of Canada study. It was conducted by that independent and highly regarded think tank and used 138 separate datasets, one of which was job postings on, yes, Kijiji. The Department of Finance then made reference to that Conference Board study. When it became clear to the Conference Board that some of the postings were double-posted on that one website, it removed the dataset from its study, so we are talking about one of 138 datasets in a Conference Board study to which the Department of Finance made reference.

While there is no general labour shortage in Canada, would the member not agree that we are facing gaps in some regions and industries and that we all need to work together to address those gaps?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Employment and Social Development. It is good to see him this late at night, and I know he is hard-working.

My question for the minister is this: is the temporary foreign worker program fixed?

We know that it is broken. We know there have been many issues with the program over the last number of months and years. We have actually been pointing that out to him, so my questions to the Minister of Employment and Social Development are these: is the program fixed? When is it going to be fixed? Canadians want the answers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one part of the non-answer that we might have gotten is that within these 60 different pieces of legislation that would be changed by these 360 pages of the omnibus bill, there is something that deals with the temporary foreign worker program. I do not know if Conservatives actually know that.

The Conservatives went in and started to make amendments to the temporary foreign worker program, so there was an opportunity to make some of the changes that we hear small businesses and industries like the restaurant industry requesting, but they gave that opportunity up.

The Conservatives did not actually fix the temporary foreign worker program in this bill while the opportunity was there. Since they are moving an omnibus bill, one would have thought they would want to do something positive.

However, I have a very specific question for my friend.

One of the changes and amendments we have moved here tonight is with regard to the deal the Conservatives have signed with the U.S. government. This deal would deliver the personal banking information of up to a million Canadians. One of the provisions we have asked for, as a minimum, is that the banks be required to notify those Canadians when their personal private information is being relinquished to the IRS. This is one of the ideas we had at committee.

The Privacy Commissioner raised serious privacy concerns for Canadians whose personal information would be divulged to a foreign government. According to Statistics Canada, it would affect up to a million Canadians.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about that. Perhaps he can comment as well on the missed opportunity to actually fix the badly broken temporary foreign worker program.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there was an opportunity to fix the temporary foreign worker program, and yes, the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Conservative government have missed that opportunity. We have been asking for that for a number of years, trying to convince the government that there is a problem with the temporary foreign worker program. Unfortunately, they have not addressed it.

To answer the question on FATCA, yes, it is a huge issue in my community of Surrey North. There are many Canadian citizens who will be affected by it. This would affect their privacy, and I hope the government will take seriously some of the amendments we are offering in order to correct some of the problems with the bill.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to be here at this late hour on a Wednesday night. I congratulate all my colleagues from all sides of the House for still being here at 11:40 p.m. I will try to make it as lively as possible to keep them going.

I want to do a slight review of what we are doing here tonight. I know the viewing public at home is very interested. We are dealing with an implementation bill. There are two a year, one in the spring and one in the fall. The budget that gets passed is really a policy document, and then the implementation bills actually take that information and turn it into actions, and those are done through those two implementation bills. That is what we are doing here today.

I have been here all day and all evening for the discussion and I have listened to some of the discussion about an omnibus bill. My colleague across the aisle just mentioned that the bill is 360 pages long. I happen to have it here with me, and he is absolutely right; it is 360 pages, in English and in French. Really, it is 200 pages in English. Then when we look at how it is printed in Canada, how bills are printed, we see it is in columns and there are two columns on a page. The columns have maybe 10 words across. It is really not that thick. I am very confident that the members opposite are smart enough and good enough readers to be able to read a couple of hundred pages of a bill.

The other really great thing about the way the system works is that, just in case members are busy and they cannot read the whole thing, all couple of hundred pages—if members are able to read it in both languages, I congratulate them, because I do not have that skill, unfortunately—at the beginning of all legislation, there is a legislative summary. The legislative summary for the bill is four pages long. I have the four pages here in front of me. We can go through and see the sections. We may read a section and say to ourselves that it makes sense. If we are on the opposition bench, we may not agree with it or, as we have heard today, there are certain sections that the opposition actually agrees with. They would not have to read over that section any more or study it further; they could just do it.

The other thing that happened with this implementation bill, which has been a practice of this government—I am not sure if it was a practice of previous governments—is that, when the implementation bill passes second reading, it gets split up into different committees to study. It is not all at finance.

For example, there was some discussion about the trademark clauses. I believe they went to the industry committee. That is where they were discussed. Witnesses came before the committee and there was a discussion.

Tonight we are at report stage. Amendments have been moved. I do believe there were no government amendments; I believe they were all amendments from the opposition benches, which is fair. There were a couple of hundred of them, I believe. When you first took the chair earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker—it seems like a long time ago, but it was earlier this evening—they were grouped. I think there are approximately 19 or 20 votes based on the groupings of the amendments, so as a House, once we have finished the discussion, we will come to vote on those amendments that are put forward by the opposition. I think it is only fair to say that I will be voting against those amendments, and I think most members on this side of the House will be voting against those amendments.

This is a confidence vote. This is not something members of Parliament can take lightly, and we are not. From listening to the speeches tonight, I think people are taking this implementation bill seriously and looking at the different issues.

One thing I do find a little bit ironic is that members will say that this omnibus bill is way too long, has too much stuff in it, and would change too many things. Then in the question and answer period, when they are asking a question of another individual who was speaking, they say, “There is nothing in here for this individual, or this group, or this organization”. We could imagine how big the budget bill would be if we put everything they have asked for in it. It would be as tall as I am. I am not that tall, but it would be a big bill if it were as tall as I.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have some levity at 11:45 p.m.

There are a number of things in it that are important to me. The basic fact that with the budget implementation bill is that we have made a commitment to Canadians that we will have a balanced budget and balanced books. There is not a lot of new spending in the bill. There are some changes to HST.

An example that is close to my heart is this. I have Type II diabetes, but fortunately I can manage it through diet and exercise. That is not the case for many Canadians and diabetes has a tremendous effect on the health and well-being of many Canadians. We have recognized that issue and I have a motion on obesity that was unanimously supported by the House. We recognize there are some medical needs in terms of guide dogs and assistance dogs for those with diabetes. There are a number of small items in the bill.

The core piece to the bill is that we want to get back to balanced books. I am asked all the time what I am hearing the most about. I do not hear a whole lot about trademark. I do not hear a lot about a number of very specific issues. I go to at least five events a weekend in my riding. I am fortunate to live in an urban area where it is relatively simple to get from one event to another. I am asked over and over again, why do we have a deficit? What is causing the deficit?

We talked about the recession and the work we have done in terms of investing to make sure Canada gets back to work so we have growth and employment in this country. I cannot run my business by spending more than I take in. In a business, it can be done for a short term, but eventually it has to make more money than is being spent. People cannot continue to borrow and borrow and never pay it back. They would be bankrupt. This country cannot afford to be bankrupt. We have an opportunity to get people back to work, which we have done. We have an opportunity through these budget processes to get back to balanced budgets and balanced books so that we can invest in other infrastructure projects and social services.

When I look at the pages in the legislative summary of the bill and the small changes in the HST, these are small changes. I am not running out on the street saying we are going to make big changes in the budget implementation bill. The big change we are making is that we have made a commitment to Canadians to get back to a balance so that we can afford the services that Canadians are asking the federal government to provide.

I know there are a number of issues that people may ask me about. I am happy to answer, but it is time to get on with the work of this place, to finish this debate, to vote on it, and to move on to other issues. We have a number of legislative items the House needs to deal with that have very significant importance including the new prostitution laws that were introduced today by the Minister of Justice. There are a number of things to deal with. Let us get this budget implementation bill passed and move on to the next item.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent, and even some amusement. I appreciate that my friend brings some levity to something as scintillating as a budget implementation act today at 11:45 p.m.

I have a very specific and important question for him on what is in this bill, because it covers a lot. It goes across a whole spectrum of different issues that would affect 60 different laws.

As my Conservative colleagues used to believe when they were in opposition, it can at times be an abuse of power by a government to ram so much into a single vote and to then demand that members speak in just a 10-minute slot and then vote once. I have quote after quote from the Prime Minister and from various cabinet ministers, Conservatives all, who, when in opposition, decried this very same technique used by the Liberals.

Let me be specific about the effect on veterans from what exists in this bill. There has been much concern coming from us, as the official opposition, having listened to the families of veterans and the veterans themselves, particularly those who have suffered through some injury or another incurred while in the service of this country.

Whether those injuries were physical in nature or otherwise, such as PTSD, one of the grievous mistakes the government made was a clawback of veterans' benefits for those who had been injured. It is a very specific clawback that affected veterans like Sean Bruyea.

Veterans like Sean Bruyea, who very bravely came forward, even though his mental health records were scandalously exposed by the government, came before the committee and said that the clawback started in 2006, which it did. The government says that the clawback was wrong but has only turned the clock back three months for those veterans rather than all the way back to 2006, when the clawback actually started.

This is going to court again. The government spent $20 million going to court the first time. Why make veterans go to court again just to seek justice on the rewards they so justly deserve on behalf of the Canadian people?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very proactive with the veterans groups in my riding. For example, prior to Christmas, I met with the Legion management and the legionnaires to talk about the changes that were needed in the new veterans charter. They gave me some feedback, and I provided it to the committee.

First of all, I would like to congratulate all members of that committee on all sides of the House for bringing a unanimous report forward on recommendations for changes to the new veterans charter.

Recently I had a meeting with veterans in my riding with almost 100 veterans. It was not last weekend, when I ran a marathon in Calgary, but the weekend before that. Some of them were from the United States. We have some U.S. veterans in a Legion in my riding. Not one veteran came to see me and said that the federal government is not doing the right thing by veterans. We got support for everything we were doing to continue to work on that.

I rely on my constituents to tell me what we are doing right and wrong, and that is the feedback I got from the veterans in my riding.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bite on that last comment about veterans, because I want to carry on in the same spirit in which the member spoke.

I would like to ask him about JDRF and juvenile diabetes. Being a type 2 diabetic himself, he might be able to give us some information. This weekend we are all going on walks in support of JDRF in our communities. It is trying to do research on type 1 juvenile diabetes.

My question for the member is something that he may know about. What is the government going to do to help support research and development on juvenile diabetes in Canada?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very honoured to be part of a juvenile diabetes caucus on the Hill. Part of that was to convince the minister and the government to provide money for research, which they did, for an artificial pancreas. We are getting very close in Canada to being able to develop that. We will be the first ones in the world to develop an artificial pancreas with help from research funding from the government to make that happen.

I am very proud of the government's support of juvenile diabetes and the research that needs to be done to make better lives for those who are suffering from that disease.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my voice to the budget debate this evening.

First, let me reflect upon the government touting how we are now coming out of deficit and running into surplus.

It was the Conservative government that was handed several surplus budgets in a row and for a Conservative government, it has run a number of deficits over the last number of years. Finally it is getting back to a balanced approach, and it is about time.

With respect to veterans, I have to disagree with the last member who spoke. One thing I hear more often about veterans and their issues is that they are getting very agitated with the treatment they receive. Usually a lot of our veterans have gone about their work over the years, asking for nothing in return but a pat on the back and a “Thank you for your service”.

However, in the last 10 months, there has been a noticeable difference in our veterans becoming more vocal because of the way they are treated.

I am glad to hear that the committee has come up with unanimous recommendations because there are veterans, even today, outside this building, protesting that the government does not care and that all things are not as rosy as the government wants us to believe.

I would like to focus some of my thoughts on my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the cuts to Marine Atlantic.

Over the last number of years, we have seen tens of millions of dollars cut from the Marine Atlantic budget and, thus, it has to increase its fees. Over the last number of years, the fees have increased almost 15% to the average user.

What has happened is that the ferry service between Nova Scotia and the island of Newfoundland has become more unaffordable for many people to travel across the gulf, and this is a direct result of the cuts to Marine Atlantic and the increase in fees.

This year, as we are getting ready for the summer travel season, Marine Atlantic has announced that it has increased its fees, its budget has been cut, and it will now cut crossings. It has cut a number of crossings just as people are starting to make their plans or have already made their plans to cross on Marine Atlantic over the course of the summer. Now the service is being cut back again.

It not only impacts our tourist industry, but businesses in general. I have had a few calls this week from individuals who have said that the cuts to Marine Atlantic are hurting their businesses and the economy. They have things on the other side of the gulf that they are trying to get, but the suppliers cannot get the products into the province so they can work.

It is an economic driver of the economy in Newfoundland. It is also our link to the rest of Canada, our link to many grocery products. People probably do not realize how fresh the produce or fruit is. A lot of the produce that comes into Newfoundland and Labrador comes through North Sydney. Many times it is trucked from Montreal to North Sydney and then waits there, on the dock. Cutting crossings will impact the ability for residents of the province to get fresh produce.

I have heard from many truckers. We need to have a look at Marine Atlantic and get back to the basis of what it is there to do, which is to provide a service to our province.

Getting into Bill C-31, we were talking a bit earlier about search and rescue. One of the things that keeps coming up is the volunteer tax credit for search and rescue.

It is a good and noble idea, but it did come with a few strings attached. If someone is a volunteer firefighter and a search and rescue volunteer, his or her tax credits are combined, instead of getting one for the work as a volunteer firefighter and one as a search and rescue volunteer. They should be two separate tax credits because they are two separate and distinct jobs, even though in some communities they are rolled into one. This should be made a refundable tax credit so that low-income volunteers can also benefit from this initiative. In a lot of these communities the volunteers in these organizations have low incomes. They do it to make their community a better place and for personal fulfillment, but they do not get any benefit from it, whereas the person who is working alongside them gets the benefit, so it is not equal for all.

Before I go on, the member for Saint John mentioned the three RCMP officers who were killed this evening. I would like to echo my sympathy to the families of those RCMP officers. All of us have friends who have been involved with or are members of the force. This is a sad time for them as well. I just remembered that and wanted to make that point.

Another favourite topic of ours in Newfoundland and Labrador is ACOA and what it is doing in our province. This budget makes vague references to the programs and improvements that will be made to ACOA, but what we have seen over the last number of years is that the ACOA budget has been slashed and cut by almost $30-odd million. When we look to the estimate programs we see that the Conservatives have cut budgets to ACOA but then it is not getting money out the door.

One of the most common complaints I hear from different community groups is that it is not easy to apply. The process through ACOA is a long one. Its first initial reaction is to say no to applicants and it takes a very long time to get money out the door with ACOA. It needs to go back to what it originally had done, which is to help regional development and get back to the basics of providing regional activities and regional benefits, and for smaller projects. If we look at a lot of our communities in rural Canada, where is the presence of the federal government? It is a product over the years that right now in Newfoundland the presence of the federal government is the post office, and we have seen what has happened to that. The other presence of the federal government is the small craft harbours program, which does great work, but that is it. Often people are looking for help to improve their communities. ACOA is a good agency to deliver that, but we are not seeing that. We need to get back to the basics when it comes to ACOA and regional development.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member will have five minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate on Bill C-31.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has six minutes left for his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, I was commenting on the issue of the economics of balanced budgets. We recognize that this is something on which the government has fallen short. I want to move forward on it and talk about priorities and what the government needs to focus more on.

In the last number of months, we have seen several issues come to the floor of the House. I thought it might be beneficial to provide some sort of brief comment on them.

One of the issues that has always been important to me is health care. I had the opportunity to pose a question on this issue in the debate on the budget implementation bill. I raised the fact that the health care accord had expired.

One of the things we have found with the Prime Minister is that he has not been very successful in meeting with the provinces or getting them together to look at what is important to the country as a whole. The Prime Minister has really fallen short on recognizing how important health care is to all Canadians. The government's response to that issue has been quite surprising. It has literally done nothing.

I would like to think that the government could have demonstrated a much tougher approach, trying to appease the issues of health care and looking at ways in which we could achieve another health care accord. This is very important to Canadians, and it would have been nice to see it being incorporated into a supplementary budget document and allow for some form of an agreement. I believe the government is selling short the importance of health care to Canadians.

Another issue that comes up when I am in my constituency is crime and safety. I have had the opportunity to raise this issue in the past. The government is very good at taking certain aspects of legislation, bringing them forward and trying to give the impression that it wants to get tough on crime when, in fact, it would be far better off coming up with bold initiatives under the budget that would prevent crimes from being committed in the first place.

I would ultimately argue that when we look at the budget, it is an issue of priorities. If the government wanted to have more of a profound impact on dealing with the issue of crime, it would need to invest in issues that would allow for more youth engagement in our communities in a more positive fashion.

This, again, is one of the deficiencies of this budget and, therefore, the budget implementation bill. The bill does nothing that is really creative or, using my previous example, that allows more youth being positively engaged in the communities we represent. That is important not only to my constituents, but to constituents as a whole.

We have talked a great deal within the Liberal Party. Since the leader of the Liberal Party was elected, one of the priority issues has been the middle class and what the government has done for its betterment.

I cannot help but notice that since the leader of the Liberal Party was elected, the term “middle class” has been used a great deal more inside the House. Whether it is the Conservatives or the New Democrats, they are talking about the middle class a whole lot more. I acknowledge that it is a positive thing. Prior to becoming the leader of the Liberal Party, far less attention was being given to the middle class.

It is interesting and encouraging to hear more talk about it from the government, but we would really like to see more tangible action that would made a positive difference for our middle class.

The leader of the Liberal Party has talked about this when we go forward. This is an issue on which the Liberal Party will continue to challenge the government, such as how it delivers on economic and social policies for Canada's middle class, which is of great importance.

I have also highlighted another deficiency of the government in regard to the infrastructure. Municipalities and communities across our country are in need of infrastructure dollars, and those infrastructure dollars need to be spent today. The government's focus has been to try to work on spin, saying that it is spending more on infrastructure and that it is a huge commitment. What it does not tell Canadians is that the bulk of that money will not be spent until well after the next federal election. The next real batch of any large amounts of money will not occur until the election year.

At a time when our municipalities and communities are in need, and there is a wonderful opportunity for the government to invest in our infrastructure today, sadly, the government has chosen not to do so. That is at great cost to the many different communities we all represent.

With those few words, I look forward to any questions there might be. I wish we did not need to have a time limit on this bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced the middle class several times in his speech today, and to some extent I would hope we would be here for all Canadians, not necessarily just one segment. However, given he made that the focus of his speech, I would like to ask the member his thoughts on the recent Parliamentary Budget Officer's report with regard to $30 billion less taxes predominantly going toward low to middle income Canadians, which helps put money in people's jeans, helps our local economies and supports our country.

I would also like to ask the member for his thoughts on the recent report in The New York Times saying that Canada's middle class is doing very well.

I find it interesting that he is talking about things and raising criticisms when our country has never been stronger on so many of these points.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit of a problem. The Conservatives, whether it is that minister, or the Prime Minister or the people in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office, are very selective in the quotes and the stats they want to look at. Why not reflect on what their constituents might be telling them, which is that they have higher credit card debt, more and more consumer loans, mortgage rates, in terms of the amount of money borrowed, that are not going down. There is more debt out there. More and more youth and young adults are staying at home because they cannot afford to leave their parents' homes. More and more parents are having to cover the cost of our youth and young adults because of their inability to get out on their own.

These issues are more prevalent today than I have ever experienced, and I have been around as a parliamentarian for over 20 years. In the last number of years, we have seen dramatic increases in the reliance on the middle class, more than I have witnessed in the past.

The hon. member may be able to draw the odd stat here or an interesting story over there, but the reality is quite different. All he needs to do is canvass his constituents and he will find that the disposable income they had before just does not seem to be there, that the costs they are incurring today are quite different from what they were before. The amount of debt today is significantly higher than what it was before.

The middle class in Canada is hurting.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question a moment ago from our hon. Conservative colleague, if he were to go knocking on doors or go to the mall this weekend and speak to constituents in his riding, if he were to tell them that everything was fine, that the cost of living was not going up, that they should not worry about the difficulties they thought they had in making ends meet because they really did not having any trouble at all and that they were in the best situation in the world, I wonder how they would react. I would ask him to talk on that.

I would also like him to talk about the fact that infrastructure improvements are important. I had a meeting recently with folks from the St. Margaret's Centre in my riding, who are working to replace the swimming pool there. They are looking for funding for infrastructure in a year in which the government has cut the annual funding for infrastructure from $1.3 billion last year to only $210 million this year, which when spread across the country, is pretty darn thin and does not allow much for things like pools, roads, transit, or other needed infrastructure in our communities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right on in his assessment. Let me first deal with the issue of infrastructure. If we were to do as my colleague suggested, go into the constituencies and identify within our communities, we would find a very high demand for infrastructure dollars. There is no shortage of ideas and needs to build upon our infrastructure. Some of those could be relatively small community oriented. It could be a pothole in the street. It could also be an economic underpass that is needed to help drive an economy. Investing in infrastructure does not mean it is all lost tax dollars. If we have a healthy infrastructure, it leads to more economic activity in many different ways.

In regard to the other issue, in terms of communicating what is important, I love what the leader of the Liberal Party has been saying about the members of Parliament and the need to start recognizing that they need to go and represent Ottawa inside their constituencies. This is approach the Prime Minister has taken, that MPs represent Ottawa in their constituencies. The leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting that it be the other way around. It is time we started representing our constituents in Ottawa. Therefore, if we adopt that approach, I believe we would be better able to address the real needs of Canadians.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the budget implementation act. This act would ensure that important provisions in budget 2014 are implemented. This is especially true in the case affecting my riding of Willowdale, which has a lot of small and medium-sized businesses.

Our government has never strayed from our commitment to strengthen our economy for Canadians and the determination to see our plan through without raising taxes. Our government believes the hard-earned money of families and entrepreneurs belongs in the pockets of families and entrepreneurs. Low taxes, positive and targeted measures for economic growth and for families, and balanced budgets are the right combination and the right path for economic growth.

Our plan has been reviewed by the business community. Recently the Conference Board of Canada performed a study on how Canada performs in our economy to find out which countries around the world are prosperous and which are not. The results are that Canada ranks fifth overall in economic performance among the top 16 countries around the world. This is good news for Canada as we continue to weather the global economic slowdown.

It is also important to note the recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This report has concluded that personal income taxes are $17.1 billion lower today and that Canadian consumers are paying about $13.3 billion less in value-added taxes on their purchases of goods and services. I am proud of our government's record in standing up for Canadian consumers and families through these tax reductions. It is also very encouraging that recently the annual “Update of Economic and Fiscal Projections” confirmed that our Conservative government is on track to balance the budget in 2015 and is expected to have a surplus of $3.7 billion in the 2015-16 fiscal year. Our plan is working for Canadians, and I am proud to stand in support of policies that benefit the people I represent.

As the world experienced the economic downturn, our government introduced targeted spending to help protect Canadian jobs and to support the economy. Despite ongoing global economic uncertainty, Canada has the best job-creation record, the lowest net debt ratio, and the strongest business investment growth in the G7. These temporary initiatives have helped create jobs and growth. However, our government understands the importance of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility for Canada's long-term economic success.

Our government would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs. We would also provide $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system to support Canada's labour market needs.

Our government believes that families and communities are valuable in our economy. That is why we would encourage competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies who may be their competitors more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data, and text services.

We have introduced a search and rescue volunteers tax credit for search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service in a year.

We would increase the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families.

We would exempt acupuncturists' and naturopathic doctors' professional services from the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax. We would also expand the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit to include costs associated with service animals that are specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, such as diabetes alert dogs, as well amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan.

It is important to note that since the government first introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, and part of that plan was to address some specific areas in the Canadian economy that were affected by the downturn, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession, the result of the sound economic policy of our government. Since July 2009, employment has increased by over one million. It is more than 600,000 above its pre-recession peak, the strongest job growth among the group of seven countries over the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 are full-time positions, close to 85% are in the private sector, and over two-thirds are in high-wage industries. Real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7.

Balancing Canada's budget is essential to the long-term health and prosperity of our economy. By keeping our fiscal house in order, we can help keep taxes low, social programs affordable, and the economy growing. That is why our Conservative government remains committed to balancing the budget in 2015. We would do this by controlling spending and making government more efficient with taxpayers' dollars. What we would not do is cut provincial transfers for important social programs like health care and education.

Overall, since 2010, our actions have saved taxpayers nearly $19 billion per year. This prudent economic leadership has helped Canada maintain its strong fiscal position, with the best job creation record and debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Returning to balance will cement Canada's status as an economic powerhouse.

We all know that balanced budgets help keep taxes low, attract investment, and ensure sustainable social programs. Despite demands by the opposition for more government spending, we will continue to make government more efficient.

For Ontario, the federal budget confirmed that provincial transfers would total $19.2 billion in 2014-15. This is a whopping increase of 76% from the previous government. That government radically slashed transfers to Ontario, decimating health care, education, and other important social services that families rely on. Under our Conservative government, federal support has grown to historic levels and will continue to grow in the future.

Investment in Canada's public infrastructure creates jobs, promotes economic growth, and provides a high quality of life for families in every city and community across the country. Our government has made significant investments since 2006 to build roads, bridges, subways, rail, and much more. Furthermore, in 2013, our government announced the new Building Canada plan, a $53-billion investment in critical infrastructure funding for the next 10 years. This is the largest and longest federal investment in job-creation infrastructure in Canada's history.

Our government recognizes that Canada's seniors have helped build and make our country great. That is why since 2006, about $2.8 billion in annual tax relief has been provided to seniors and pensioners, including introducing pension income splitting, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, doubling the pension income credit, increasing the amount of the guaranteed income supplements, increasing the age limit for the RRSP-to-RRIF conversion, and establishing the landmark tax-free savings account.

Our government has been keeping Canada on the right path for economic growth. This includes lowering taxes over 160 times, which will save the average Canadian family nearly $3,400 on their tax bills in 2014. We also cut taxes for job-creating businesses, allowing them to hire more workers and open up new markets for Canadian goods and services, most recently through the historic Canada-European Union trade agreement.

To help Canadians get the skills and training they need to succeed, our plan would also move forward with the Canada job grant to connect people looking for work directly with in-demand jobs. We would also introduce the Canadian apprentice loan to give access to student loans to apprentices for the first time ever.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Willowdale and all the small and medium-sized businesses that sustain our economy. I invite all members of the House to join me in supporting jobs, growth,and long-term economic prosperity.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech. He addressed several issues related to the budget.

The one that really caught my attention was tax cuts. This government likes to boast about bringing taxes down. However, inequality has gone up. There are ways to calculate that, such as the Gini coefficient.

Can my colleague explain why the Conservatives' tax measures have increased inequality? What would he do to correct the situation?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 34 years ago, I was in public accounting. I looked at the Canadian tax act, and it is probably one of the most fair tax acts in the world. It looks at transfer payments between those who earn more versus those who earn less, and through a graduated system and through a system of looking at the capital gains one gets from capital asset appreciation, people are taxed accordingly. There is no inequality in this. It is truly a fair tax system.

By raising the basic minimum for people to not have to pay taxes, we are bringing a lot of people who are on the lower end of the middle class into a position where they can have a good standard of living. This is equally applied across the nation, regardless of which industry people are working in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the statements in my comments on the budget implementation bill was in regard to infrastructure.

That is the question I would like to pose to the member. Given that we have communities across Canada that are in great need of infrastructure dollars this year, why has the government chosen to close the tap?

Yes, there is still money that is going to be flowing, but it is close to 80% in terms of cuts. Some say it is closer to 90%. This is at a time when we could use that infrastructure, because infrastructure spending could actually add more value to economic activity going forward, not to mention social infrastructure.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another area where I have some experience. I spent 10 years of my life building subway systems around the world, which is also very important and pertinent to Canadian infrastructure building.

The fact that we have allocated $53 billion in long-term sustainable funding gives the municipalities an idea of how to move forward with their infrastructure spending.

Infrastructure spending has many facets. There is short-term infrastructure spending, which is for basic repairs and maintenance for potholes, bridges, roads, and so on. Then, as we direct how we can grow a community in a sustainable way, we need to look at how we build roads and highways, power plants, and other social infrastructure that sustains a community.

Then there is longer-term infrastructure building that looks at the high-end, very expensive expenditures, such as for high-speed rail and subway systems. To give an example, in 1985-86, when we were building the Vancouver SkyTrain, the average cost per kilometre was $25 million. If we were to build that today, we would be paying $300 million. Therefore, we need to do this in a very slow, gradual, and determined way.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House to address the House on Bill C-31, the budget implementation act for economic action plan 2014. Today I will be focusing my remarks on the new Building Canada plan, the largest long-term federal investment in infrastructure in Canadian history.

Our government is taking concrete steps to provide for the future of infrastructure across this country, including in my home province of Ontario, the city of Toronto, and my riding of Don Valley West.

Investing in quality public infrastructure helps build stronger communities. Whether it is in roads, bridges, public transit, or water systems, these investments make life easier, cleaner, and healthier. Targeted, sound infrastructure investment helps position cities across Canada as competitive economic engines where local businesses and industry leaders thrive. This is because it allows for goods to get to market faster, for trade corridors to move smoother, and for workers to get to their jobs more easily. All of this contributes positively to the long-term economic growth and productivity of our country.

For instance, past investments in Ontario have led to projects as diverse as the Regent Park Arts and Cultural Centre in Toronto and the Woodward water treatment plant in Hamilton. These projects have increased economic activity and have led to job creation in the province while also making Ontario a better place to live.

Since 2006, our government has nearly doubled the average annual federal funding for thousands of provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure projects across the country.

In Ontario, this translates to $12.3 billion over the last eight years. To put this in perspective, in the 13 years prior, under the Liberal Party, federal funding for infrastructure in Ontario amounted to just $3.4 billion.

These investments have led to real, tangible infrastructure benefits that provide jobs and help improve transportation, commerce, and business across the province. With our new Building Canada plan, we will be continuing our support infrastructure for an even longer period of time.

The plan builds on this government's unprecedented investment in infrastructure and includes over $53 billion in new and existing funding for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure over 10 years. Combined with investments in federal infrastructure and first nations infrastructure, total federal spending for infrastructure will reach $70 billion over the next decade.

Of the $53 billion under the new Building Canada plan, $47 billion consists of new funding for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure starting in 2014-15 through three key funds:

First, the community improvement fund will provide $32.2 billion over 10 years. This fund consists of an indexed federal gas tax fund and the incremental GST rebate for municipalities to build roads, public transit, recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure across the country.

Second, the new Building Canada fund will provide $14 billion over 10 years to support infrastructure projects of national, regional, and local significance.

Third, a renewed P3 Canada fund will provide $1.25 billion over five years to continue supporting innovative ways to build infrastructure projects faster and provide better value for Canadian taxpayers through public-private partnerships.

Let me speak first on the gas tax fund.

Our government has extended, doubled, indexed, and made permanent the federal gas tax fund. In other words, we took a temporary Liberal program and passed legislation so that it became permanent. We doubled it and then this year we indexed it. That means that the annual allocation will grow over time as the economy grows. In fact, it will grow by $1.8 billion nationally over the next decade. As well, the eligible categories under the federal gas tax fund have been expanded and will now support local priorities like disaster mitigation, culture, tourism, sport, and recreation.

All of this means that Ontario municipalities will receive just over $3.8 billion in flexible and dependable funding between 2014 and 2019 to support building local priorities. This, in turn, will support increased productivity and economic growth for the long term.

The other major component of the plan is the new Building Canada fund. It was launched on March 28 by my colleague, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs, and is comprised of $4 billion for projects of national significance and $10 billion in dedicated funding for provinces and territories. The national infrastructure component does not have specific allocations for each province and territory. Instead, funding will be selected on the basis of project merit guided by federal priorities.

Under the provincial-territorial infrastructure component, each province and territory will receive a base amount, plus a per capita allocation over the 10 years of the program. For Ontario, this represents almost $175 million in dedicated federal funding under this fund alone to address core infrastructure projects.

Keeping in mind that this is a program of partnerships and support, cost-sharing requirements under the new Building Canada fund would require that other partners such as provinces, territories, municipalities, or the private sector also contribute to the projects. It is important to note that the federal government owns very little infrastructure compared to provinces, territories, and municipalities that own over 95% of public infrastructure in Canada. As such, it is very important for the federal government to be respectful of their authority. At the same time, keeping in mind that three levels of government and the private sector have a role to play in supporting public infrastructure, our government is committed to being there with our fair share.

Federal infrastructure investments through the new Building Canada plan will be focused on projects that contribute to Canada's economic growth and prosperity. We are making the funding available for projects that have a real impact on strengthening our economy, including transit and transportation infrastructure.

The categories under the new plan are generally the same as the original plan, but there has been realignment. For instance, more categories have been added to the gas tax fund, providing even more flexibility for municipalities to use their funding for their specific local infrastructure priorities. The categories under the new Building Canada fund are more focused, supporting core economic infrastructure like transportation infrastructure and disaster mitigation. This realignment of categories means that the gas tax fund provides flexibility for community-oriented infrastructure while the new Building Canada fund is focused on infrastructure projects that enhance Canada's economic growth and prosperity.

When Torontonians speak of infrastructure, they speak of traffic congestion and public transportation. That is why our government has made it a priority to invest in infrastructure that will help alleviate traffic congestion and modernize public transportation. It is vital to the future of Toronto. These investments will not only help create jobs and growth, but will also attract the businesses and private investment necessary to obtain long-term prosperity.

One of those projects is the completion of the Toronto-York Spadina subway extension. Thanks in part to an investment by our government, this subway will link Toronto and York Region and will provide a host of other benefits to the region. Our government has also committed that if the Scarborough subway expansion project is a priority for the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario, then our government will set aside $660 million under Ontario's funding allocation to support the Bloor-Danforth subway line into Scarborough. This extension will further alleviate traffic congestion and help provide Scarborough with high-quality public transit. This commitment is in addition to the $333 million committed to the Metrolinx Sheppard East light rail transit project.

Our government will also provide funding to deliver 78 Toronto Rocket subway cars for the TTC. These Rocket cars are not only more accessible, more comfortable, safer and more reliable, they also carry more people and will help keep Toronto's subway line world class. Together, these investments deliver over $1 billion in federal funding to directly support the transit priorities of Toronto.

No federal government has ever made as strong a commitment to supporting infrastructure. Since 2006, our government has nearly doubled the average annual funding for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure. Now we have the new Building Canada fund, a key component of the Building Canada plan, a plan that provides $53 billion of stable, predictable funding over the next decade for public infrastructure across the country.

With the new Building Canada plan, we are on track to surpass the successes we have achieved to date. We will continue to support infrastructure that encourages job creation and economic growth and that contributes to the quality of life of all Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Don Valley West for his speech.

Like him, I am not so much worried as keenly interested in infrastructure development, which is way behind in Canada. He listed plenty of programs and figures in his speech, each more interesting than the last.

However, one question is bothering me: how can I be sure that the funds announced in the budget will actually be spent?

Over the past few years, we have seen a growing trend. Funds are announced but never spent, and then they are put back into general revenue and probably used for something else.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question because as Canadians I think we all wonder, will the money be spent? Will it arrive in my community? Clearly, our government is on track to balance the budget in 2015-16. We have made that commitment. We are going to provide a financial framework where this country will be strong, stable, and able to meet the needs of our communities for years to come.

Clearly, we made commitments in the Building Canada plan and infrastructure spending that will meet the needs of the Canadians and ideally, create a more prosperous Canada. With stable economic foundations, as we have planned with our budgeting, we are going to have the funding necessary to meet the needs of communities right across Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the fact that in 2015-16, the government's intentions are to balance the budget and then he went on to comment about the infrastructure dollars.

Do the serious cuts in infrastructure spending this fiscal year have anything to do with the government's attempt to have a balanced budget for next year?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have a budget that is coming into line that is going to put our country on a strong foothold financially for decades to come. We want to ensure that future generations are not hamstrung by debt, by deficit spending, by overspending, which I see in my own province. Clearly, in Ontario right now we have spending that is out of control. The government of the day is writing cheques that it cannot afford and things have to be cut.

In our planning, we have laid down a strategy in this budget. It is all right here and I encourage my hon. colleague to read it. It talks to some of the most incredible spending in infrastructure that this country has ever seen. It is $53 billion over 10 years, the biggest commitment that we as a government, or any government, has made to this country in the history of Canada.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, may I just say thank you very much for your intervention earlier today while you were in the chair, explaining the process for voting to members. I really did appreciate the wisdom you gave us from the chair.

I want to ask my hon. colleague who gave a very eloquent, very articulate, and very accurate speech on the economic action plan what he thinks about the investments in the job grant and the apprenticeship loans.

I want to ask him this specifically because in my province, particularly in my area of central Alberta, we have almost a 4% job vacancy rate. We have more jobs available than we have people to fill them. This is common in Alberta. It is common in places to the east of us like Saskatchewan.

I came here as a member of Parliament in 2006 straight from being a faculty member at Red Deer College. It completely reorganized the college for training and educating people insofar as the trades. When it comes to deadlines for applications, there are cars lined up around the entire college with people trying to get in to take advantage of these programs.

Can my colleague tell us how important it is that we train the workforce of tomorrow, to have that Red Seal certification so that Canadians from all across Canada can go to those areas where those great paying jobs are available?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from an industry where an apprenticeship is a critical element, and finding people with the appropriate skills to do the job is very challenging today.

Our government has made a commitment to youth and to education through the apprenticeship skills development and training program, through which young people would develop skills, whether in the oil field, in the mechanical business, or in construction. Whatever their trade, we would give young people opportunities that we have not had in this country for quite a period of time.

We are going to see some great things with young people. Our young Canadians are highly qualified.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill C-31. Let me make it very clear right from the beginning that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill for a number of reasons.

One of the most critical reasons is that once again the government is choosing to shut down debate and has moved time allocation on a really critical bill. We have a bill of 350 pages. It addresses over 500 clauses and impacts 60 acts, yet debate is being limited.

It is an example of how budgets have been passed ever since I have been in Parliament. The government introduces a budget bill the size of a phone book in the majority of our municipalities and then wants us to vote on it holus-bolus. It throws in some tempting stuff, but there is also a lot of negative stuff that will force us to vote against it.

I have noticed one key thing that would really impact my community. The groups of people and businesses that grow jobs are the small and medium-sized enterprises across the country. They are the engines of our economy, but in this bill there is no small business job creation tax credit.

It is not there, even though it is a proven way to grow jobs in this country. They grow jobs in our communities. Money is spent in our communities, and we collect taxes that help to feed our health care and education systems and so on.

I also do not see anything significant in this budget that would address the critical area of the huge transaction fees that small businesses are burdened with over and over again, once again eating into their profit margins and their ability to survive, and let us not forget the high cost of interest rates on many credit cards.

We are also talking about a period in our history right now when we actually have more unemployed Canadians. Despite all of the rhetoric from my colleagues across the way, and they can say it as much as they like, it will not change reality. The reality is that we have 300,000 more Canadians unemployed today than we had before the depression. That is just not acceptable.

Today I heard a minister saying that we are doing better than other places in youth unemployment. We are not. We have youth unemployment in the double digits. In B.C., there are areas where the youth unemployment rate is at 15%.

By the way, let me make it clear that we have 300,000 more unemployed people today than in the past. A huge number of people in Canada are underemployed or working two or three jobs at minimum wage in order to make ends meet.

All of this is with a budget that would do nothing to address the huge deficit in manufacturing jobs. I do not see any major stimulus or investment in that area to get that sector moving and get our economy back on the road.

I also heard a minister saying earlier that we are managing to get through a lot of legislation. We have to be careful about how quickly we rush through legislation. I am reminded of Bill C-24. Only one component was the citizenship revocation component. Here is a bill that would fundamentally change what citizenship is, yet when it went to committee stage, not one witness or expert was heard from. We went directly from a very preliminary and time-allocated debate of six and a half hours in the House to then having no witnesses or expert testimony and going straight into clause by clause. That seems to be turning into a bit of a pattern with the Conservative government.

We also have the government rushing to sign agreements. For example, it seems to have lost the concern it had around privacy issues when it was in opposition. Canadians care very deeply about the privacy issue, but once again we are giving away valuable information through the IRS and FATCA. The justification is that because the government may suspect someone could be doing something, it has a right to surveillance without any kind of legal right to do so. The attitude is, “We are the government, and we now have that right”.

We have seen the attacks on the veterans. We have seen the attacks on small and medium-sized businesses. We have seen the attack on the privacy of Canadians. However, we have seen no real measures that would invest in a major way to get the economy going when it comes to manufacturing or addressing high youth unemployment.

Let me get to another disturbing aspect of the bill, the component dealing with the temporary foreign worker program.

Of course we are delighted to hear that the minister will be making some changes. This is the same minister who has been making changes for the last little while. Those changes have not stopped abuse by some employers, nor has it stopped the flood of temporary foreign workers. When we have a high number of temporary foreign workers at the same time that we have high youth unemployment and high labour availability, it really is disturbing.

I had the privilege of listening to the Parliamentary Budget Officer this morning. He said that although there is no overall skills shortage in this country, we do not even have the data. I have known that for a while. What is disturbing is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said on record that we do not have the data to help us make informed decisions, whether it comes to immigration or granting LMOs, which are labour mobility orders. We do not have the data we need to plan for the future when it comes to skills investment and apprenticeships and growing the skill sets that we need. We do not have the data to guide our young generation on where they should be investing their energy as they look to the future.

Let us take a look at the temporary foreign worker program, which has absolutely ballooned. Now we are to believe a minister that the government will increase penalties for the employer. It is in the bill, but that is cold comfort for the two waitresses in Saskatchewan who were laid off from their jobs while temporary foreign workers were brought in. It is little comfort to the young people in Victoria who had their hours reduced, were not hired, or were let go because temporary foreign workers were brought in.

We are also worried about the vulnerability of temporary foreign workers. Our country has a proud history of having immigration policies that build our nation, but in this bill we have veered away from that. These are not my words. A temporary foreign worker, a young man who was here from Belize, said that it was beginning to feel like slavery.

We have heard of all these horrendous abuses. I have talked to many employers and others who have said that they have reported abuse to the CBSA and to CIC, but the only time four names appeared on a list was when CBC broke a story. It made national news, and on a Sunday afternoon, lo and behold, there were four names, but none of the others. There is absolute evidence that there are other people who have reported abuse, but their names were not there.

Clearly, then, there are many things that need to be addressed.

I will finish by saying that this budget fails to invest in growing jobs for the future, fails our youth, and fails working people, because it does not have anything major within it for them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the member's ideas and thoughts in regard to the temporary foreign worker program.

We need to recognize that it is a program that when properly managed, actually assists Canada's economy. It builds and supports certain industries and so forth.

However, we do need to recognize the mismanagement. My colleague and I were at the immigration committee, where we have had discussions in the past. We need to emphasize that in the last couple of years we have seen skyrocketing numbers of temporary foreign workers. No doubt that has had an impact, but it is the management of the program that has created the crisis, to the degree that over the last few years, the program has been constantly surrounded by issues.

The program itself, managed properly, does wonders for our country, but not when it is mismanaged. Does the member concur with my thoughts in regard to the management of the program itself?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me make it clear that at no time have we said that the whole program needs to be scrapped.

What we have said is that the program needs to be fixed. It got broken. With all respect to my colleague from Winnipeg North, it got broken and doors got opened wider under the Liberal government. Of course, since the Conservatives have been in power, we have seen the doors taken off, and it is more like a flood has occurred.

We are seeing a temporary foreign worker program that is not being used properly, as we can see if we just sit back and take a look at it. There is very high unemployment and the PBO and all these other bodies and experts in this area are saying that there are no major labour or skills shortages, yet a stream of temporary foreign workers is being brought in, in huge numbers, in the low-skilled category. I hate that term, but that is the term in the act and the regulations.

A huge number of temporary foreign workers are being brought in, which suppresses wages, keeps Canadians out of work, and exploits vulnerable workers.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about the budget and my colleague is very familiar with the temporary foreign worker program, I would like to ask her a question about that.

Because of the moratorium, skilled restaurant industry workers, such as maîtres d'hôtel, have been refused entry at the airport. They have landed in Canada and been refused entry. In my riding, we needed these skilled restaurant industry workers, and now we do not have them.

Can she comment on the impact of the Conservatives' decisions on regional economies?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to answer this question.

We have a government that mismanaged a program so badly that the minister was, because of the public embarrassment in the media, forced to declare a moratorium. We support that moratorium, by the way.

What we need to do is address this issue and get the data that identify the real skills shortages. If the workers being brought are not being brought in for temporary work, then we should not be abusing the temporary foreign worker program in order to bring in cheap labour, thereby suppressing the wages of others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly am delighted to be speaking to Bill C-31, which is the first of what will be two budget implementation bills to implement economic action plan 2014.

The bill would implement some very important parts of the economic action plan. I am going to talk about just a few. What I would like to do is talk about what I have seen at the natural resources committee over the past seven years since I started chairing that committee.

We have heard some common themes come from companies involved in developing our natural resources and creating tens of thousands of jobs. These are good, high-paying jobs right across the country. There are four different themes that I hear, and it is the fourth that relates directly to this budget implementation bill.

First, they made it very clear that they need a regulatory system that they can count on and that will work in a timely fashion.

Second, they said Canada's business taxes were too high, that they were higher than many other countries, including our neighbour to the south, the United States. That is what they said six and seven years ago.

The third thing they said was there is a lot of work to be done yet on working co-operatively with first nations. Almost any natural resource project is in an area that affects first nations; and therefore working very co-operatively with first nations includes hiring from reserves in the area, trying to help first nations form companies, allowing the companies to develop, and then hiring them back on contract. This co-operation with neighbouring first nations is something they said is absolutely essential to develop any kind of a major natural resource project.

Fourth, they said there is a desperate shortage of skilled workers in this country.

Let us see what has happened in the past four and five years since I was hearing these problems and this direction given day after day at the natural resources committee.

First, a recession hit us. There was a worldwide recession. Canada really was drawn along. It resulted not at all from what was happening in our country, but of course we were affected, like other countries right around the world. In spite of that, since the end of that recession Canadian businesses have created over a million jobs, and they are good, well-paying jobs, the kind of jobs we would like our children and our grandchildren to have. We have seen that happen.

I am going to talk about what I have seen in terms of development in those four areas that I have talked about.

First is the regulatory process. Eight years ago when we got into government, we had a regulatory process that was completely unreliable and that could stretch on for seven or eight years, and longer for some major natural resources projects. We have seen mines for which it has taken seven or eight years to get through the process. In many cases, companies have just given up and gone off to somewhere else where they had a better system.

That has changed completely. Now Canada has one of the best, most reliable and shortest regulatory processes in the world. We refer to this as our responsible resource development process. What that means for major projects is that we have one process for each major natural resource project—one review for one project. It has made a huge difference. Whether the process is guided by the province or by the federal government, it means that the process is going to be done in a reliable time. For some projects the government portion can take six months, for others a year, for others a year and a half, but it is a set timeline and government has to meet those guidelines. It has really shortened up the time the process takes. It has made a huge difference.

Within that process is the environmental review portion, and that has been improved monumentally.

Instead of having environmental evaluations done by the federal government, provincial governments, local governments, and other groups separately, now all of these groups get together in the one process and we have a much better environmental review, which would include information from all parties that have an interest in the process.

The responsible resource development process really has worked. Even when the answer is no in a project—and our regulators have said no to several projects—companies are not nearly as upset as before because they get that answer after six months, a year, or a relatively very short period of time, so they can get on to the next thing they want to work on. That means an awful lot, as well.

The second major change we have made is that we have reduced business tax by 35% since we have come into office. That is phenomenal. We have the lowest tax since 1960. That is a tremendous turnaround. Our tax regime for business is lower now than in the United States, and we have reaped the benefits. We have had head offices of companies come from the United States and other countries around the world and set up in Canada. The top jobs in any company are the head office jobs.

Of course, the example we love to point to is Tim Hortons. That great Canadian icon moved its head office from the United States to Canada because of our tax regime, our regulatory process, our reduction in red tape—all of that package.

We have made the changes needed when it comes to the tax system. We are working hard on reducing red tape. As I said already, we have put in place a reliable regulatory system.

The third component of what would allow companies to successfully develop natural resources in this country is to create a working relationship with first nations that is co-operative and that is effective. There has been, I think, great progress in that regard.

It is really sad when we see what happened with the first nations education act. Grand Chief Atleo signed onto our government's proposal for a long-term, well-funded program for first nations, and then others came in and just destroyed all of the work that had been done on this major development.

We see that kind of negative aspect of working with first nations. However, I want to tell members that I have seen a lot of really positive things happen in the relationship between first nations across this country and businesses that are developing resource projects or developing natural resources across the country. To me, that is hope, when there was very little hope 10 years ago.

I encourage companies to continue this good work of hiring people and training people from first nations. Often, companies will start training people from first nations three or five years before the project actually goes ahead; so they are training the people they know they are going to need. That is good for companies. That is good for people living on reserves across this country. It is good for first nations.

The fourth area that has been a problem—and it still is to some extent, but there has been great progress made—is the area of providing the workers needed for companies to develop natural resources across this country. We have done an awful lot of things already.

We are putting in place a program to match workers with jobs across the country. That is very important. We have put in place the Canada job grants program to train workers actually within companies that are working. We are putting in place the internships for apprentices, again, providing important on-the-job training. We are creating the Canada apprenticeship loan program—$100 million in interest-free loans for apprentices enrolled in the Red Seal; and that is after we had already put in place programs to give Red Seal students $4,000 to encourage them to continue.

A lot of good work has been done. There is a lot of progress. There is still work to be done. However, I look forward to our government continuing that good work.

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the member's reference to temporary foreign workers, we learned today that the transportation safety system, particularly with regard to airlines, is not very healthy. In fact, Transport Canada is planning for more accidents on the airline side. It was an astounding revelation today.

One of the things we learned was that there are far fewer inspectors, far fewer inspections going on, and I notice that the budget contains $44 million less than last time, which is about a 20% decrease, for aviation safety.

However, we also learned that there are some airlines using temporary foreign workers as pilots, and in Canada, we do not actually check their credentials. Transport Canada has no mechanism for checking the credentials of temporary foreign pilots; it trusts the airline that is bringing them in that these people are properly credentialed.

Can the member comment on the airline safety problems this country faces?

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing I cannot help but notice is how opposition members try to find negative aspects to anything we are talking about. They just look for the darkness in everything, instead of being upbeat and looking at the reality.

The reality is that Canada is doing better than most countries in the world. We are doing pretty well. Our airline system is one of the best in the world. Temporary foreign workers are brought in as pilots from time to time, because the reality is that during the heavy holiday season airlines need more pilots.

We simply do not have the Canadian pilots trained, and so we do bring in some temporary foreign workers. These pilots are credentialed. They are completely competent. Nobody would suggest that they are not some of the best in the world. The reality is that we have a great aviation system.

The problem is that, when these members make comments like that, they are looking at one little aspect of the budget and they are not tying it in with the rest of the budget. They are not tying it in with the improvements we have made to these systems.

They have to start doing that and try to be a little more upbeat and a little more positive, because we have so much to be positive about.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member goes on and on about all the good things, and I am not saying that there are not good things in the budget, but what about all of the things that are not in there? What about the cuts for the veterans?

We have a “Rock the Hill” presentation going on, and veterans continue talking outside. Veterans comment that what is missing in their support system is enormous. I think it is terribly disappointing to hear the comments the veterans are making.

Now, in the budget, I believe you mentioned $6 million for funerals. Well, that is only if one qualifies, and in order to qualify, one has to earn almost zero, as an individual, and so it would not apply, so with all of the wonderful things you are saying are in the budget, what happened to veterans? What happened to seniors? There is nothing in there for seniors either.

I would like to hear the member's comments on what the Conservatives plan to do for veterans.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before I go to the hon. member, I would remind this member and all others to direct their questions and comments to the Chair rather than directly at their colleagues.

The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but her question really is based on a false premise. She said that there have been cuts for veterans, but there have not been cuts in any way. In fact, we have put billions of dollars more for veterans. That is the reality.

Are there some veterans who fall through the cracks? Yes there are, and that is really sad. We acknowledge that and are trying to stop it. One cannot get it right every time, but I will tell the member that the veterans affairs committee that has been working on that has reached an agreement on a way they can fill some of the gaps that were there.

I will tell the member that her government put in place a decade of darkness when it came to the military and when it came to veterans. We fixed that, and we are fixing things for veterans. They are much better off than they ever have been, and they are much better off than veterans in any other country around the world.

We have made good progress. Is there more to be done? Yes, of course. Is it right when a veteran falls through the cracks? Of course not. Nobody wants that, and we are going to do the best we can to stop it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have further proof today, in the House, that absurdity never killed anyone. If it did, the members of the government party would be suffocating already.

We have here before us Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The word “certain” usually means “some”. However, this bill is 360 pages long and is amending 60 acts. If this is the Conservative government's definition of the word “certain”, I can understand why its habit of introducing mammoth, “dinosaur”, omnibus or catch-all bills—call them what you will—is increasingly upsetting not only the members of the opposition, but also all Canadians who follow the government's business and agenda and who struggle to see themselves in it and to tell the good from the bad.

In addition, the Conservatives are in such a rush to ram this other mammoth bill through, that entire clauses could not be examined properly. What is even odder is that when we take a closer look we find clauses that are amending mistakes made by the Conservative government in a previous mammoth bill, as if the Conservatives had a hard time learning from their mistakes or, worse still, as if they thought they were immune to mistakes. However, I think that we should move as quickly as possible to start studying bills for what they are and stop using these catch-all bills.

Canadians are well aware of this trickery. Amidst a flood of measures, the government is trying to quietly pass major amendments that would not be easily accepted if they were fully transparent and especially if they led to real debates.

By cooking up omnibus bills, the Conservatives are raising the expectations of Canadians but, more importantly, filling them with disappointment. The Conservatives would have us believe that they are taking care of everything, while fundamental questions are left unanswered.

Bill C-31 proposes nothing about job creation, nothing about reversing the Conservatives' cuts to infrastructure and health care, and nothing about small communities having access to the Building Canada fund.

Canadians are getting tired of these legislative tactics. However, they can count on the New Democrats to get to the bottom of things and provide constructive criticism of the Conservative budget. It is clear that, after analyzing this budget, we are opposed to the content of the bill and the undemocratic process used by the Conservatives to expedite its passage by Parliament.

Why? I am going to expand on a number of aspects that I and millions of other Canadians find unacceptable. I have a lot to say and I will need more than the 10 minutes allotted to me for this debate, which is subject to the 70th time allocation motion. That is an unparalleled number in the history of Canada and probably the only thing Canadian voters will remember in 2015, when the time comes to vote. I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, to interrupt me when my time is up.

First, let us talk about rail safety since rail safety, transparency and tragic events are three things that we in Quebec are particularly sensitive about. Since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the issue of rail safety has become a particularly sensitive subject for Canadians, especially Quebeckers. However, this would not have been such a hot issue had the Conservatives done their job.

The NDP members were very active in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We continued to criticize the Conservatives' and the Liberals' approach of deregulation, which has resulted in the industry regulating itself. We also met with people in a tour of key ridings.

Despite the disaster and the urgent need to provide satisfactory answers to Canadians, this bill allows the government to amend and repeal many rail safety regulations without having to inform the public. This could affect engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance and performance. It makes absolutely no sense. This measure alone probably warrants more time than what we have to debate the entire bill.

As a result of these amendments, Canadians will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken the safety measures, and experts will not be able to share their opinions with the minister before the amendments take effect. What a great system, if you can call it that.

I would be really curious to know the thoughts of all the people who live near the railroad tracks where the trains pass, both the long trains carrying hazardous materials that could cause new catastrophes and other trains carrying unknown cargo.

Since I am talking about transport, I would be remiss if I did not mention the way the Conservative government is handling the file of the new Champlain Bridge over the St. Lawrence. I would like to emphasize the words “new Champlain Bridge over the St. Lawrence” because we are actually talking about a replacement bridge, not a new bridge.

The NDP has continued to pressure the federal government on this issue, speaking out about how slow it has been to take action, its uncompromising attitude and its lack of willingness to work with the other levels of government. Any decision about a toll, for example, will affect the region's transportation system, which is why it is important to work with the partners involved.

Many Quebeckers are disappointed with Bill C-31, particularly when it comes to this issue. The bill exempts the Champlain Bridge from some of the key consumer protection and safety requirements in the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act. What is more, it gives the minister responsible the power to exempt this project from all federal laws, which is a modus operandi, or way of doing things, we have seen over and over again. More and more power is being given to the minister so that he can secretly do what he does not have the courage to do publicly.

Take, for example, the obligations to notify and consult people, justify the tolls, create an independent advisory panel to address complaints, reduce tolls deemed to be excessive and call on the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to verify whether the project is complete and safe. All of these obligations may not apply to the Champlain Bridge.

The NDP proposed four amendments in committee to prevent a toll from being imposed. All of the partners and almost all Montrealers are opposed to this toll. Why does the government not want to work more co-operatively with the parties involved and find real solutions for all those who use the Champlain Bridge on a daily basis and who have real difficulty getting around Montreal? The question remains, and it does not seem as though we are going to get an answer today.

This is not simply about building a bridge; it is about finding solutions to a major problem for the day-to-day life of Montrealers, for Quebec businesses and, lastly, for the Quebec and Canadian economy. This problem is public transportation.

The intellectual laziness of the Conservatives in this matter is enormous. Toronto and Montreal are facing major challenges in this area, and very little, if anything at all, has been done.

The Conservatives have also made the economic situation more difficult. I said that we were keeping a critical eye on this omnibus bill, but we are maintaining a constructive attitude, as well. We work for Canadians, and our responsibility is not only to point out the Conservative government's incompetence, but also to tell the government today what we want to see in a budget.

I would like to mention a few important facts and figures to remind us what condition our country and many Canadians are in. Generally speaking, the Canadian economy is not exactly thriving, and the Conservatives' economic policy is doing nothing to revitalize it.

Our manufacturing sector continues to struggle, and 400,000 good jobs in this industry have disappeared under the Conservative watch. Sales continue to flag, and are $14.5 billion behind what they were in 2006. There is a deficit of $61 billion on the current commercial trade balance. I could mention many other facts.

I had hoped to have the time to talk about measures that we want to put in place, and I hope that I will be able to expand on this during questions. Since I need to wrap up, this is what we would like to see in the budget.

I hope I will be able to fit everything in. This is what Canadians expect of their government. These are proposals for tomorrow, for the day when the NDP will form the government, because we have a long list of proposals and solutions for the current situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, which was elegant and relevant, as always.

Since my colleague brought up the issue of the Champlain Bridge, I would just like to say that we have worked very hard. The people of my riding, myself included, are directly affected by this. For the first time in political history, the municipal, provincial and federal levels of government agreed that the bridge would not have a toll. I have said it before and I will say it again. Everyone in the area made it very clear that they did not want a toll because, as my colleague said, it is a replacement bridge and not a new piece of infrastructure, like the rest of the new highways. Given that the minister said, “no toll, no bridge”, our constituents will have to use other bridges that are already in questionable condition. Then there is the fact that traffic increases greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to ask my colleague why the government, as usual, is not being transparent and why it does not want to work with stakeholders—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple: that is how this government operates.

I have had the opportunity to see that first-hand since 2011, and my colleagues who were elected before that have witnessed it for much longer. It really is how this government operates.

I represent the riding of Trois-Rivières. Obviously, I am not going to be using the Champlain Bridge every day. It is not part of my regular driving route. However, if I, the MP for Trois-Rivières, am perfectly aware of the problems with traffic on the Island of Montreal and its south shore, how is it possible that the government—which should be listening to all Canadians—is not aware? Is the government turning a deaf ear?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. Given that my colleague is the chair of the NDP's Quebec caucus, I am pleased to ask him what he feels is this budget's greatest lost opportunity with Quebec.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the greatest lost opportunity was to be clear. People are becoming more and more cynical towards politicians. The way in which our activities have been conducted in the last few days, the 70th time allocation and the umpteenth omnibus bill—there are so many of them, you will forgive me for having lost count—everything simply causes confusion and increases cynicism among all voters. There are certainly some measures that we would like to support after having discussed them more fully but, at the moment, we are completely gagged.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about transportation and gridlock and how this budget would not do much to improve the infrastructure situation.

I am a representative of the greater Toronto area. Gridlock is a huge concern for many people in the city of Toronto. It takes over two hours for my constituents to get to work because they rely on public transit, or they take the 401 or the DVP, which are crumbling. It is just a horrible situation for people who commute.

Does my hon. colleague think the budget would do anything to support infrastructure improvements and improve the gridlock situation for my constituents and many others in the Toronto area?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. A very small part of the infrastructure program will go directly to preparing or developing major urban centres for the 21st century. The Conservatives still have the mentality that infrastructure spending, to improve public transit infrastructure, for example, is a cost rather than an investment that will pay for itself in a few years.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the budget implementation act, the centrepiece of our Conservative government's economic agenda for Canada. There are three strong themes running through this budget: one, supporting jobs and growth; two, supporting families and communities; and, three, balancing the budget.

Jobs and opportunities for Canadians remain our government's top priorities. We have seen over a million net new jobs created since the global economic slowdown. This has reduced the unemployment rate to 6.9% and we will do even more to support job creation with this budget.

Measures we are taking include providing $100 million in interest-free loans to apprentices in the trades, $55 million for paid internships for recent graduates, and $75 million for the targeted initiative for older workers program to support older workers who want to participate in the job market. We are also cutting red tape for businesses by eliminating the requirement for 800,000 payroll remittances by 50,000 small and medium-sized businesses. As well, we are launching the new Canada job grant program. Canadians will now be able to qualify for up to $15,000 per person to get the skills and training they need for in-demand jobs.

British Columbia will also benefit directly in this budget as our government will be providing $222 million for world-class physics research in the TRIUMF laboratory at the University of British Columbia.

We have also announced the biggest infrastructure investment in Canadian history, an amazing $70 billion for new highways, bridges, ports and municipal utilities. Approximately $9 billion of those funds will be spent in British Columbia. This investment will keep a lot of trades employed in my community and across the nation, as well as help modernize and improve the efficiency of our economy to help Canada compete globally.

Indeed, our outlook extends past our borders. As a member of the international trade committee, I am an enthusiastic supporter of our drive to diversify and expand our export markets. Our focus on developing our exports has been characterized by the successful conclusion of negotiations for a free trade agreement with the European Union. The benefits Canada will realize from this agreement alone are an impressive $12 billion increase in the Canadian economy. That is equivalent to creating 80,000 new jobs or boosting the average Canadian family's income by $1,000 annually.

As the House knows, we have also reached a free trade deal with South Korea. I know this deal will be a great boost to our agricultural sector initially, but it will also benefit many other sectors in years to come.

However, there are other free trade agreements we are working toward that will continue to grow our economy, expand our exports and create wealth and high-paying jobs for Canadians.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations could lead to another huge trade deal for Canada and guaranteed access to many of the most populous nations of the world. Indeed, we are already trading with the TPP nations, but a free trade agreement would allow unhindered, duty-free access for Canadian exports. This deal would give a huge boost to industry in my home province.

For instance, in 2012, British Columbia exported almost $4.9 billion in wood and related products to TPP member countries. However, currently, Canada's exports of wood and related products face tariffs of up to 10% in Japan, 31% in Vietnam and 40% in Malaysia. Australia has tariffs of up to 5% on Canadian lumber. Paper and paperboard products face tariffs of up to 27% in Vietnam and 25% in Malaysia.

Eliminating these tariff barriers would significantly support sales of British Columbia's world-class wood and related products in the lucrative TPP market of 792 million consumers, meaning more jobs for British Columbians. Our economic action plan creates jobs directly through spending on infrastructure and it will support the creation of many more through expanded trade opportunities for our exporters.

The second major theme in our budget is supporting families and communities. We are accomplishing this goal through a number of key measures. One, which does not always receive much notice but greatly impacts our quality of life, is the annual federal transfer to the provinces for health care and welfare.

The previous Liberal government devastated our health care system by slashing transfers to the provinces. Despite the very real fiscal challenges we have faced over the past number of years, we have not cut a penny of health care funding.

On the contrary, we have increased funding for hospitals, doctors, nurses and equipment every year since we formed government. This year, my province of British Columbia will receive a record $5.8 billion to fund hospitals, housing and other social programs. Some of those funds will be used to support health care providers in my constituency such as the Peace Arch Hospital in White Rock.

We are also taking action in the budget to protect consumers. One action we are taking is addressing the unjustified Canada-U.S. retail price gap through new legislation. This issue is of particular concern to retailers in my border community as they lose critical business to American retailers which are just a short drive away.

We also committed to recognizing and supporting those who have risked all to defend our freedoms. Budget 2014 provides $2 billion to enhance the new veterans charter in support of serious injured veterans.

The third theme in our budget is balancing the books. Everyone knows that the global economic downturn hit government revenues hard. Before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years.

Our fiscal responsibility and aggressive debt reduction placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global recession. When the global recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run a temporary deficit to protect our economy and jobs.

Many governments around the world are still struggling to tame their national finances. However, through prudent financial management, including trimming the size of our federal government departments and agencies, we are on track to be the first G7 nation to balance our budget.

Overall, since 2010, actions we have taken to make government more effective and efficient are saving taxpayers roughly $19 billion a year.

Canada's net debt to GDP ratio is 36.5%. This is the lowest level among G7 countries, with Germany being the second lowest at 56.3% and the G7 average at 90.2%.

Economic action plan 2014 would bring the projected deficit down to $2.9 billion by 2014-15, and forecasts a surplus of $6.4 billion in 2015-16. That is extremely good news for Canadian taxpayers.

Despite the fact that we have already cut personal and business taxes substantially, a balanced budget will allow more room for tax cuts and debt reduction in the years to come. Already, the average family of four has seen their taxes cut close to $3,400 annually, giving them greater flexibility to make choices that are right for them.

Likewise, seniors have also seen substantial tax relief. Pension income splitting, a $2,000 increase in the age credit, doubling of the pension income credit, reducing the GST from 7% to 5% and other measures have reduced the taxes seniors pay by $2.8 billion annually.

These measures are particularly important to my community, as retirees choose to relocate to South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale from all over Canada to take advantage of our temperate climate and scenic coastal beauty.

Corporate taxes have also been cut from 21% to 15%, making Canada an attractive place for international businesses to locate and invest, creating more high paying jobs for Canadians. In fact, since 2006, we have cut taxes nearly 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years.

Economic action plan 2014 delivers additional tax relief by introducing the search and rescue volunteers tax credit and acknowledging the valuable contributions ground, air and marine search and rescue volunteers provide to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

A future budget surplus would allow our government to move forward with promised tax cuts, making the tax burden we carry even lighter and allowing Canadians greater freedom to make their own financial choices to save, invest and spend.

I call on all members to support this budget implementation bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize because I am going to have to go to the dark side again.

I appreciate the speech from my hon. colleague and although there may be some good things in the bill, I have to ask him a question.

The member mentioned the work being done for veterans. This afternoon, and yesterday, a number of veterans, some very senior individuals, were here to protest the treatment of veterans by the government because of cuts and other losses of services to these individuals who, quite frankly, made it possible for all of us to be here.

Would the hon. member say that it is right to be balancing the books on the backs of our veterans?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what we have done for veterans, any objective observer would realize that we have invested an enormous amount of money to support them.

In my speech I talked about the $2 billion that is being added to the new veterans charter program for seriously injured veterans. However, overall, our government has increased spending on veterans' services by $4.6 billion.

In addition to that, I would draw to the member's attention that the all-party committee that addresses veterans' care has also made additional recommendations to the government, which are also being considered.

There is no doubt that the care of veterans is a priority for Canadians. Certainly those veterans within my community are well aware of that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of the member's colleagues talk about the amount of money the government is investing in infrastructure. They keep on saying “record amounts” of infrastructure dollars are going into infrastructure over the next 10 years. I am looking for the member to acknowledge the facts.

The fact is that the vast majority of the money the government keeps referring to is not going to be spent until well after the next federal election. Then, when we look at the infrastructure dollars that will be spent this year, it is a substantial decrease from what it was in the previous year.

Would the member not agree with those facts?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I know my colleague was not here when the previous Liberal government had to deal with difficult spending choices. However, the choices it made were devastating for my province of British Columbia. The cuts it made to health care and social transfers were crippling at the time.

Under our government, we have invested substantially in infrastructure that benefits everyone in the community and certainly improves the efficiency within our economy. The historic 10-year agreement that we have put in place for infrastructure is approximately $70 billion, the largest in Canadian history.

Despite the fact that it goes beyond the next election, the government should be credited for thinking in the longer term. Too often governments in this place look for the short-term hits, the short-term wins that will benefit them politically. However, our government has the foresight to look well beyond the following election to do what is best for Canadians in the long term.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that we are still having this debate under a time allocation motion. Once again, we have an omnibus bill. We have heard this tune before, it seems to me. It is still the same old story: time allocation motions and omnibus bills are imposed on us.

I do not know how this is seen elsewhere, but in my riding, my constituents are fed up with this way of doing things. I cannot condemn it strongly enough.

Let us go back to the budget itself. What is a budget for a government? As we know, one of Parliament's main functions is to vote on a budget. A budget sets specific directions for a country.

However, I am beginning to question that. What do we have in this budget? Do we have a vision for the future, structural projects, or something to get us excited about the future? No. Does it offer any hope to the unemployed, whose number has increased by more than 300,000 since 2008? No. Does it offer any hope for investments in social housing? No. Does it offer any hope of reducing inequalities between Canadians? The answer is no, seeing that Canada's Gini coefficient is increasing. Are we going to reduce tax evasion? Once again, the answer is no. Is this government working to improve Canada's brand image abroad? Not at all.

For example, the next Universal Exposition will be held from May 1 to October 31, 2015, in Milan. Italy invited all United Nations member states to attend, and 144 have confirmed their presence. Did Canada say it would be there?

[An hon. members]

I suspect not.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

My colleague is right. The answer is no. Twenty million people are expected to attend the exposition. The theme, which is in line with Canada's reality, is “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life”.

Can Canada play an important role internationally in these two sectors? Yes. Are we going to be there? No, and that is a real shame.

As it happens, next week is Tourism Week in Canada. What is the government doing to promote tourism internationally? Nothing. I sometimes wonder whether the government is afraid of competition in the tourism industry. Does it want to compete in the tourism industry?

Even though we agree that private businesses should take care of various kinds of tourism in each of our ridings, we know that governments compete to attract tourists to their country. That is how it works.

Has the Minister of State for Tourism, the member for Beauce, done anything about this recently? I do not think so, and it shows.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada is currently lobbying MPs in an effort to attract more Americans. Imagine that. The tourism industry is pretty big, after all. It is an $84-billion industry that accounts for 610,000 jobs. We can do better.

For a long time now, international tourism has been tapering off. Ten years ago, domestic tourism accounted for 65% of revenues, but now it is 80%.

According to the OECD, Canada's ability to attract international tourists has waned. We dropped from 7th to 16th globally, and we are still losing steam. Those numbers are from two years ago. That is unacceptable.

Across the way, they say we need to balance the budget. There are two ways to do that. They can cut and cut, and the Conservatives sure know how to do that, but they can also boost revenue. We have reason to believe that tourism can help with that. However, it does not look like the government is very interested in boosting revenue.

There are other issues to talk about too.

For example, is anyone talking about clean energy? Is there a vision for the future? What about transportation, housing and energy? How do we see ourselves in 10, 20 or 30 years? What type of society will our children live in? Maybe it will be a society with electric cars, and wind or solar energy. European countries such as Germany and Spain, among others, and even Asian countries such as China and the Philippines, are investing heavily in solar energy. We must diversify our energy sources and come up with a clean energy strategy. It is important.

It is not good enough to say, as the Minister of the Environment has been saying for the past few days, that given that Canada is responsible for only 2% of greenhouse gases, we really do not have to do much. Things have already been pushed to the limit and that 2% is much greater than the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

As a wealthy, leading-edge, and technologically advanced society, we have to make the most of our knowledge and capacities to show leadership on the world stage and provide technologies that produce cleaner energy. Are we working on that? Not at all.

According to economists, this budget will slow down growth in a fragile context. There is some recovery, but it is weak. Everyone says so. This is not new. Is there anything in this budget to help those who are looking for a job? Today, there are 300,000 more people looking for work than there were in 2008. There are currently six unemployed people for every available job. We can do better than that.

Is there anything in this budget to improve everyday life for average Canadians? Are we helping our constituents? We have to wonder. Are retirees well served by this budget? Not really, and they might even lose their postal services shortly. I know that Canada Post is a crown corporation, but I would like to point out that the government does get dividends from it. Perhaps we could do something to ensure that seniors get their mail delivered at home. It would be easy to do.

Will we still have quality service at the CBC in a few years? Is there something for that? No. The promise in this budget is that an essential tool for the identity of this country is being taken apart piece by piece. Let me remind you that the funding we provide to the CBC per year and per capita is one-third of the average of the funding that so-called developed countries provide to their national broadcasting corporations. Are we going in the right direction with this budget? I do not think so.

Finally, what are we doing to prepare our collective future? I am thinking of our young people here. I am thinking of research and education. In this budget, do we see any capacity or willingness to invest in basic research? The answer is no. Why is basic research important? Because it is the first step in developing innovations that make our industries, our companies and our small and medium-sized businesses competitive. We need basic research and we need to train our students.

Speaking of training students, have we actually seen an increase in funding for post-secondary education anywhere in the budget? I have not seen one. If we want the future to be better for our children, we must invest in basic research and in post-secondary education so that we can get the wheels turning and start on our way to innovation.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent presentation.

The government is doing nothing about the closure of Electrolux in my riding; it is cutting the $40,000 that used to go to the Marché de Noël every year, a Christmas market with economic spinoffs to the tune of millions of dollars; it is raising the price of stamps to $1, even though it is already difficult to deliver the mail; and it is reducing services once again.

What does my colleague think about the government's logic?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, governing means looking ahead and making decisions.

First, however, we must anticipate the long-term consequences of each decision in order to determine whether the effects will be positive or negative. I realize that it is not a perfect system. However, abandoning our manufacturing industry and our local initiative is a very poor message to be sending to people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on one of the member's colleague's questions in regard to the issue of postal rates and the manner in which Canada Post has made the decision, which is going to have a very profound negative impact on literally thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is also in regard to the lack of involvement, whether it was by the House of Commons or by Canadians as a whole. We have a crown corporation that has been with us since Confederation that is taking us in a direction I believe the majority of Canadians do not want us to go.

I wonder if the member might reflect on the manner in which we are passing this bill under time allocation and how it would be passed with a number of other bills that would be brought in. It is the issue of process, which would also apply to the manner in which Canada Post is changing its services for Canadians.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

The reply deserves an entire speech. Actions have their consequences and they are determined by our ability to provide Canadians with the best. In some cases, that means having a real democratic debate and coming up with better legislation. It also means evaluating the consequences of our actions, especially in the case of Canada Post.

Did the management at Canada Post evaluate all the options before committing hara kiri in its own marketplace by increasing the price of stamps and cutting services? SMEs and people living in downtown areas are not happy.

Sometimes we forget community groups who occasionally send mail to their members. For example, the history societies in my riding send thousands of letters. The revenue that those thousands of stamps bring in might now be lost, and that is just the history societies in my riding. I am not even talking about the other community groups. If you multiply that by 308, the losses in revenue quickly add up to millions of dollars, all because they do not know how to make proper decisions or plan for the 21st century.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, jobs, the economy, and helping—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I remind the hon. member she cannot refer to other members, including the Prime Minister, by their given names.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

Jobs, the economy, and helping families remain the priorities of our government.

We met the challenge of the global economic crisis head on with our economic action plan. We paid down debt, we cut taxes to stimulate job growth, and we rejected opposition demands for job-killing higher taxes.

Canada continues to enjoy a stellar economic record and to receive international recognition for our economic leadership. This is why I stand in this House today in full support of the measures contained in the 2014 budget implementation act.

This government, through our economic action plan, has created the economic environment that allows Canadians businesses to prosper and Canadian citizens to benefit from a high standard of living. That is the sentiment shared by many. Globally recognized authorities, from the OECD to the International Monetary Fund, have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world to do business. In fact, they expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over not just this year but the next.

International business press, including Forbes Magazine and Bloomberg News, is equally large in its praise for Canada's success in creating a climate conducive to job creation. Indeed, the facts speak for themselves. There are over one million more Canadians working today than during the worst part of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any G7 country during this period.

Of course, there is ongoing uncertainty in the global economic environment. That is why we must continue to encourage job creation and foster economic growth, the twin pillars of the economic action plan since its inception in 2009, while remaining on the road to a balanced federal budget in the coming year.

We must, and we will, continue to improve the conditions for business investment. We will keep taxes low and reduce the tax compliance and regulatory burden on businesses so they can focus on jobs and economic growth.

There are over 20 tax measures in the budget that would improve the fairness and integrity of Canada's tax system. Today I want to highlight again in this House those measures that address what our government is doing to reduce red tape.

Economic action plan 2014 announced that we would be cutting red tape for employers by reducing the maximum number of times employers need to send source deduction payments to the CRA. These are deductions companies withhold for their employees' income tax, Canada pension plan contributions, and employment insurance premiums. This would reduce the maximum number of payments businesses are required to prepare and submit to the CRA. This action would eliminate more than 800,000 payroll remittances for over 50,000 small and medium businesses. Currently, if employers withhold an average of $15,000 to $50,000 in deductions monthly, they are required to remit deductions up to twice each month. Larger organizations withholding monthly deductions of $50,000 or more must remit them up to four times each month.

These changes are being made on the recommendations of small and medium independent businesses, the drivers of our economic growth, with whom we dialogue often. It would help these entrepreneurs spend more time serving their customers and growing their businesses.

In a country like ours, where 98% of our companies have fewer than 100 employees, the effect of red tape on our economy is significant.

We also intend to launch a liaison officer initiative pilot project to improve compliance within Canada's small and medium business community. Firms will be provided with information and the support they need, when they need it most, so that they meet their tax obligations right from the start.

This will help them avoid costly and time-consuming interactions with the CRA, freeing up businesses to focus on doing business.

We are reducing the paper burden for companies big and small by making improvements to CRA service delivery. For instance, authorized company tax representatives, such as accounting firms, would be able to submit an electronic authorization request to the CRA instead of filing paper forms.

This January, I announced the registration of the tax preparers program. Tax preparers play a key role in the tax system. Last year the majority of adjustments were in the $2,200 to $6,000 range, in other words, relatively minor adjustments due to inadvertence or simple mistakes, but from the CRA's perspective, this is significant and must be addressed. We have five million small and medium enterprises, one-third of which have simple, easy-to-correct errors in their returns.

In Canada, about 70% of individuals and business taxpayers use the services of a tax preparer to help them deal with their tax affairs. The CRA would be able to help tax preparers and taxpayers through more focused support and shift our focus from one of auditing after the fact to assisting in compliance from the beginning.

As of October 2014, businesses will be able to update their banking and direct deposit information online. October is also when the first free online option for paying taxes will be available for business owners registered with My Business Account. As well, a detailed payment history for all of their accounts will be available in one secure and convenient place.

Last year we introduced manage online mail for Canadian businesses. Business owners and representatives can now choose to receive notices of assessment and reassessment electronically as well as some correspondence for their corporate, payroll, and GST accounts.

People can also ask the CRA specific tax-related questions online through the my business account inquiry service. The CRA will not only answer the question online, but more important, it will stand by its written responses. This means that when making key business decisions, people will have the critical answers solidified in writing and the certainty that comes with that.

When people want to talk to a live person, we have improved the CRA's telephone inquiry services for the business community. All CRA business inquiry agents must now identify themselves to the caller using their first name and number and the regional suffix. This agent ID policy ensures a consistent experience for callers and makes it easier for taxpayers to provide feedback on CRA's services.

In our efforts to reduce red tape we are continually engaging Canada's business community, listening to its concerns, and acting on its recommendations.

In addition to our red tape reduction initiatives, I could go on highlighting a long list of new tax credits in this year's budget. They range from recognizing the contributions of volunteers who conduct search and rescue efforts, a very welcome initiative, to expanding the list of eligible medical expenses, and enhancing the adoption expense tax credit. These initiatives would make a meaningful difference in the lives of hard-working Canadians.

I am extremely proud to be helping to implement the 2014 economic action plan, which will help us to balance the budget and generate $9.1 billion in additional savings over six years.

I urge my colleagues from all parties to join us in passing this important legislation so we can continue on our path toward job creation and economic growth across the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. The five minutes for questions and comments for the hon. minister will take place after private members' business.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak.

I want to say to the member for Yukon, who presented the private member's bill we were just discussing on FASD, that it is great to hear us talking about things with some compassion and caring. I hope the bill gets handled quickly and gets through the process so people will have the tools necessary to help the people who very much need to be helped.

I will move on to our omnibus budget bill of 360 pages. I think many parliamentarians are still finding little gems in there that probably will give us a lot of concern as time goes by, but it is what it is. We are into the final reading now, and I want to add my comments to the record.

When I last spoke to this budget bill, I outlined that I would not be supporting the bill, but I likewise reminded the House that the Liberal caucus had offered a list of items that we really felt deserved attention from the government that would have made a much stronger budget respectful of Canadians. We wanted to be constructive, and I think the items we put forward were exactly what was needed that would have enhanced this budget bill, but unfortunately, the Conservative majority on the standing committee felt differently, and those items were voted down.

Some of the issues were about a helping hand for lower-income seniors. It does not sound too difficult, but I gather it was. They were about a helping hand for some of our students struggling with heavy tuition debt, for struggling families, and for veterans. On the Hill this week, yesterday and today, and I gather it will continue, is a group of seasoned veterans talking to all of us as we go by to talk to them, those of us who take the time to do that, about their struggles and their frustrations with how they are being treated by the government. It would have been really nice to have seen more in the budget to recognize their struggles and their need for additional attention. Like farmers and others, there is nothing in there that will make a real difference. There is some, but it is pennies compared to what the needs really are when it comes to the veterans.

We said then that the federal budget needed to focus on generating the kind of economic growth that would help struggling middle-class families. That did not happen. The government says there are all kinds of things there, but many of those will not be seen by any of the families or Canadians until some time late in 2015, remarkably just in time, probably, for the next federal election.

Despite the fact that the only personal finance element for most Canadians that is keeping pace with GDP growth is household debt, unfortunately, the Prime Minister continues to smile and say that everyone is doing just great. There are no issues out there. I would like to invite him to come down to York West, my riding in Toronto, and talk with the many people who come into my office who are, let us say, over 50, primarily. They are looking for work. There is that middle-age point where they are laid off from their factory or manufacturing jobs, and there is just no middle place for them to go to find work. Then we have the younger ones who are completing their university education. They are $30,000 or $35,000 in debt, and there is nowhere they can find a job. There is a lot of frustration out there for people, and I do not think the Prime Minister truly realizes just how serious it is.

If we all gauge how we are doing, we are doing just fine. We have a job until the next election for lots of us, and we do just fine, but we are not the average Canadian. I would suggest that there needs to be more consultation with the Canadians who are struggling, rather than keeping our heads in the Ottawa bubble.

Despite the fact that the Canadian middle class has not had a decent raise in over 30 years, the out-of-touch Prime Minister continues to delude himself in respect of his own bogus economic credentials. It may sound harsh when I say these things, but I really think that because we are doing well, the government seems to think that everyone is doing well.

This budget, as I said earlier, offers nothing for senior citizens, nothing for students, nothing to address spiralling consumer costs, nothing to help veterans make ends meet, and nothing to deal with the shrinking middle-class incomes. Sadly, the government's priorities come shining through, and middle-class families are being forced to pay the price.

The government would have us believe it has set aside money to help veterans again, but, in reality, the veterans have been attacked. There are $6 million, which we will hear about from the government, for veterans' funerals. That is a significant increase in what was there before, but the only way that people are eligible for that funeral assistance is if they are practically earning no income at all. I know most veterans are receiving a certain amount of money. If they are getting the basic amount, they do not even qualify for that money.

There are $2 million to improve the Veterans Affairs website. I hope that will help, but I am not so sure from what I hear from veterans. That $2 million would be better used in helping those struggling with PTSD, physical injuries, or resettlement issues. I would invite government members to speak to them, without letting them know that they are government members or members of Parliament. They should talk to veterans outside the chamber, listen to them as individual Canadians and to the comments they are making. Yesterday we heard the comments of the previous ombudsman. It was really alarming for us in the House to hear how strong his comments were about all of us not understanding the struggles they were having.

Again, it is not just veterans who have been left out of the Conservative brand of so-called economic prosperity. We are all familiar with the government's draconian cuts to the Building Canada fund, a fund that we know is critical for investments, infrastructure and transit for cities. They are in the newspaper every day talking about their struggles to balance budgets and still deal with the pressures of infrastructure. The other important point is not just investing in infrastructure but the job creation that comes along with it.

For many young people who are looking for work and want the opportunity to work in apprenticeship programs in the trades, investing in bridges means workers have to be hired, which again keeps the money flowing and people doing well. Under the current government, co-operation with the cities has crumbled like so many roads, and that is very disappointing.

When I first came here in the 1999 by-election, I wanted to talk about cities and was told quite clearly that cities were not the responsibility of the federal government. I kept saying how important cities were and that there should be a federal-provincial-municipal partnership in building the country. I guess I kept at it long enough that former Prime Minister Chrétien appointed me to head up a task force on what the future of our cities should be in that relationship. Two years later, I had finished the project and we started talking about cities in the House, about building a new relationship with them. When Paul Martin became prime minister, he was a big supporter of that agenda.

We can stand today and talk about funding cities and investing in infrastructure as we normally would about anything else, whereas we could not do that 15 or 16 years ago. We would have been quickly ruled out of order by the Speaker. Now we look at cities as being partners. The government has recognized that. The introduction of the gas tax was just one of the recommendations I made in the report when the Liberals were in government. The Conservative government has continued with it. I appreciate the fact that it is recognizing just how important cities are.

There is the issue of investing in infrastructure and transit. Any of us trying to go from point A to point B throughout most cities are finding ourselves stuck in traffic for an hour or an hour and a half to go a short distance, which we used to be able to do in half an hour. There are, it seems, two or three vehicles per family and they all seem to be on the road at the same time, either going to work or coming home.

We have serious problems ahead of us. I do not see enough in Bill C-31 that would help. There needs to be more investment in the areas that will help to create jobs, but I guess we will have more time to talk about that in this 360-page omnibus bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her contribution to the debate of Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill for the 2014 fiscal year.

There is a lot of things in her speech that I disagree with, but I would hope the member would take a question and hopefully relay an answer.

There are many things that are brought forward in a budget, socio-economic measures that are important to the country. In this, there are changes to regulations so we can harmonize with the United States. We have tariff reductions around certain parts of equipment so companies can get ahead with jobs, and hire people to work on projects.

There are measures that are widely supported, like allowing British Columbia craft brewers and artisan distillers to market their wares right across the country and to have the same market access to every province and territory.

I know the member has a long litany of things that she does not like in the bill, but there is a tremendous amount of things that will help our economy and will help those middle-class people who the Liberals continue to talk about, and I should also point out to the exclusion of all Canadians.

I would hope that we would all see that things need to be done so our country can move forward. I would ask the member to comment on the actual substance of this bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge that the removal of interprovincial barriers throughout the country is an important thing. We can then share the benefits throughout the country.

No one has said that there is nothing good in the budget. The problem is there is 360 pages here of all kinds of things in it. Maybe if it were put properly in a 80-page or 100-page budget, there would be a chance to appreciate some of the better things in it. There could also be more emphasis on the things that were not in it.

There is enough stuff in this bill to cover all kinds of things that have nothing to do with a budget bill. Unfortunately that is the way the government chooses to do it. The government is hiding a lot of things that should be profiled in a positive way. It is also hiding a whole lot of other things.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member did bring up a lot of valid points in relation to the concerns that opposition parties have with this budget.

One of the first things is that this is the fifth time the government has brought forward an omnibus budget bill. As we just heard in the last debate between my hon. colleague and a member from the government, every once in a while the Conservatives put something good in a budget, but the problem is there are so many bad things in there that it is hard to vote in favour of it.

In looking at some of the things that the government could have done right, it could have easily put those in other pieces of legislation. We could have easily voted on them, got them to committee and then moved on. Then we could actually have a debate about creating good laws.

The Conservatives talk a lot about being tough on crime, but it has been two years since they promised to get tough on employers who broke the rules of the temporary foreign worker program.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments and thoughts on the government's inaction on that file.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has explained that there are some good things in the bill that all of us would have liked to support, but there are so many other things that we disagree with and that should have been open to a thorough debate.

We want to see our companies doing well, because when the companies are doing well, they are paying taxes, hiring people, and growing and expanding. Those are the kinds of things we want to see happening.

Unfortunately, the temporary foreign worker program has doubled the amount that used to be allowed, number one. Number two is that the program is not being managed properly. Programs can be good, but if they are not well-managed, they can get out of control, which has happened with the temporary foreign worker program.

There are far too many people coming in and getting into positions with LMOs that are not thoroughly analyzed and vetted the way they should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-31 at report stage. The bill proposes to implement certain measures from economic action plan 2014.

Today's bill focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, which are innovation, education, skills and communities. They are underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keep taxes low and returning to a balanced budget by 2015.

In an uncertain global economy, our government's top priority is creating jobs and economic growth by building on our economic action plan, a plan that has worked and served Canadians well.

Evidence of that success is all around us. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all of the output in all of the jobs lost during the recession.

The Canadian economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 over the recovery. With more than one million jobs created since July, 2009, most have been full-time jobs.

Canada's GDP is now 7.6% above our pre-recession peak. Not only that, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that our government has put $30 billion in tax relief back into Canadian pockets, benefiting low-middle income families the most.

The middle class has particularly benefited from a reduction in the GST, which we cut from 7% to 6% to 5%. Under our Conservative government, the average family of four will save nearly $3,400 in taxes this year.

It is clear that Canadian families are benefiting from our low-tax plan, with their net worth up over 44%. Even The New York Times says that Canada has the most affluent middle class in the world.

This economic resilience reflects the actions that our government took before the global crisis by lowering taxes, paying down debt, reducing red tape and promoting free trade and innovation. However, this is still an uncertain global economic environment, and it is crucial that we strengthen Canada's economic action plan. That is exactly what we would do with today's legislation.

First, Bill C-31 proposes to increase existing tax support for Canadians who take on the responsibility of adopting a child. As a parent, I believe there is no higher calling than raising a child, and no reward is equal. Canadians who have children deserve the government's full support, particularly when it comes to recognizing some of the additional costs borne by adoptive parents.

While all parents incur costs in raising children, there are additional expenses that adoptive parents face, including travel, adoption agency fees and legal fees. These charges can be significant, especially in the case of children who are adopted from outside of Canada. As a result, adopting a child can be a long and costly process.

While an adoption expense tax credit has existed for a while, some new and future parents were telling us that it did not cover enough of the expenses. We heard their concern. That is why our government, through economic action plan 2014, acted by proposing to enhance the tax credit to support these parents even more.

To provide further tax recognition of adoption-related expenses, Bill C-31 proposes to increase the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit from $11,774 to $15,000 in expenses per child for 2014. This amount will continue to be indexed for inflation for subsequent years.

My colleague from Essex did a lot of hard work on this initiative in our budget. He has adopted two children himself. As a grandfather of two boys who my oldest daughter adopted from Haiti, I wish this had been in place when she adopted our two 11-year-old grandsons. It would have been a great benefit to them, because it is a costly process.

Our Conservative government is listening to Canadians who want to have children but, unfortunately, are unable to. We are accommodating them and making it easier for them.

At the same time, our government is committed to ensuring that the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. We all use the health care system, and we want it to remain strong and sustainable so that it is there for Canadians when they need it.

In fact, under our government, health care transfers are at an all-time high of over $20 billion from when we formed government, and over $32 billion this year and growing. Unlike the old Liberal government, we have not cut funding to provinces for health care. Under our funding formula, health care transfers will grow, but in a sensible and sustainable way. We will keep growing health care funding to ensure Canadian families can depend on our health care system today and in the future.

Moreover, we recognize that there are external costs, like out-of-pocket health care costs that Canadians have been paying for, such as for service animals. That is why in Bill C-31 we have proposed to expand the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit. The expanded list would include costs associated with service animals specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, such as diabetes alert dogs.

Not only that, today's legislation also focuses on connecting Canadians with available jobs by helping them to acquire the skills that will get them hired or help to get them better jobs. By ensuring that federal funding responds to the hiring needs of employers and by giving them the opportunity to participate meaningfully as partners in skills training, the Canada job grant would transform skills and training in Canada. The greatest resource in any country is its people, and we recognize that. We are continuing to help people be all that they can be and to contribute to the economy of this country.

The Canadian job grant could provide up to $15,000 per person for training costs, including tuition and training materials, which includes up to $10,000 in federal contributions with employers contributing, on average, one-third of the total cost of training. After consulting extensively with employers and provinces on the design of the grant, Canadians would be able to take advantage of it by July 1 of this year. It would offer them real support toward improved employment and earning prospects.

As important as this milestone is, economic action plan went one step further by creating the Canada apprentice loan to help registered apprentices with the cost of their training. It would do so by expanding the Canada student loans program to provide apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year.

Economic action plan 2014 also introduces the flexibility and innovation in the apprenticeship technical training pilot project to expand the use of innovative approaches to apprentice technical training. With this initiative, we are continuing to work with provinces and territories to harmonize apprenticeship systems and to reduce barriers to certification in the skilled trades so that apprentices can more easily work and train where the jobs are.

In conclusion, I trust that my comments have convinced hon. members that these measures from economic action plan contained in this bill meet the government's goal of not only improving the quality of life for Canadians, but also creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

It also proves, in some of the measures that I have mentioned, that this bill has a heart to help those families in Canada to have children and to be all that they can be in the future. I trust that all members in this House will quickly pass this bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation. While I was close to being converted, I do not think I am there yet and unfortunately I still think that I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House will be opposing the bill. A lot of it relates to many of the things that we do not see in the bill.

On this side of the House we are seeing the elimination of the small business hiring tax credit. That helped 560,000 businesses across the country just last year and that no longer exists. We are also not seeing enough to create jobs. We have also seen this being rammed through the House. Unfortunately, as we admitted, there are some good things in the 350 pages of the bill. If we had been able to have an opportunity to pull some of those out or at least debate some of those in a little more detail, there would have been an opportunity for us to get some of those passed quickly.

Why is it that we continue to see omnibus budget bills from the government? Why do we have to see for the fifth time an omnibus budget bill with over 500 changes to clauses and legislation? Really what we could be doing is looking at a budget bill and passing a budget bill and voting on a budget bill rather than on so many other things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member needs to repent and come on board, but I would have to talk a little longer. The reason there is so much in the budget is because we have budget consultations right across Canada. We listen to Canadians and we hear what they say and they say a lot. We try to incorporate as much as we can of what their priorities are in the budget.

When we talk about the employer tax credit, the fact is that the number one priority we heard from employers is that we need people trained and we need to have skills training to happen in the country. We cannot do everything. This is a budget and we have only a certain amount of money because we do want to balance the budget. We looked at the priorities we felt the money should be spent on at this time in accordance with the priorities of businesses, to have people trained. That is why there is such a huge investment in our Canada job grant.

Obviously, there could be more in the budget, but the member complained about the size of the budget. It is the size that it is because we responded to so many of the priorities that Canadians put forward to our government.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is a key member of the B.C. Conservative caucus. One of the things that we pushed for as a group and as individuals was the search and rescue tax credit. In Chilliwack and Hope, those people provide a huge service to my community.

I wanted to get the member's views on the search and rescue volunteers in his riding of Okanagan—Shuswap. What value do they bring to his communities and what feedback has he had from them on the search and rescue tax credit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I live in the north Okanagan and it is right next door to the beautiful recreation facilities in Revelstoke. Of course there is a lot of snow machining going on there, but there is a risk of avalanche. There are people working in search and rescue who do a great job volunteering to look for people who may have been lost in the back woods. This tax credit says that we value the efforts that they make as volunteers for the community and the good of their fellow man. I think that is a good thing for government.

It is just another way of our government proving that we have a heart, to appreciate those who give of themselves to help their fellow man. It is a privilege. We did it first with the volunteer firefighters, for example. They really did appreciate it and that is what makes communities operate. They do not operate on government, they operate on community spirit. We are glad to be there to help them out with that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-31, even in a context of limited debate, unfortunately. Obviously, the Conservatives have not changed their ways. As usual, they have introduced a massive bill, an omnibus budget implementation bill designed to make us adopt hundreds of changes before they can even be studied properly.

This bill is over 350 pages long, has nearly 500 clauses, amends 60 laws and includes measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech. To ensure that this bill is passed as quickly as possible, the government is limiting debate in the House and not giving enough time for the committees to thoroughly review it. That way, many clauses are adopted quickly. The Conservatives are doing everything in their power to avoid being accountable to the House for their budgetary measures.

True to form, the government prefers to undermine the democratic process. That is beneath the dignity of a government of a democratic country like ours. We have the facts to prove it. For example, the hon. member for North Vancouver moved a motion whereby at 11 p.m. on May 29, 2014, all clauses that had not yet been voted on would be deemed adopted and all amendments not yet voted upon would be deemed rejected.

This does not live up to Canadians' expectations. They deserve better than this government that has no respect for democratic, parliamentary institutions. It is incredible that the government is pushing the passage of bills that have not been properly studied by Parliament and the Standing Committee on Finance, as is the case here.

No one will be surprised to learn that we will not support this budget, because it places Canadians in a position where their privacy could be violated. The bill contains nothing to support SMEs. Even worse, there is nothing in this bill to help the additional 300,000 Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession to find work, or to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the current Prime Minister.

Small and medium-sized businesses have been hit hard by this government. Many owners of SMEs have pointed out that the bill does not renew the hiring credit that the NDP was the first to propose in 2011 and that has now disappeared, unfortunately. However, changes were proposed to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve investments, economic development and high-quality jobs for the middle class.

We would have liked to have seen measures to help Canadian businesses grow, create jobs and increase their exports in this budget implementation bill. The government should have devised a comprehensive strategy for tackling youth unemployment and underemployment. One solution would have been to create a credit to encourage businesses to hire and train young people. By cracking down on unpaid internships, we would have ensured that young people were paid for their work.

If this government really wanted to work with the provinces to create jobs, it could have established a long-term strategy to address the shortages of skilled labour in order to support workers who want to move to another part of the country to take a long- or short-term job.

It is asking far too much of this government to bring together the provinces, employers, unions and educational institutions in order to improve the existing labour market development agreements. The government obviously prefers to establish policies behind closed doors, without any consultation.

Canada is a federation and the government, in many respects, seems to have forgotten the principle of co-operative federalism.

This bill is also a slap in the face to our veterans. Instead of compensating disabled veterans for the unjust deductions from their pensions since 2006, the government plans only to offer retroactive compensation for deductions that were made after the Federal Court ruling against the government in May 2012.

That is six years of deductions that the Conservatives do not have the decency to reimburse to these cheated veterans. It is beyond comprehension.

The government managed to find $36 million to challenge the veterans' case before the courts before being set straight. It found $28 million to fund celebrations of the War of 1812. Recently, it found $103,000 to promote tweets by Veterans Affairs Canada. It also found $4 million more this year for advertising so that the government and the minister could inform veterans. Inform them about what? Just a phone number is provided and very often no one even answers. The government prefers to pat itself on the back rather than compensate our veterans properly.

Veterans obviously deserve to be compensated adequately for their sacrifices, a principle this government seems to have forgotten yet again, given the lack of measures in this budget to help veterans.

I would like to quote something that retired captain Sean Bruyea said about this bill:

The omnibus budget bill does not meet Canada's democratic standard. It allows many changes to Canada's laws to enter the back door of government policy without full participatory and democratic due process. Ramming through legislation without proper scrutiny is an insult to the dignity of all that the military has sacrificed in Canada's name and at Parliament's order.

I could not summarize the situation better than Captain Bruyea does in that quotation.

For all Montrealers, and for the people in my riding listening to us, the bill also includes provisions about the Champlain Bridge. Bill C-31 exempts the Champlain Bridge from some of the key consumer protection and safety requirements in the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act, and gives the minister in charge the power to exempt this project from all federal laws.

We might mention, for example, the requirement to consult the public, to justify setting tolls, to establish an independent body to examine complaints, to reduce fees deemed to be excessive, and to ask the Department of Public Works and Government Services to verify the completeness and the safety of the project.

This government has therefore reiterated its desire to impose tolls on the new Champlain Bridge with no consultation, dismissing out of hand the interests of Montrealers and everyone in my riding, who will have to pay for the replacement of existing infrastructure. The effect of that will be to clog other bridges; it makes no sense. This government keeps working behind closed doors to impose the tolls. More than 1,000 people have written to tell me that they are absolutely opposed to such a provision. This infrastructure is essential for the economy of the Montreal area and also for the economy of Canada as a whole. The Conservatives consider the bridge to be a piece of local infrastructure. It does not span a little stream; it spans one of the biggest and most important shipping routes in Canada. It is the busiest bridge in the country.

We in the NDP listen to our constituents. This is why we proposed four amendments in committee to prevent tolls from being imposed. Of course, those amendments were dismissed outright by the Conservative members on the committee. We will continue to fight, come what may, to stop the government from imposing tolls on the new Champlain Bridge.

Canadians deserve a budget bill that supports our businesses, which are the engine of job creation. Canadians therefore expected measures that would make their lives more affordable and that would help them save for their retirement. They expected funding for veterans' programs that reflected the sacrifices these people made for their country. Instead, the Conservatives decided to cut programs and tax credits so that they could balance the budget and hand out goodies to their target demographic just before next year's election.

Canadians deserve better than that, and we obviously do not support this bill.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech and commend him for the work he does for our veterans.

What I do not understand is the disdain that this government has for veterans. Just as much as I do not understand racism, I do not understand why the government is incapable, here in the House, of recognizing the contribution veterans have made, the sacrifices they have made for our country, often at the cost of their health or their lives.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the comments he made about veterans in his speech. We know that members on the other side of the House rely heavily on rhetoric when it comes to veterans' issues. The NDP has proposed meaningful initiatives in that regard. I would like him to talk a little about that.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observations and for his excellent question about veterans. He is absolutely right: the government likes to take advantage of veterans.

The numbers vary when the government talks about veterans. I sometimes hear government members talk about an extra $5 billion since 2006, whereas others say $6 billion and some say $4 billion.

The reality is that there have been substantial amounts in the budget, an extra $5 billion or so since 2006, but there has also been about $1 billion in the budget that has not been spent to support our veterans, at a time when they have trouble obtaining the services they are entitled to. Our veterans are disadvantaged and do not receive the compensation they deserve.

This week, we made 14 recommendations on the review of the new veterans charter. In fact, I urge the minister to stop spending millions of dollars on useless ads and to use the money to properly compensate and support our veterans.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, one of the important measures in Bill C-31, of course, is for the Minister of Transport to be able to issue recalls on safety. I wonder if the member would comment on whether he supports that measure.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think this is a somewhat controversial measure.

I cannot comment on the measure my colleague is talking about because I think I am getting it mixed up with another measure that is very controversial, the one that could jeopardize Canadians' privacy.

I cannot answer my colleague's question on transportation because this is an extremely controversial bill. I did not spend a lot of time looking at transportation issues. I do not know whether I would support that measure.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech and the hard work he does for veterans and in his riding.

I would like to remind him that 71 veterans with post-traumatic stress syndrome have committed suicide since 2008.

Last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs showed no interest in listening to Ms. Migneault, who lives in my riding, Brome—Missisquoi. In fact, he ran away from her.

I would like to ask him why Bill C-31 does not include measures to help the men and women who have to live with the after-effects of being in combat.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick answer for my colleague.

Since 2006, the government has been balancing the budget at veterans' expense.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured to once again be able to rise in this House to speak and of course debate, while representing the great folks of my riding of Sudbury, representing their voice and the voice of the New Democratic Party here in the House of Commons.

We are debating Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures. I believe that this is act 1 of many acts to follow.

What we have is a budget bill that is over 350 pages long. It is not a play. We are not debating a play. This is not act 1 and act 2. What I can really say is that there will not be a happy ending for many Canadians when this budget bill passes.

I would first like to talk a little about the hiring credit for small businesses. Just last year, 560,000 small businesses in this country used that hiring credit. Now, when we think about the 2.4 million small businesses in this country, that is a significant amount of small businesses that are using that.

Let us not forget that in this country, the real job creators are small and medium-sized enterprises, the economic engine of our country. It is not Bay Street but Main Street that is actually creating the jobs.

If we are actually cutting the hiring credit for small businesses, when we know there are 2.4 million businesses in this country and 1 million of those businesses offer employment to more than 1 employee, we really should have thought about this before the government actually removed this credit from the budget.

The cost of this program was approximately $235 million. That is a significant amount of change. Let us not diminish that. However, when we look at the corporate tax cuts that the government has made over the last few years, from 22% down to 15%, that cost is approximately $1.3 billion.

We heard from the former finance minister—bless his soul, a very good man—that this became money that the corporations are sitting on, and they are not creating the jobs that we want and that we need in this country. On one hand, we have small businesses that are creating the jobs, creating one-third the growth of the GDP in this country, and then on the other hand we have the corporations that are sitting on the money that they are saving in the corporate tax rates, not creating jobs.

We keep giving the large corporations the breaks, and we are doing nothing to help the small business and medium-sized enterprise in this country. That is shameful.

The government has an opportunity to actually put that small business hiring tax credit back in place. Let us make sure that more than 560,000 of these small businesses in this country utilize that hiring tax credit, because right now not only are they losing that hiring tax credit, but they are getting hit and hit hard by the government's inaction on merchant fees. It is $4.2 billion per year that our small and medium-sized enterprises have to spend just to accept credit card payments in this country.

What we are not saying is that the credit card companies and the banks cannot recoup their costs and make a profit. However, do they have to do it so much so that small businesses are now saying that one more increase will break their backs, or that they are shutting their doors, or that they are not hiring people, or that they cannot expand their business?

I have the 2013 state of industry report from the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, which was just released. This is what it is saying in its statistics: last year, all of the convenience stores across this country lost $254 million. They lost money, but they also had to spend $832 million just to accept credit card payments. That means they cannot hire more employees.

A total of 61% of all convenience stores across the country say that they cannot hire more employees. They cannot pay down debt as quickly. That is 51% of all of these businesses. They cannot invest in equipment and expansion, which also has a ripple effect in our communities.

They cannot increase the employees' wages and benefits. They cannot increase donations to charity. As a former executive director of the United Way in Sudbury, I can attest that the small and medium enterprises in my community, and I am sure right across the country, are the businesses that invest in our charities. They invest in our communities. If we can keep more money in their pockets by addressing this merchant fee, they would continue to address and invest in their own communities.

They have to increase prices. Small and medium-sized business owners from coast to coast to coast, whether they are the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, the Retail Council of Canada, or independent business owners, will say that if we do not do something now in relation to merchant fees, we are going to be in trouble, because they are going to stop investing. They are going to stop hiring people, and we need them to hire people. We need to continue to grow our economy by supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises.

So far what we have seen from the government is the elimination of a hiring tax credit and doing nothing on the merchant fees. It created a voluntary code that is still full of loopholes.

The CFIB and others continue to push the government to act. Even the Competition Bureau asked the Competition Tribunal to investigate some of the anti-competitive practices that are in place in this country when it comes to Visa and Mastercard. The Competition Tribunal investigated. We were expecting a decision in December 2012. It came out in July 2013, and what did it do? It punted that decision back to Parliament. The Competition Tribunal is saying that this is a decision Parliament needs to act on. Instead, we have not heard an iota of any type of change on these requests from the tribunal to make sure that we can support our small and medium-sized enterprises.

Surely when we are looking at this 350-page budget document that would change everything from veterans to FATCA to all the other things that are in there, could we not have put one small regulation in place to prevent the anti-competitive practices being used by Visa and Mastercard and some of the banks and help our small businesses continue to grow? That could have been a simple change, but it did not happen.

One of the other things we were hoping to see in this budget implementation act was on OBSI. OBSI, the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments, provides a great service to all Canadians, both consumers and businesses alike. What we have seen are the slowly diminishing powers of OBSI. Again, one quick regulation could have shut the door and stopped some of the banks from leaving. Instead, the Conservative have left it open. By leaving it open, we are going against the recommendation of the crazy, left-wing IMF and the World Bank that a single dispute mechanism for all consumers, small businesses, and all businesses in this country is the way to go. Instead, what we have seen is the Conservative government allowing banks to leave and choose their own law firms to be their ombudsmen for their consumers.

While OBSI is at an arm's length from the financial institutions, we are now allowing the banks to hire their own law firms to act on behalf of consumers who are having a problem with the banks. Again, that is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. That cannot happen, but it does.

Unfortunately, we have seen the Conservative government choose not to put that regulation into an omnibus budget bill. It has 350 pages and it has really closed the door on ensuring that small businesses get the support they need to continue to grow our economy.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is act no. 1. Act no. 2 is coming, and there really is no happy ending for this.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to that rant from across the way. I have to compliment the member on the timbre of his voice. He has a perfect face for radio, as they say.

He mentioned in his speech that the government has not done anything for small business. I speak to owners of small businesses all the time in my riding and across the country, and they really admire the things we have done since 2006, in the past three budgets in particular.

We eliminated the corporate surtax in 2008, which is a big deal to small businesses. It was a big part of what they were paying. It reduced the small business tax rate. However, the really important thing for them is succession. Small businesses have been built up with sweat and tears, and raising the lifetime capital gains is a really important measure for them. They have built up capital. That is their future, and they want to hand it off to future generations. Raising the limit to $800,000 is something they are very thankful for.

The comments about government not doing anything for small business I really do not agree with. Owners of small businesses do not agree with it either. Maybe the member would comment on that, please.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that elevating capital gains was important for owners of small and medium-sized businesses. It was something that this side of the House supported. However, the problem is that if we are cutting out a hiring tax credit, if we are making sure that they have to pay more on merchant fees, if we are putting forward a bill that is really not going to reduce any of the red tape, there is not going to be anything to be a successor of.

Really, what the government needs to do is listen to the CFIB, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, and Restaurants Canada. All of them are saying on the merchant fee file that these guys are not doing anything. It is costing them $4.2 billion per year, and rather than act on that, the government wants to put it down on paper and never act. Unfortunately, it will actually cost them more than it is right now and what it should be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for being such a fine champion of small business in this country.

My riding of Beaches—East York is in Toronto. Often we conflate Toronto with Bay Street when we think about business, but of course, Toronto is a big place. I think a confederation of neighbourhoods is what Jane Jacobs once called it. In all of those neighbourhoods, there are small businesses, and the success of small business is, in fact, the success of the neighbourhoods of the communities we live in. We notice in our neighbourhoods when a small business does not succeed. There are empty storefronts and so on and so forth.

Another spinoff, obviously, of the success of small business is the issue of youth employment. Toronto is facing about 18% youth unemployment, and small business is an obvious employment opportunity for young people. It is a great place to get started in the labour market. I was wondering if my colleague could comment on the connection between youth unemployment and the success of small business in Canada.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently I was at the chamber in Victoria, British Columbia talking about a lot of the things we want to hear about from small businesses. One thing I took from that, besides many of the recommendations, was their congratulations to the NDP for having an urban affairs critic. I wanted to make sure that I passed that along to my hon. colleague.

In relation to the question about youth unemployment and small business, part of the proposal we are putting forward is a hiring tax credit for youth that would give small businesses $4,000, especially in those areas that have higher youth unemployment, like my riding of Sudbury, unfortunately. I was shocked to learn when I was recently in Victoria with the member for Victoria that there is a 14% unemployment rate for youth between 18 and 25. Across the country, that is happening in too many cities.

New Democrats have a proposal. If the government wants to take it, we would be more than happy, but I do not think it will do that, because we have not seen it act on anything substantive to help small business in a very long time. This is something that would be a win-win: we will help employ our youth, and we will make sure that the small businesses get the employees they need so urgently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I am happy to speak about another omnibus bill.

Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, is once again an omnibus bill that contains a number of measures in other bills.

As Canadians are well aware, these omnibus bills include provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with financial or budgetary measures. These mammoth bills make huge changes in our society by means of provisions that are hidden in bills so that the government can impose its ideological views by leaving Canadians in the dark.

The opposition, which may reject some initiatives but approve of others, is deliberately placed in such a position that it must oppose all of the initiatives, even the ones it approves of. Then the Conservatives accuse us of voting against a particular provision.

However, Canadians are not buying it. They know that the Conservative government forces mammoth bills through in order to hide its mistakes and incompetence and bring in measures that are solely in its own interest and not in the interest of Canadians.

In addition to the problem of a catch-all bill, this kind of process makes it impossible to consider the bill in depth. What democracy. We in the NDP are opposed to this bill for these reasons, but especially because of its content.

Serious questions were raised in committee about the implementation of this legislation. We sincerely hoped that the Conservatives would set aside partisanship and carefully examine the amendments put forward by the NDP. Since this bill has more than 350 clauses, I can only mention some of them.

The bill would enable the government to amend and repeal a wide range of regulations on rail safety without informing the public. The regulations in question deal with technical standards, worker training, hours of work, maintenance and performance, for example. These amendments would not be open to public debate. They could be made secretly by cabinet and have an impact on the transportation of dangerous goods.

I would like to point out that there are railways that pass through my riding, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. My constituents are very concerned about the transportation of dangerous goods. The government should pay attention to those who are involved and take their concerns into consideration. It is extremely worrisome to think that amendments that could threaten the safety of a community could be adopted without the residents being informed.

I would also like to talk about the Champlain Bridge. Over the past few weeks, we have received hundreds of petitions against bringing in toll charges on the Champlain Bridge.

On the one hand, the Conservative government does not want to listen to the public; it does not understand that nobody wants the new toll, not even the municipalities involved. On the other hand, this shows once again that the only thing the Conservatives have done since they came to power has been to tax households; there is no relief for families. Bringing in a toll proves once again that the government is incapable of listening to Canadians and incapable of giving them a break.

That is why the NDP and the members on the south shore, including myself, will not just stand idly by.

My constituents, as well as all those who are affected by the new toll, are worried. We live in a democratic country where the government was elected by the people. The people do not want this legislation and they do not want the toll. The government must hear what they are saying and listen to reason.

Lastly, this bill has serious consequences for small and medium-sized businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. The Conservatives often attack us and say that the NDP never supports the economic measures they propose. This is why: we cannot support a bill that fails to renew the hiring credit for small and medium-sized businesses. Bad laws hurt Canadians’ ability to grow their business, create jobs and build a better future for themselves.

I will finish by reading a quote:

When the bill was rammed through the House with closure, it really did not present a lot of opportunity for meaningful public debate. We had begun to hear…from provincial and territorial governments, from many academics and experts and from many individual Canadians…

The electoral process…affect[s] all Canadians. The interests of all Canadians must be served, not the interests of politicians, not partisan interests or political self-interest.

The person who said these words and who was railing against the Liberals' schemes with omnibus bills is now our Prime Minister. Omnibus bills have become his Trojan horse, which stops us from doing our work as parliamentarians.

I rise in the House this evening to oppose this bill and the process that gave rise to it. It is shameful for our democracy. Canadians deserve better. They deserve investment, innovation, economic development, and quality employment for the middle class. They deserve realistic support and community infrastructure. They deserve help in saving and investing for their retirement. They deserve to have their lives made a little more affordable with measures to reduce household debt, and they deserve to be provided with the services they need.

This budget unfortunately does none of that. That is why New Democrats will not support it.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend how she can explain her hypocrisy.

First of all, she talked about supporting the hiring credit for small business. In 2011, when she had the opportunity to support that hiring credit for small business, she chose to vote against it. In 2012, the hiring credit for small business was in the economic action plan. Now she claims to be for it, but then she voted against it. Now she is claiming she is for it again.

I mean, this is kind of like a John Kerry scenario. She voted against it before she voted in favour of it.

Can the member explain her hypocrisy to the House and I am sure her interested fellow NDP colleagues?

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

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my distinguished colleague for his question. It allows me to expand on this once more by saying that this government is presenting us with mammoth bills in which it stuffs everything, even bills to amend the Criminal Code.

How can we vote in good conscience on things that we have not even had the time to debate or to suggest amendments for? This is what they like to do and what I was denouncing at the start of my speech. We are being forced to vote against measures that could be good for Canadians, but unfortunately, everything is in the same bag, in the form of an omnibus bill. Then afterwards, they like to accuse us of being hypocrites. We are not hypocrites, we are responsible and we are showing our leadership.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill is one aspect of the overall budget wherein we saw significant cuts to the CBC. A good number of jobs will be lost, but more importantly, concern has been raised with respect to the overall impact the cuts will have on the CBC's future. I for one believe in CBC TV and radio and the value they bring to our society as a whole.

The question I have for the member is this. With respect to the CBC and the budget implementation bill, what we see in the bill is to the detriment of the CBC. Canadians want us to come to the table and advocate on this issue, yet the government has invoked time allocation. On an important bill such as this, there are rarely serious time constraints. I have had the opportunity to speak to the bill myself, but there will be many members who will not be afforded the opportunity to speak to it because of time allocation.

This is a budget bill and budgets are all about priorities, but through the imposition of time allocation, the government is preventing members of Parliament from contributing to the debate on setting priorities for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my Liberal colleague for his pertinent question.

Like all Canadians, we have gotten used to how the Conservatives operate. The more secretive they are on that side, the more we are transparent and tell the truth, on ours. Every time we asked about the CBC, the Minister of Heritage told us that it was all in the CBC's hands, not the government's. We were there, it is on the record. Once again, we are seeing a lack of leadership from this government when the time comes to take a stance in support of Canadians, no matter what the issue.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have only four minutes left to speak during this debate, and that is because of the time allocation motion that the Conservatives moved and voted for today.

That leaves very little time for people like me, who live in the far north and come from a remote area, to discuss the measures included in this proposed budget, as well as the ones that were not included. Clearly, I am very puzzled by the fact that I cannot talk about the things that directly impact the people of my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

I will use the four minutes I have left to debunk some of the Conservative myths surrounding jobs and the economy.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, and I just happened to choose this example, there was a $26-billion trade surplus in terms of international trade. Now, listen to this. The Conservatives turned that surplus into a $62-billion trade deficit.

The Conservatives are saying that they are very good negotiators. They are signing all these free trade agreements with countries around the globe. However, in actual fact, they are proving that they are not as good at negotiating as they would have us believe.

I would also like to address the matter of the budget deficit. It is important to think about that because, on the other side of the House, the Conservatives are bragging that they are good managers and that they know how to manage the economy. Nevertheless, the public debt has increased by over $100 billion over the past six years. We must remind the Canadians who are watching this evening of that. The Conservatives are responsible for the largest budget deficit in Canadian history.

It is important to keep that in mind because, on this side of the House at least, we are tired of hearing the Conservatives talk about this subject. I know that they do not like facts. However, the facts certainly contradict what they are saying.

Our youth is another example that I could give in the House tonight. The youth unemployment rate is double the national rate at almost 14%.

How can the Conservatives brag about doing such a great job of managing the economy and the country when they cannot even find jobs for our young people, the future of this country? The Conservatives cannot do it.

Let us talk about this economic recovery they are still bragging about today. An additional 300,00 Canadians have become unemployed since the recession and 400,000 jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry since this Prime Minister took office. They call that an economic recovery?

I think that we need to speak out about the fact that the Conservatives are not capable of doing the work. This Conservative government is tired and corrupt. It is no longer capable of defending its record. It is important to point that out.

I will end by saying—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 7:48 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 10 to 12.

The question is on Motion No. 5. 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 nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 8 and 9.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion No. 7 negatived)

I declare the motion defeated.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will now proceed to move motions under Group No. 2.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 144

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 211.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 495.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 496.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 497.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 498.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 499.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 415.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 416.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 417.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 418.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 419.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 420.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 421.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 422.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 424.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 257

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 258

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 260

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 261

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 262

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

Motion No. 263

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 473.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 474.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 475.

Motion No. 266

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 476.

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 477.

Motion No. 268

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 478.

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 479.

Motion No. 270

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 480.

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 481.

Motion No. 272

That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 482.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The next question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 14 to 65.

The question is on Motion No. 66. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 67 to 69.

The next question is on Motion No. 70. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 71 to 83.

The question is on Motion No. 84. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 85 to 87.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The next question is on Motion No. 88. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 89. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some Hon. Members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some Hon. Members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 90 to 93.

The next question is on Motion No. 94. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 95 to 97.

The next question is on Motion No. 98. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some Hon. Members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some Hon. Members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some Hon. Members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 99 and 100.

The next question is on Motion No. 101. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 102. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some Hon. Members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some Hon. Members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some Hon. Members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 103 to 153.

The question is on the Motion No. 154. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 155.

The next question is on Motion No. 156. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 157 to 159.

The next question is on Motion No. 160.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 166. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 167 to 272.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-31.

Call in the members.

[And the bells having rung:]

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, and 6.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #170

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 6 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 4.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 10 to 12.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #171

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 to 12 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 8 and 9.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #172

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 9 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 14 to 65.

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

Vote #173

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 13 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 14 to 65 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 66. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 67 to 69.

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

Vote #174

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 66 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 67 to 69 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 70. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 71 to 83.

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

Vote #175

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 70 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 71 to 83 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 84. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 85 to 87.

(The House divided on Motion No. 84, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #176

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 84 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motions Nos. 85 to 87 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 88.

(The House divided on Motion No. 88, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #177

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 88 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 89. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 90 to 93.

(The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #178

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 89 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 89 to 93 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 94. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 95 to 97.

(The House divided on Motion No. 94, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #179

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 94 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 95 to 97 defeated.

I return to the members for Saanich—Gulf Islands and Thunder Bay—Superior North, who did not get to vote. They need to indicate which way they wish to vote.

The question is on Motion No. 98. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 99 and 100.

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

Mr. Speaker, we wish to vote in favour.

(The House divided on Motion No. 98, which was negatived on the following division:

Vote #180

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 98 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 99 and 100 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 101.

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

Vote #181

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 101 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 102. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 103 to 153.

(The House divided on Motion No. 102, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #182

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 102 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 102 to 153 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 154. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 155.

(The House divided on Motion No. 154, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #183

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 154 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 155 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 156. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 157 to 159.

(The House divided on Motion No. 156, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #184

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 156 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 157 to 159 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 160.

(The House divided on Motion No. 160, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #185

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 160 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 166. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 167 to 272.

(The House divided on Motion No. 166, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #186

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 166 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 167 to 272 defeated.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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 #187

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, Canadian Heritage.