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.

[Mark Schaan]

Then we'll switch to the Trade-marks Act changes. This is part 4, division 7, subdivision B, clauses 214 to 242.

Just by very quick way of background, this is in part related to concerns from trademark stakeholders about the possibility for what some people call “trademark squatters”, individuals who take out trademarks with no intention of using them for the purposes of trying to shake down individuals who they believe are already using that trademark in a non-trademarked way, or likely will anticipate the need of someone for that trademark.

What this does is a number of things. First, it adds bad faith as a ground of opposition to the register of a trademark and for the invalidation of a trademark.

Second, it prevents the owner of a registered trademark from obtaining relief for acts done contrary to that trademark during the first three years after the trademark is registered, unless the trademark was in use during that period or special circumstances exist that excuse the absence of use.

Very quickly, without getting into too much of the technical details of trademark law, one of the exceptions to use in the trademark process is during the first three years of a trademark, because, in many cases, you will have trademarked a good, but you can't use it because you're just getting going.

Our concern was that it could be a trademark squatter who is hiding under that three-year exception to be able to potentially still use that three years to shake someone down for cash. What we have said is that, during those three years, you have no access to remedies, so you can't pursue damages against that individual if you're not using the trademark.

We also clarify that the prohibitions in subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) do not apply in section 11 of the act with respect to a badge, crest, emblem or mark that was the subject of a public notice of adoption and used as an official mark if the entity that made the request for the public notice is not a public authority or no longer exists.

Very briefly, this relates to the system of official marks in Canada. Official marks are, by and large, relegated or are subscribed to public authorities and public entities. The Canada Wordmark is a good example. There is a whole host of other badges and crests that are official marks. They're put on the registry by public authorities. There are a lot of them, and one of the challenges is that some of the people who put them on the list weren't public authorities under the definition, so when people seek to use that official mark, they're prevented from doing so because this public authority put the official mark on the registry.

The other thing is that many of them no longer exist. There are many official marks related to the 1976 Montreal Olympics. There are many related to Canada Games in most cities and provinces across the country, and many for events that took place decades ago. People are prevented from using those official marks currently, despite the fact that they can't reach an agreement with the entity to use them, because the entity doesn't exist anymore. This, essentially, will allow people to be able to use those official marks without having to seek an entity when the entity is no longer in place.

We then also modernized the conduct of various proceedings before the registrar of trademarks under the act, including by providing the registrar with additional powers in such proceedings. This is essentially to give some additional teeth to the trademarks opposition board, including the opportunity for case management and the ability to potentially levy costs in cases where people are making frivolous use of the trademarks opposition board.

Finally, we make certain housekeeping amendments to provisions of the act that are enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, which is essentially to bring us in line with changes in anticipation of Canada's accession to the Madrid protocol and that lay on from these provisions that I laid out earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. As shown on the agenda, we have a bit of committee business to do in public and then we will move in camera to give drafting instructions for the report on the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Mr. Kmiec, I believe you have a motion.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to thank the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today as part of your statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, or PCMLTFA.

We, of course, support Canada's efforts to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the manner in which these efforts are undertaken must strike an appropriate balance between the need to combat such activities and respecting privacy rights of Canadians.

The most apparent privacy implication with this regime is that it casts a wide net capturing a great deal of information about law-abiding Canadians conducting financial transactions, with a view to uncovering threats to national security or incidents of money laundering.

In our previous parliamentary briefs on Bill C-51 and Bill C-59, we signalled concerns around information collection and sharing regimes in the context of national security.

Specifically, we have highlighted the need for rigorous legal standards around the collection and sharing of personal information, effective oversight, and minimization of risks to the privacy of law-abiding Canadians, in part through prudent retention and destruction practices.

As you are aware, subsection 72(2) of the PCMLTFA provides my office with a mandate to conduct biennial reviews of how FINTRAC protects information it receives or collects under this act. We can also conduct reviews under section 37 of the Privacy Act.

All of our audits have identified issues with FINTRAC receiving and retaining reports that do not meet legislative thresholds for reporting.

In 2014, the PCMLTFA was amended by Bill C-31 to add subsection 54(2), which requires that FINTRAC destroy information in its holdings that was not required to be reported.

Although FINTRAC has implemented measures to validate incoming reports, a significant improvement, we continue to identify information in FINTRAC databases that did not meet thresholds and should not have been retained.

Also, we have generally found FINTRAC to have a comprehensive approach to security, including controls to safeguard personal information. Our most recent audit did identify governance issues between FINTRAC and Shared Services Canada, which FINTRAC has committed to addressing.

Beyond these issues, which we are mandated to review under the PCMLTFA, our principal concern, based on our experience reviewing FINTRAC over the past 10 years, relates to the lack of proportionality of the regime. Disclosures to law enforcement and other investigative agencies made in a given fiscal year represent a very small number when compared with the information received during that same time frame. For every 10,000 reports received, one disclosure is made.

Information received is also retained for long periods. FINTRAC's retention of undisclosed reports increased from five to 10 years in 2007.

Even if one accepts that sharing financial transaction data related to law-abiding citizens may lead to the identification of threats of money laundering or terrorist financing activities, once that information is analyzed and leads to the conclusion that someone is not a threat, it should no longer be retained.

More broadly, we have noted a trend to broaden the regime over the years, and we note the Department of Finance Canada's vision of moving towards a holistic information collection scheme, which would create an environment supporting increased analytics and information sharing. We have already seen discussion about lowering existing thresholds for reporting, which could be done through regulations without parliamentary approval. In the consultation paper, the Department of Finance Canada also suggests increasing the number of reporting agencies and establishing a new model for engagement of the private sector.

While I appreciate that a holistic approach to the collection and sharing of information might be useful to identify threats, what is proposed, unless appropriate privacy safeguards are adopted, would further exacerbate our concerns with proportionality.

Instead, I would suggest that a risk-based approach be adopted in order to minimize the risk of over-collecting and retaining the financial and personal information of law-abiding citizens. Under such an approach, FINTRAC, based on a thorough risk-based analysis of its data, would develop criteria to limit collection, sharing, and retention to only situations likely to represent potential manifestations of terrorist financing or money laundering.

We realize this may be challenging, but as privacy experts, we at the OPC believe we can play a role in the assessment of these factors, which leads me to this: currently our review mandate, under the PCMLTFA and the Privacy Act, is limited to ensuring that these statutes and regulations, as enacted, including monetary thresholds for collection, are respected.

We think a more useful contribution would be to provide advice, after review, on amendments that could be made, to either the statutes or the regulations or the practices of FINTRAC, to ensure greater proportionality, including the assessment of risk factors that might govern information collection, sharing, and retention.

The government is recommending that the PCMLTFA be amended to provide that the reviews we currently undertake every two years under section 72 now occur every four years. We agree in part, but we would recommend a change of purpose for these reviews.

First, we would recommend that the purpose of our reviews under the act be modified to include advice or recommendations on proportionality, as just mentioned.

Second, they would begin at least one year before every anticipated five-year review that Parliament must undertake. The OPC would continue to conduct compliance reviews under section 37 of the Privacy Act, which would not need to be amended. As it relates to proportionality, the committee may wish to consider part 4 of Bill C-59, currently before Parliament, concerning CSIS datasets and their retention, which might be instructive.

Under that model, CSIS must clean data promptly—that is, within 90 days—and can retain Canadian datasets only if the Federal Court is satisfied that doing so is likely to assist in the performance of CSIS's mandate, including the detection of threats to the national security of Canada. In addition, with respect to any contemplated changes to reduce existing thresholds through regulations, which would also affect proportionality, I would reiterate my recommendation in the context of Privacy Act reform, that government institutions should be legally required to consult with my office on draft legislation and regulations with privacy implications before they are tabled.

My written statement now goes into questions of oversight. Do I have time?

Amendments to Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke to the issue of prorogation, because we now have a historic opportunity to ensure that prorogation will never again be used improperly, and I said that the motion fails to eliminate that possibility.

I was about to close on the subject of prorogation by suggesting to the House, as I have suggested to the hon. government House leader in a paper I prepared on things we could do in our Standing Orders, the advice from Professor Hugo Cyr, L'Université du Québec à Montréal. He raised before the the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform, as did Professor Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, additional reforms for democracy that we should consider making.

Professor Cyr's approach is this:

...to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons so that asking for Parliament to be prorogued or dissolved without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons automatically results in a loss of confidence in the Prime Minister. Consequently, the Governor General would not be bound by a prime minister's advice requesting the early dissolution or prorogation of Parliament without first obtaining the approval of the House of Commons.

This is a very sensible proposal. What the government has proposed is a form of improvement, but there is nothing in the government proposal that would stop the abuse of power such as we saw when Stephen Harper shut down of Parliament to avoid a vote he knew he would lose. Unfortunately, the opposition parties had just recently voted on the Speech from the Throne, mistaking what they thought was a mere formality. It actually was a confidence vote and that is why the Governor General at the time refused to deny Mr. Harper his request for prorogation, although it is historically an affront to parliamentary democracy. We need to close that door now and the proposal from the government does not do it.

Similarly, I was pleased to see the motion would deal with omnibus bills and allow them to be split, only to be crestfallen to realize they only would be allowed to be split when it came to voting on them, not for studying them. It was actually the case with one of Harper's omnibus bills, Bill C-31, which was introduced in spring 2014. I went to committee, as I was by that point mandated to do by the new motions that were passed to deny me my rights at report stage, to present amendments to various sections of the bill.

These omnibus bills were so big that when I went to committee with amendments to a section, it was the moment when members around the committee realized they had not had any witnesses on that section. It was a commercial chemical section, by the way. I wanted an amendment related to asbestos. The committee had no witnesses, had not studied it , and certainly could not take amendments, but it could pass it because it was under time allocation. When there are multiple sections pushed in the same bill, it is a small improvement to say that the Speaker can split them out for purpose of voting, but we really need those sections split out for purposes of study.

Again, the recommendation from the hon. government House leader is a small improvement but a long way from being adequate.

While we have a chance, there are a lot of things we could look at in the Standing Orders. Again, going back to the advice of Professor Peter Russell and Professor Hugo Cyr to the Special Parliamentary Committee on Electoral Reform, we are one of the only modern democracies that does not have a mandatory period between when an election takes place and when the newly elected government convenes Parliament. This loophole has not yet been exploited or abused, but there is no reason not to close the door on it now.

Fundamentally, what is terribly sad about this process is that we lost the opportunity to achieve a consensus on how to change our Standing Orders. This remains a historical, and not a good historical precedent, where the party with the majority of seats in this place, even though it does not have the majority of votes across the land, is able to push through this motion, because the votes are there.

I would urge the government House leader and the Liberals to seriously consider adopting the NDP amendment. It will do no violence to the principles it is espousing. It would at least allow omnibus bills to be split for purposes of study. I urge this to my colleagues. I also hope that in the future we can return to some of the other proposals I made, particularly taking into account the carbon footprint created by our parliamentary schedule. I continue to maintain that we need to consider very closely changing the days and the weeks in which we sit in order to intensify our time in Ottawa and thus reduce the millions of dollars and tons of greenhouse gases as we fly back and forth to this city.

Citizenship Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask this question of this member as well. As I indicated earlier, what were known as “cessation provisions” in Bill C-31, which was brought in by the Harper government, stipulated that refugees who travelled back to their country of origin for any reason at all could have their status cessated as a result.

I have come across cases of individuals who travelled back to their country of origin at a time that law did not exist. I have come across individuals who received officials' approval to say that they were free to travel back to their country of origin because they had their permanent resident status and they were free to do so. I have had cases of people travelling back to their country of origin where the risk and the threat that existed at the time when they fled were now gone, and now, because they were applying for their citizenship, cessation provisions were brought against them.

The government has invested somewhere around $15 million in going after people like this; that is $15 million that I would argue could be put into the system to address delays in processing claims. We all have constituents who have claims that are not processed in a timely fashion. Would the member agree that it would be a better investment of taxpayers' money to take those dollars spent on going after cessation cases and invest them into the processing delays in the system for immigration and refugee applications?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made many interesting points, some of which I agree with and some not. There are, of course, items where she raises issues which require studying, and clarification, and leadership from the government, although I suspect that the perspective of the Conservatives on what trajectory that should take differs from that of the NDP. That being said, I do have one important question to ask of my colleague. She touched on the issues around refugees and the implication for refugees on many fronts, around resettlement, the need for resources to learn the languages, and so on. There is no question that all of that is absolutely necessary, and I call on the government to invest in that. It should continue to do so in order that people can be successful in their resettlement here in Canada.

One issue that is impacting refugees in a big way is what the former government did put in place, and that is called “cessation provisions”. That is under Bill C-31. If refugees who have come to Canada then travel back to their country of origin, they could all of sudden find their status revoked. This is costing the system something like $15 million in looking into that. That law was brought back into place, and it has impacted individuals who have travelled to their country of origin at the time when the law did not exist and when the threat that caused them to seek refuge in Canada no longer existed. One case was with an individual who was being persecuted under the Saddam Hussein regime. That regime fell, the individual travelled back to his country of origin, and then cessation provisions were brought against him.

I wonder whether the member could comment about that, and whether the cessation provision is an absurd law that we should have included in this bill. I am disappointed that it is not there.

[Lisa Pezzack]

The legislation is a very careful balance. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act was designed as a very careful balance between national security and charter rights and privacy. The agency has as one of its primary objectives the protection of personal information. They are subject to regular audits by the Privacy Commissioner to make sure they are keeping those commitments.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to use some statistics from the previous government that might be helpful. A number of years ago, on Bill C-4, which consisted of 322 pages, there were five days of debate at second reading under time allocation, two days at report stage under time allocation, and one day at third reading under time allocation.

On Bill C-31, which was 380 pages, there were five days of debate at second reading under time allocation, two days at report stage under time allocation, and two days at third reading under time allocation.

On Bill C-29, on the other hand, which was only 244 pages, there were six days of debate at second reading, there were two days at report stage, and one day at third reading.

We are doing things in a way that will allow us to get our work done. We are doing it in a way that is appropriate, so that Canadians can understand what we are trying to achieve for them and their families. That is the way we plan on moving forward to make a real difference to our economy and for Canadians over the long run.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Merci, monsieur le président.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting me to provide my views on certain aspects of the tax information exchange agreement between the Canada Revenue Agency and the IRS in the United States.

The minister explained a little about the legal framework under which this transfer is made. I do not want to repeat what she said, except to remind you that there are two important documents in this matter. We have an intergovernmental agreement, an agreement between the two governments, and we have the provisions of the Income Tax Act that were passed in 2014.

Under the IGA, the Canadian government agrees to collect certain information on accounts held by Americans in Canadian financial institutions and report that information to the United States.

This happens in two steps. First the Income Tax Act sets out requirements for Canadian financial institutions to report information with respect to those accounts to the CRA. In turn, the CRA shares this information with the IRS. The IGA is reciprocal in that the CRA also receives information from the IRS.

In previous appearances before Parliament on FATCA, my office has recognized the long-established practice of information-sharing between nations for purposes of taxation enforcement. For example, the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, which lays the foundation to exchange information under the IGA, was signed in 1980. In more recent years, there have been international efforts by the OECD for the automatic exchange of tax information. However, we also conveyed our expectations that information-sharing activities be undertaken in a way that respects privacy rights of individuals. This holds true both for the CRA and for financial institutions

As we said in our appearance on Bill C-31, which amended the Income Tax Act, as well as in our review of the privacy impact assessment submitted to us by the CRA, we expect there to be limits to the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information, defined retention periods, and appropriate safeguards. For example, all parties involved must limit the collection of personal information to what is necessary and not collect data elements that are not required. This applies not only to the CRA, but also to reporting institutions governed by PIPEDA.

The use and disclosure of personal information must likewise be limited. The IGA specifically notes that information received under the IGA is subject to protections provided for under the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital, which limit the use and disclosure to only the collection, administration and enforcement of taxes.

With respect to retention, as we understand it, the CRA retains its records for seven years, which is consistent with CRA's retention of individual returns.

With respect to safeguards, we note that the IGA states that exchanges are subject to confidentiality and protections under the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital. The convention mentions that information received shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the taxation laws of that state.

The CRA is expected to protect personal information from unauthorized uses and disclosures of personal information, especially considering the sensitivity of financial information and the reasonable expectation of individuals that it generally be kept confidential.

My office received a privacy impact assessment from the CRA in August 2015.

We are pleased that the CRA has adopted all our recommendations: first, reducing its retention period from 11 to seven years; second, educating financial reporting institutions to guard against the risk of over-collection; third, committing to safeguarding information, including the use of specific measures to mitigate risks identified through its threat risk assessment; fourth, updating the privacy impact assessment to reflect all proposed uses and disclosures of personal information and ensuring that these are strictly limited to purposes of tax administration.

While my office acknowledges the need to combat tax evasion, it is important for the enabling legislation to be clear in the obligations it imposes on all reporting entities, including the CRA and organizations that have FATCA reporting obligations, such as financial institutions.

For example, the IGA states that unless a reporting institution elects otherwise, accounts under certain thresholds, such as deposit accounts under $50,000—U.S., I believe, although perhaps Canadian—are not required to be reviewed, identified, or reported. However, part XVIII of the Income Tax Act seems to require reporting on all U.S. reportable accounts unless the financial institution specifically designates an account to not be a U.S. reportable account. This leads to a concern: given the apparent discretionary nature of the threshold exemptions, it may not be clear when accounts under $50,000 will be reported to the CRA.

My office has written to the CRA with follow-up questions following their response to our earlier comments of December 2015. These questions included the number of accounts under $50,000 U.S. they have received and transferred, clarification on how threshold exemptions are applied, clarification with regard to the level of review the CRA performs on records that are transferred to the IRS, and notification of how many records it received from the IRS about Canadian persons. We've also requested clarification as to why the first round of records sent to the IRS was larger than originally estimated.

In conclusion, FATCA reporting requirements are an example of co-operation among states on tax enforcement. In that respect, FATCA is neither unusual nor objectionable. That said, privacy principles have to be respected and provide balance in the implementation of the arrangement. The IGA and implementing legislation create legal effects vis-à-vis privacy law by creating an obligation to share information without the consent of the individual under the Privacy Act or PIPEDA, the private sector legislation.

There's also some lack of clarity around questions on reporting threshold exemptions. To this extent, we are again following up with the CRA. We wrote to them earlier this week on these issues as part of our privacy impact assessment review process. Protecting the privacy rights of individuals and advising on improving protections under information-sharing agreements are key parts of my mandate. Given that Parliament has chosen to pass implementing legislation to support FATCA reporting requirements, we continue to strongly recommend that these obligations not be over-broadly applied but appropriately balanced against privacy rights.

I'll be glad to take your questions.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from people in my riding.

One petition deals with the requirement to have a climate strategy. The petitioners refer back to the targets and timelines that were included in the bill that was passed in this place, Bill C-31, sponsored by the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation to address you today.

The subject of your study, Canada's regime for combatting the financing of terrorism, is clearly a timely one.

As you are aware, in light of Bill C-51 and other recent legislative activity, the past year has seen much public debate about the rules that regulate how information is collected, shared and analyzed by and among our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Indeed, information sharing is a very important aspect of combatting crime and terrorism. It can also, however, pose risks from a privacy perspective.

Operating under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, FINTRAC is one agency that is a key player in information gathering and sharing, and one that my office has had many interactions with over the years.

As I outlined in my recent submission on Bill C-51, in a country governed by the rule of law, it should not be left for national security agencies to determine the limits of their powers. Generally, the law should prescribe clear and reasonable standards for the sharing, collection, use and retention of personal information, and compliance with these standards should be subject to independent and effective review mechanisms, including the courts.

In this case, the legal standards are established under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and accompanying regulations, which I find to be reasonable in their current state, as they target individuals and organizations suspected of criminal or terrorist activity or financial transactions of a significant value. This could change as a result of Bill C-51 or other measures currently under consideration that would require the sharing of all electronic transfers regardless of the amounts involved.

In terms of review, the office of the commissioner is mandated to conduct biennial reviews of FINTRAC's personal information handling safeguards, under section 72 of the enabling legislation. We also measure their activities against sections 4 to 8 of the Privacy Act, under our authority to conduct reviews as outlined in section 37 of that act.

While we know that current laws and regulations contain reasonable standards, our audits have found problems with the collection and retention of personal information in excess of these standards. We have found that some of the information shared with FINTRAC related to activities that did not demonstrate reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing, and that FINTRAC was retaining data that is not relevant to its mandate. This presents an unquestionable risk to privacy by making available personal information for use and sharing that should never have been provided to FINTRAC.

To address this problem, after consulting with FINTRAC, we've prepared guidance for private sector organizations to reduce the risk of overreporting in violation of the risk to privacy. Furthermore, explicit authority under subsection 54(2) of the PCMLTFA, Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, as enacted by Bill C-31, was also recently granted to FINTRAC for the destruction of information that is not related to money laundering or terrorist financing. Despite these initiatives, the risk of overreporting and retention remains, and we will be paying particular attention to this issue in our upcoming two-year review.

The risks I've described will increase only if the reporting threshold for electronic funds transfers is dropped to zero, as has been discussed at this committee and elsewhere, and should Bill C-51, which further widens the potential sharing of information, be enacted without amendment.

Finally, let me say a few words about the review.

While our office is obligated to conduct compliance reviews of FINTRAC, we can only examine privacy issues. FINTRAC does not have a dedicated review body to examine their activities to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and effective.

I conclude by reminding the committee that the lack of a dedicated review for FINTRAC was last raised by the O'Connor commission and that it remains a serious problem.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Rob Stewart, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before this committee at its inaugural meeting to study terrorist financing.

My intention today is to give you an overview of Canada's efforts to combat terrorist financing. These efforts fall within a wider framework known as the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, which I will refer to as the “regime.“

I will provide you with an overview of the current threats Canada faces from terrorist financing and how this affects Canada's safety and security as well as its economy. I will next provide a summary of how Canada is engaging internationally in the fight against the financing of terrorism. Finally, drawing on the recent report from the financial action task force on the financing of the terrorist organization the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, I will outline what the international community currently understands about the financing of this organization and what we are still seeking to learn.

After Mr. Cossette and I have finished our opening remarks, we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

With respect to the domestic AML and ATF—anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing—regime, I would like to provide an overview. It is a comprehensive, horizontal initiative led by the Department of Finance that comprises 11 federal departments and agencies. The goal is to detect, deter, and facilitate the investigation and prosecuting of money laundering and terrorist financing offences, which contributes to the overall objective of protecting the integrity of Canada's financial system and the security of Canadians.

Of the 11 partners, seven receive incremental funding totalling roughly $70 million annually to support their activities. These partners are the Department of Finance, FINTRAC, the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Canada Revenue Agency. The remaining partners contribute to the regime but do not receive dedicated funding. They include the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Public Safety Canada, and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.

In addition to combatting money laundering and terrorist financing, the regime complements the work of law enforcement and intelligence agencies related to serious and organized crime and national security threats. It is a key component of Canada's broad counterterrorism strategy.

The regime operates on the basis of three interdependent pillars: policy coordination, prevention, and disruption. Each regime partner plays an important role.

The first pillar is the regime's framework and coordination led by the department. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, or PCMLTFA, is the primary piece of legislation that establishes this framework. The act requires financial institutions and intermediaries to identify their clients, keep records, and have an internal compliance program in place. The act also creates a mandatory reporting system for suspicious financial transactions, large cross-border currency transfers, and certain proscribed transactions. The legislation also established FINTRAC, and authorizes it to collect and analyze financial transaction reports and to disclose pertinent information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

The second pillar is the prevention of terrorist-linked funds or the proceeds of crime from entering the financial system. The onus for this deterrent approach falls to the financial institutions and intermediaries who are the gatekeepers to the financial system, and to the regulators, FINTRAC and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or OSFI, who ensure the compliance of these regulated businesses.

The detection and disruption of money laundering and terrorist financing represents the final pillar. In this pillar, regime partners such as CSIS, CBSA, and the RCMP, supported by FINTRAC intelligence, undertake investigations that follow the money in cases of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. The Canada Revenue Agency plays an important role in detecting charities that are at risk and ensuring that they are not being abused to finance terrorism.

The regime also has a robust terrorist listing process to freeze terrorist assets, pursuant to the Criminal Code and UN regulations, which is led by Public Safety Canada and Foreign Affairs respectively. In total, Canada has listed 90 terrorist entities under these two listing regimes.

Finally, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada ensures that crimes that threaten national or international security, including terrorist financing, are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The regime is a made-in-Canada approach to dealing with the threats of money laundering and terrorist financing, which respects the constitutional division of powers, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the privacy rights of Canadians. The regime is also consistent with international standards that are developed by the Financial Action Task Force, the international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards-setting body.

Canada's regime is regularly reviewed and enhanced to address emerging risks. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act is reviewed by Parliament every five years. The regime is also subject to a number of formal reviews and audits, including a five-year performance evaluation and a biennial privacy audit of FINTRAC from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Most recently the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce issued a report of its five-year review in March 2013. The department supports the committee's goal of improving the effectiveness of the regime and many of its key recommendations, which can be broadly categorized in three themes—implementing the regime structure to increase performance, enhanced information sharing, and ensuring an appropriate scope for the regime. The government has moved forward to implement many of the recommendations.

The government announced in economic action plan 2014 that it will introduce amendments to strengthen the regime, and these amendments were introduced in budget bill C-31, which received royal assent in June 2014.

These legislative and regulatory changes will strengthen customer due diligence standards; close regime gaps; improve compliance, monitoring, and enforcement; strengthen information sharing; and give the Minister of Finance the power to issue countermeasures against jurisdictions and foreign entities that lack sufficient or have ineffective money laundering and terrorist financing controls.

The amendments also enhance the ability of FINTRAC to disclose intelligence to federal partners on threats to the security of Canada. The department is currently developing a regulatory package to support these changes.

Administratively, the regime is revisiting its performance measurement strategy, and FINTRAC has increased its feedback to reporting entities through publishing its policy interpretations online.

Also, as announced in economic action plan 2014, the government, led by Foreign Affairs, will make changes to improve the effectiveness of Canada's targeted financial sanctions regime. These changes aim to streamline the ability of the private sector to implement financial sanctions, thereby increasing their effectiveness and reducing the burden on the private sector.

I would now like to turn to assessing terrorist financing threats. To make the most effective use of resources available, Canada, like many other countries, utilizes a risk-based approach to assessing and combatting terrorist financing threats. By adopting a risk-based approach, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and financial institutions ensure that measures to prevent or mitigate money laundering and terrorist financing are commensurate to the risks identified.

Building on existing assessment practices, the regime is in the process of completing a comprehensive whole-of-government identification and assessment of the threats and Canada's vulnerability to money laundering and terrorist financing risks. The results of this exercise, when complete, will also deliver on Canada's 2013 G-8 action plan commitment to conduct a risk assessment and align with FATF, Financial Action Task Force, recommendations.

Work done to date indicates the terrorist financing threat in Canada is not as pronounced as it is in other regions of the world, where weaker anti-terrorist financing regimes can be found and where terrorist groups have established a foothold, both in terms of operations and also in financing their activities. Although the terrorist threat to Canada posed by radicalized extremists supporting entities like ISIL is real, the terrorist financing threat appears to be lower.

Canada has taken actions against many of these identified terrorist groups through the terrorist listing process. That said, Canada is not immune to abuse by those seeking to support terrorist financing, and I expect that my colleagues from the Canada Revenue Agency, the RCMP, and CSIS will address that in their presentations to the committee.

Now, I'd like to turn to how Canada is engaging on this matter internationally. Terrorist financing is a threat that does not respect borders, and Canada's efforts to fight it are undertaken in conjunction with international partners. Canada's international counterterrorism financing initiatives are accomplished through the FATF, the G-7, the G-20, and most recently, the Counter-ISIL Finance Group.

Canada, led by the department, is a founding member of the FATF and an active participant. The FATF develops international anti–money laundering and counterterrorism financing standards, and monitors their effective implementation in the 36 members and the more than 180 countries of the global FATF network. The FATF leads international efforts related to policy development and risk analysis, and identifies and reports on emerging money laundering and terrorist financing trends and methods. This important work helps the international community stay ahead of criminals, including terrorists and their financiers, to ensure that countries have the appropriate tools in place to address them globally.

The FATF also undertakes comprehensive peer reviews that assess compliance and effectiveness of member countries' anti–money laundering and counterterrorism financing regimes against its 40 recommendations. These recommendations require all countries to have effective systems for preventing and addressing money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The recommendations set out the measures that countries should have in place within their criminal justice and regulatory systems, the preventative measures to be taken by financial institutions, measures to ensure corporate transparency, the establishment of competent authorities with appropriate powers and mechanisms for cooperation, and the arrangements to cooperate with other countries.

I note that Canada will be subject to an FATF mutual evaluation that will begin this fall. This assessment will review the extent to which Canada has the laws, regulations, institutions, and powers and procedures in place, and how it effectively implements them to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorists.

Canada is also participating in international efforts to counter terrorist financing through global capacity building. Specifically, the counterterrorism capacity-building program, run out of Foreign Affairs, has undertaken several counterterrorism financing capacity-building projects in countries of strategic interest, in the Americas, the Middle East, and South Asia.

As a last element to my remarks, I'd like to speak to the ongoing effort to combat the financing of ISIL. In addition to the core business of the FATF, Canada is actively engaged in the new work of the FATF on counter-ISIL financing, which is being undertaken in response to a call made this February by G-20 finance ministers. Last month, the FATF published a report drafted by experts in a number of countries, including Canada, summarizing the most significant revenue sources of ISIL, and highlighting a number of new and existing measures to disrupt its financing.

Specifically, the paper finds that ISIL is able to to draw significant funds through its control of large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. Known ISIL activities include the direct sale or taxing of economic assets, such as cash, oil, agricultural goods, cultural property, and other natural resources and commodities, and the looting of banks within the territory that ISIL captures.

Other sources of funds from abroad include kidnapping for ransom, the sale of archeological goods, external private donors, including through the non-profit or charity sectors and foreign terrorist fighters.

This report also notes that the group's active presence on the Internet and social media has allowed it to generate and convert international support into tangible funds. The group is known to exploit new technologies and modern communication networks, including crowdfunding techniques, to solicit financial contributions.

As the FATF paper notes, the infrastructure and organizational needs at ISIL make ongoing funding a necessity. Coalition air strikes have been effective in limiting the ability of ISIL to efficiently exploit oil and gas resources within their spheres of control. To supplement these military activities, international efforts are currently under way to help prevent ISIL from using or benefiting from the financial and commercial sectors under its control.

However, there are still issues of ISIL funding that are not well understood. To address this knowledge gap, the FATF will continue its important work by convening counterterrorism financing experts this September to study emerging trends and methods related to terrorist financing.

The FATF will also immediately review all of its members, including Canada, on their ability to restrict terrorism-related financial flows in accordance with its 40 recommendations. The focus of this exercise will be on the proper criminalization of the terrorist financing offence and the freezing of terrorist assets, including measures required by the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

This is particularly important given that some countries have yet to adequately implement the FATF standards on terrorist financing, which creates vulnerabilities within the entire financial system. In the fight to counter terrorist financing, we are only as strong as our weakest link.

In addition to the work of the FATF, Canada is also actively engaged in the U.S.-led anti-ISIL coalition, and its recently established working group to counter ISIL financing, which held its inaugural meeting last week. This working group is currently developing an action plan to help coordinate coalition activities. Canada's participation in this counter-financing working group is part of overall government efforts to counter ISIL.

Allow me to briefly conclude. Canada is committed and very engaged, both domestically and internationally, in the fight against terrorist financing. The risk is present and evolving.

We have a strong regime and are in the process of strengthening it through new regulatory amendments. We will continue to take stock of the risks and react accordingly.

Thank you.

Bill S-7—Time Allocation Motion

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up the theme the hon. member for Winnipeg North was developing, and that is the issue of process and democracy in this place. I believe that the government has invoked closure on debate through time allocation more than 90 times in this Parliament. Over four years, that works out to 22 times per year. That, for Canadians who may be watching this, says that the government, 22 times a year, approximately, tells this House that we, as parliamentarians, cannot stand up in this place and represent our constituents and contribute to the debate and discussion in this place.

The consequence of that is that amendments, necessary improvements to legislation, which are contributions from all parties in this House, particularly the opposition, are not made. That is why there have been a record number of government bills that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in this country, including Bill C-31, which I, in committee, warned the government would be unconstitutional. Sure enough, that was found to be the case.

In terms of making good legislation, I understand that the government has a majority, and ultimately it needs to get business done, and we, as a responsible opposition, co-operate with that. However, does the member not agree that good suggestions on this side of the House that can improve the legislation are things a responsible democratic government would want to welcome in this place, not for the good of the opposition but for the good of Canada and the good of Canadians?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am not questioning the basic significance of the study. However, I am really worried about the way the study will be used, given the Conservative government's priorities. And that's really unfortunate. Motions on other issues have been moved, especially on an issue of particular importance at this time. Canada is facing major challenges, including the changing oil prices and all the resulting consequences. That issue is especially urgent.

I am referring to concerns this situation entails for provincial governments, especially those of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. Some Canadian families are faced with the immediate problem of job loss or the need to find employment opportunities more locally. It's really disappointing to see this issue being rejected.

As for the proposed topic, I would like to remind the members of this committee that a Senate committee has also examined the matter. Many of the recommendations submitted following that study were incorporated into omnibus Bill C-31. So some work has already been done on the topic.

What I'm really worried about is that we may potentially be taking up the committee's attention and resources to carry out a study that will probably deal with issues that have already been considered elsewhere and for which we may not have anything really new to propose.

I agree that it's important to identify the source of the money used to finance terrorist activities around the world. That said, we could have turned our attention to that matter before, as the Senate did. We could have done so in 2012 or 2013, as terrorist financing was already a known problem back then.

It seems to me that a study is always being requested in response to events and that we are lagging behind instead of anticipating those events. As for the proposal and the insistence of Conservative Party members, I think it's really deplorable that they want to do this now.

Canada Revenue Agency

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

Mr. Speaker, before Bill C-31, CRA officials were inexplicably prohibited from passing along evidence of serious criminal activity, uncovered on the job, to relevant law enforcement agencies. Clearly, this was and is unacceptable.

Can the Minister of National Revenue today please explain to this House why this change was necessary and how it is consistent with our government's commitment to protecting Canadians?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak to the government's budget implementation act at third reading, I regret that we are debating, yet again, another massive omnibus piece of legislation.

This legislation contains many specific flaws, but I would like to start by addressing its conceptual failure. It covers too many subjects which are non-budgetary in nature and therefore not suitable for inclusion in a budget implementation act.

This legislation is frankly a smokescreen designed to ram through a multitude of changes without allowing for careful scrutiny and rigorous analysis. It is 460 pages long, with 400 separate clauses amending countless different laws. Bill C-43 represents a continued abuse of power, disrespect for Parliament, and plain bad judgment on the part of the government.

I would like to review a few of the specific laws in this legislation.

First, there is the small-business job credit. The Minister of Finance conceded, in his appearance before the finance committee, that his department did absolutely no economic analysis of this measure before allocating more than half a billion tax dollars to it.

At the Standing Committee on Finance, we heard from experts who say that this tax credit has a serious design flaw. It creates a perverse incentive for employers to lay off workers or reduce their hours of work in order to qualify for the tax savings.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that this so-called job credit would create only 800 jobs over two years, at a cost of about $700,000 per job. Obviously, it is outrageously expensive and ineffective as a job creation measure. We know that there are better ways to manage half a billion dollars in tax dollars and at the same time better ways to create jobs. There are other measures or potentially better-designed investments that could do more to bolster the economy and create jobs cost-effectively.

We offered a focused alternative. The Liberal plan would create a two-year EI premium holiday for businesses that create new jobs, that actually hire and add to their payrolls. This would be a true incentive for employers to do more hiring. Our proposal would fix the design flaw in the government's tax credit. It was endorsed by Canadian employer organizations, such as the CFIB, Restaurants Canada, and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

Second, I would like to address the government's latest attack on refugee claimants. Having been overruled by the courts on their previous attempt to deny claimants proper medical care, the Conservatives now wish to make it easier for provincial governments to deny them social assistance. It is a harsh and punitive policy that certainly should not be buried in an omnibus budget bill.

Third, there is the restructuring of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The government would demote the position of chief public health officer, a move that would carry potential risks for the health of Canadians. At the finance committee, we heard from experts about how the Public Health Agency was created in the aftermath of Canada's SARS crisis. They told us that the chief public health officer was deliberately, at that time, made a deputy head so as to have the necessary power and autonomy to work with the provinces and effect change. The omnibus bill would undo much of that good work.

This omnibus bill also attempts to clean up the mess and correct some of the errors contained in previous Conservative omnibus bills. For example, in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit for interest on Canada apprentice loans. In the same bill, they forgot to include foreign money-service businesses as foreign entities in measures under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

The Conservatives also forgot to introduce a refund for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products when they hiked these duties in Bill C-31. As well, they forgot to subject pooled registered pension plans to the same GST rules as registered pension plans in previous legislation.

There is a litany of forgetting, and it is an unfortunate result of not just a lack of competence and attention to the detail, the nitty-gritty of government or economic management, but also the design flaw of the overall approach of putting all these changes in a budget omnibus bill and denying the appropriate committees of Parliament to both review and vote on measures pertaining to their area of public policy and expertise.

In this litany of forgetting things, the government may actually be forgetting about the needs of Canadians. However, I do not think Canadians will forget about the failings of the current government come the next election.

Principle among those failings is a lack of consultation, which is clearly evident in this omnibus bill. The government did not consult with aviation groups when changing the rules around aerodromes. It did not listen to Canada's only international cable-laying company when excluding cable laying from the definition of international shipping. It did not listen to the provincial governments when pressing ahead with measures aimed at denying social assistance to refugees.

The Canadian people have made it clear that they need economic growth and employment, and they need growth and jobs to be an absolute priority for the government. Unfortunately, the government is out of touch with Canadians' needs and aspirations, and it is certainly doing nothing to create growth and prosperity.

For example, consider the government's new income-splitting scheme, which will cost $2.4 billion this year. It benefits only 14% of Canadians, the most privileged of Canadians. The measure completely overlooks single parents and parents who happen to both make similar incomes.

The late Jim Flaherty had doubts about it, and he expressed them clearly. These are the words of the late Jim Flaherty:

I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects and to what degree, because I’m not sure that overall, it benefits our society.

If the Conservatives followed his advice and took a long, hard look at income splitting, they would see that it does nothing to really create growth and prosperity, and does nothing to help a lot of the Canadian families that need the help the most. It also puts the government more deeply in deficit this year. The government would already project a surplus, or be close to a surplus this year, if it were not for this income-splitting scheme, which actually puts us back into a deficit situation.

While the Conservatives are borrowing to benefit a small and relatively well-off segment of the population through income splitting, they are neglecting a vulnerable group that has served Canadians with true patriotism and valour; that being our veterans.

In addition to closing Veterans Affairs offices, the government lapsed $1.1 billion that was earmarked to invest on behalf of veterans. Instead of following Parliament's direction and using those funds to take care of our veterans, the government clawed that money back for the federal treasury.

Meanwhile, the government skimped on much-needed mental health services for our veterans. In his recent report, the Auditor General found that 80% of veterans had to wait nearly eight months to find out if they were even eligible for long-term mental health services, and the other 20% had to wait even longer than that.

This is callous treatment by a government that likes to lionize the military, but will not treat individual veterans or their families with care and respect. The Conservative government is even trying to argue in the courts now that it does not have a sacred obligation to those who served in the Canadian Armed Forces.

A Liberal government would have a very different agenda than the current government, economically and socially. We believe that members of the Canadian Armed Forces and veterans should have nothing less than the best of care and support from a grateful nation and government. Our goals would be fair treatment for all members of society and the strengthening of Canada's middle class through an agenda of jobs and growth.

We would grow the economy in a way that would benefit all Canadians, investing significantly in infrastructure, innovation and trade. We would partner with the provinces and Canadian municipalities. We would work with progressive investors, including, potentially Canada's pension funds, to invest significantly and massively in infrastructure. We would follow some of the lead of countries like the U.K. and Australia. This year, Australia is investing $13 billion of federal money into infrastructure. It is leveraging with the state governments and with pension funds to create $60 billion of new investments in infrastructure.

We have the capacity, through a forward-thinking and innovative infrastructure agenda, to create jobs and growth in the short term during this time of secular stagnation and slow growth and soft employment. We can create jobs and growth in the short term, but we can also render our economy more competitive in the long term by addressing Canada's crumbling infrastructure needs.

The reality is that we probably have the best opportunity in our lifetime to actually invest in infrastructure. We have bond yields at historic lows, real interest rates actually negative, a crumbling infrastructure and soft employment market, and a slow growth economy. Put those factors together and there is little wonder why people like David Dodge, or the OECD or the IMF are saying that countries like Canada ought to be investing significantly in infrastructure.

This is no time for the government to do what it did in the last budget; that is, cut planned infrastructure spending by 89% in order to achieve a notional surplus on the eve of an election.

Infrastructure spending needs to be significant, it needs to be consistent, it needs to be long term in nature, not just around electoral scheduling.

We would invest, as a government, in getting better labour market information to provide a clear understanding of the skills mismatch to the situation of jobs without people and people without jobs, address labour shortages and, at the same time, give opportunities to young Canadians who need work.

There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn. One of the things we need in Canada is better labour market data. We need to invest in organizations like Statistics Canada. We need to ensure that young Canadians and their families know more about what the jobs of today look like and what the jobs in the future will look like. We need to get better data and we need to make that data available in a user-friendly format for young Canadians, starting in junior high school, such that they can start thinking long term, not just what they want to do but what those jobs actually pay so they can get a job that will provide them with the means to have a place of their own. There has never been a time, in recent history, when we have seen more young Canadians living at home, on the sofa in the basement, because they simply cannot get work to financially sustain themselves.

One of the drivers of high levels of personal debt for Canadian families right now is the direct financial subsidization of adult children who cannot get a job or cannot get jobs that will actually financially sustain them. Canadian families today are seeing record levels of personal debt—$1.65 for every $1.00 of annual income—as parents and grandparents directly financially support young people who have skills, who have good educations, but whose skills do not match current labour market needs. We need to close that gap and part of it is simply providing good information to young Canadians as they are planning their career and their lives, and informing them as to the types of jobs, professional trades, that can provide them with the capacity to support themselves into the future.

We need to work with the provinces to restore the honour and respect paid to professional trades. We have seen a diminution in the respect for professional trades over the last 30 years. We need to reverse that because we know there is a shortage of skilled trades and an opportunity for young people, if they are given the correct information, to choose paths in skilled trades, I think we will see more young people doing that.

We also need to invest more in training and apprenticeships. We need to track unpaid internships, for instance. We have asked the government to mandate Statistics Canada to track unpaid internships. We have been told that there is more use of unpaid interns today than ever before. It is kind of a supply and demand issue.

There are a lot of young Canadians who are desperate for work, desperate for the experience they need to start off their careers, who simply cannot find work. The issue with unpaid internships is that it can deepen inequality of opportunity significantly because only children from privileged families can afford to work for no pay. In other words, it is more likely a child from a privileged family will actually get a good start and get some work experience.

This has tremendous long-term impacts on equality of opportunity. We have learned from a recent report of the IMF that in fact inequality of opportunity is not just a social issue; it impedes economic growth. That is why issues like unpaid internships and income inequality are important and why we should, at the very least, not make the situation worse with a tax change that has the capacity to deepen inequality, like income splitting.

We also need to recognize that over the last 30 years the nature of work and training has changed, not just in Canada but throughout the industrialized world. The old days where one could get a degree, or a diploma, or trade and be set for life and never have to go back to school, university or college, are over, in the same way that working for 30 years, retiring with a gold watch and defined benefit pension plan is largely behind us.

We need to update and modernize our Canada student loans program as part of a suite of support for not just young people as they graduate from high school to get their education, but as they move forward through multiple decades of their careers and lives. There is nothing really there for people in their 30s who have young families, who find that their skills do not match the current job market. It is very difficult for them to finance the education and training they need to get a job to support their families at that time. It would be good for productivity and competitiveness, and jobs and growth, if we worked with people throughout their careers and life cycles to help them get the skills they needed during that entire period.

We also believe it is important that we go back to evidence-based decision making, as opposed to the Conservatives' decision-based evidence making, when we are crafting public policy. What we may think, based on an ideological perspective, is the right thing to do, when exposed to the bright light of fact and information, we may be surprised. It is important that we get the best possible information and data, whether scientific or statistical.

We live in an age of big data. Smart companies and smart governments are investing massively in knowing more about their customers and the demographic trends and how to prepare for them. There is only one organization I can think of globally that has deliberately chosen over the last 10 years to both reduce the quality and quantity of data it collects, and that is the Conservative government. It is an ideological perspective that is wrong headed.

Instead of dividing Canadians with ideologies, a Liberal government would unite Canadians with ideas, based on fact, creativity, imagination and innovation, to create the jobs and growth that Canadians need.

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

Fine.

I think I have time for one more question.

Under votes 1b and 5b, the Canada Revenue Agency is seeking funding for the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the U.S. in relation to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA.

When the committee was studying the legislation setting out the agreement's implementation, Bill C-31, experts expressed concerns about the intergovernmental agreement. One of their concerns was the fact that the definition of a "financial institution" was being changed and replaced by 13 types of entities—14 with the most recent amendment contained in Bill C-43. That definition is not compatible with the intergovernmental agreement and needs to be changed.

The definition has given rise to major problems, such as the exclusion of most Canadian private trusts despite their inclusion in the intergovernmental agreement, as well as the lack of clarity around investment entities. These are some of the criticisms we heard from witnesses when the bills were under study. Some experts even said that adopting FATCA could undermine the implementation of the intergovernmental agreement.

I'd like to ask you two quick questions on the subject. First of all, have there been any discussions to incorporate changes that would clarify things, allowing for clear implementation of the legislation and regulations?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to oppose the main motion at report stage of Bill C-43, which purports to be a budget implementation bill, but we know that it is anything but.

As is the habit of my colleagues across the way since they have been in government, they bring forward omnibus bills. Buried in those bills are usually totally unrelated matters, unrelated pieces of legislation. Later on, if we oppose a few of those measures, we end up having to vote against the whole piece of legislation. Then the Conservatives get to stand up and say “Gotcha”. Well, “gotcha” does not work in this case.

Since being elected with a majority, the Conservatives have moved 2,190 pages of omnibus bills. In all that time, they have accepted one amendment from the opposition, which by the way was a very technical tax amendment to Bill C-31, in 2014, put forward by the NDP.

Among all those pages, 2,190 pages, are buried changes to the temporary foreign worker program and EI access. Just name it; it is all in there. There are also many changes to environmental issues, to airports, and all kinds of things I could list for hours, but I do not have the time.

What it points to is a government that absolutely has very little respect for parliamentary democracy. If it did, it would bring in pieces of legislation it was proud of. It would put them here, and it would let us debate them. Not only that, but once the government brings in omnibus bills, what does it do? It moves time allocation and does all kinds of other things to end debate.

We are not the only ones saying that. Conservative commentator Andrew Coyne, in the National Post, on April 30, 2012, wrote, on omnibus budget bills:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention — shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not — it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We’ve no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....

...there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

That is where disrespect for our parliamentary democracy comes in.

I want to remind us all that in 1995, the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, had this to say:

....in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

I am standing here asking myself and my colleagues across the way that same question: How can we represent our constituents and fully debate and then vote on disparate matters, instead of being forced to vote on these huge omnibus bills?

Buried in this bill is the temporary foreign worker program, which is broken. I think everyone has admitted to that. Instead of fixing it piecemeal, when the government is caught, usually by the media or the opposition, what it does is tweak it a little bit more. There is another tweak in this bill. It talks about enforcement. First of all, it is a shocker that enforcement was not in place. Second, what will this enforcement look like? We are being told it is going to be mainly administrative, on paper.

I have little confidence that the government will be able to deliver what is promised in this bill, because at the same time that it has made cuts to Service Canada, there is more work being assigned in that area. Where are the resources?

It is easy to stand here and speak against what we do not like, but let me tell members what I would like to have seen in this budget bill.

I would like to have seen a pan-Canadian child care program that would ensure families had access to regulated, quality child care spaces for less than $15 a day. That is the kind of vision people are looking for from their government, because from coast to coast to coast we are hearing from families who are struggling to find child care spaces, and those who can find them discover that the costs are a burden. Some costs are as high as $2,000 a month. For most families, that is just not doable. That is the kind of program I would liked to have seen in the budget, instead of all these announcements about providing an extra $60 a month. An extra $60 a month does not even buy a day's worth of child care, nor does it help to create additional child care spaces, so there once again we have smoke and mirrors from my colleagues across the way.

I would also like to have seen a real plan in this budget to address the very high youth unemployment. I am sure members have heard from young people who have finished university, have left after high school, or have gone into other kinds of post-secondary education that they cannot find jobs once they graduate, yet some of the jobs that they could get into are being filled by temporary foreign workers. It should be a major concern to every parliamentarian when the youth unemployment rate in some of our cities is at double digits and in the high teens. That is a major concern, and I do not see an action plan or a commitment in this budget to address that issue head-on and in a serious way.

We have recently heard that young people who want to get a job after graduating and who have a huge student debt should find volunteer work and work for nothing. Not everyone can do that. That is one of the other areas I hoped we would see our government address, but once again it receives a failing grade. In this legislation it has failed to crack down on the abuse of unpaid internships to ensure that young people are paid for the work that they perform.

We all know the difference between volunteering and unpaid internships. We are talking here about unpaid internships. There may be the distant hope of a job, yet some young people are working full time without any pay. At another time in our history, we had words for that kind of labour. We should really be addressing that situation, because young people are facing major challenges.

The other provision I would have liked to have seen in this legislation is a relaxation around some of the barriers that the government has put forward to restrict access to employment insurance by the unemployed. People pay into it, and they need to access it when they are unemployed. However, we now see that the access rate has gone down incredibly for many of the unemployed in Canada. Many of them feel duped by their government, and there is nothing in this legislation to say that future Conservative or Liberal governments would not take money out of that fund that workers and employers have paid for and use it for other nefarious activities that they want to conduct.

I would say that this budget fails Canadians.

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

Okay.

I would like to draw your attention to an immigration holding centre in Laval, Quebec, that is no more than a prison where men, women and children are detained. For years, we have been hearing about human rights violations when children are detained in conditions that violate all international human rights standards.

Today, the passing of Bill C-31 would legalize the detention of children for a maximum period of one year without giving them access to health care, legal assistance or the protection of rights related to their status.

Can you tell the committee about the health status and well-being of women and children detained in federal immigration holding centres?

This question is for everyone. Can someone give us more information on the detention of children with their parents in institutions that lack services related to children's health and rights, as I just noted?

These seem to be difficult questions, don't they, Madam Chair?

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

Well, Bill C-31 introduced the apprentice loans and we're wondering why it didn't also include this tax credit for interest on apprentice loans. Why wouldn't it have been done?

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

That would be helpful, because we're not given a lot of time to deal with these things and it would be helpful to know that.

I have a question on the tax credit for interest paid on student loans.

Bill C-31, the last budget bill, introduced the apprentice loans. Why didn't Bill C-31 also include this tax credit for interest paid on apprentice loans?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency”.

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

[Dominique La Salle]

Bill C-31 is the bill that suspended the OAS payment to inmates essentially because the prison system already provides for basic needs. This bill prevents killers from benefiting from their crime. The distinction would be that under C-31, if someone has killed a spouse and is an inmate and does not receive OAS, when this person turns 60, in absence of this bill, they could receive the survivor allowance under OAS. This bill would prevent that. It's adding to the provision if you like.

[Julie Ladouceur]

Since Bill C-31 received royal assent, it can no longer be amended through a motion or any other such process.

Bill C-31 amended the same provision, making ??a change, and we are making another change. When royal assent is granted and enters into force, this provision of Bill C-31, which is now, I believe, chapter 20 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014, will amend the earlier provision. But when the time comes for us to intervene, we will not have the amendment made to Bill C-31.

In other words, when we do intervene, we will undo what Bill C-31 has done. What we are trying to do with clause 177 is to tell those people that they have already made an change and that we have made another one. To ensure that there is no conflict, they are being asked to do what is indicated here, that is, to combine these two changes, once both of these provisions come into force. That is all this means.

[Claudette Rondeau]

When Bill C-31 was introduced, it had the effect of changing the provision that we are changing now. Unfortunately, no one noticed this error. However, the coordinating amendment ensures that the error will be corrected. If the amendment in Bill C-31 comes into force first, the coordinating amendment will effectively correct the error. You cannot undo—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Okay.

Perhaps you can explain it to me then. I don't think we saw Bill C-31. This reads as follows: “Clauses 175 to 177 of these Proposals contain coordinating amendments whose purpose is to reconcile the effects of two amendments relating to the same provision.”

This affects us, and, furthermore, I would like us to appear competent as legislators. When it comes to those who came before us, that's obviously another story.

Privacy

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants an answer, then she can only ask one question. She has about 15 questions there, so she would need several answers to answer them all. Her original question that started this late show was on the privacy requirements around Canada Revenue Agency.

There are occasions when government officials, in the course of their ordinary duties, may become aware of information that they think could be evidence of serious criminal activity. In such instances, most government officials are able to contact law enforcement with their findings and let the police take it from there. However, prior to June 19, the strict confidentiality provisions in the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, and the Excise Act, 2001, for the most part prohibited Canada Revenue Agency officials from communicating such evidence to law enforcement authorities.

Our government, in response to that, and as part of economic action plan 2014, amended the relevant legislation to allow the CRA to disclose some taxpayer information to law enforcement agencies in very specific, relevant circumstances if the information was related to serious criminal activity. This change reflects a 2010 recommendation from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD. It permits the CRA to provide taxpayer information to an appropriate police organization when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information could provide evidence of specific serious offences such as drug trafficking, terrorism, child pornography, and contracts for the commission of murder. Those are all serious crimes that all Canadians would agree are reprehensible and should be shared with law enforcement.

There seems to be some confusion among members of the opposition about the intentions and goals of the changes to Bill C-31. Our government takes the protection of Canadian taxpayers' information extremely seriously. We appreciate the confidence and the trust that individuals and businesses place in CRA as a cornerstone of Canada's voluntary tax system. However, we also believe that not being able to report evidence of a possible serious criminal offence is at odds with the value Canadians place on the principles of justice, fairness and support for the victims of crime.

Let me be clear. If a CRA employee detects evidence of serious criminal activity in the normal course of his or her duties, relevant information may only be shared with police if authorized by legislation. The law is very specific about the narrow set of circumstances that would allow such information to be shared. CRA officials take their responsibilities to apply due diligence to such a sensitive matter extremely seriously, and I have full confidence they will carry out this responsibility with the highest level of professionalism and discernment.

Quite frankly, I find it extraordinary that the member opposite would not favour such common-sense reforms to protect the public. Is she advocating that in the course of his or her duties, a CRA auditor who uncovers evidence of a commission of a criminal offence of drug trafficking, child pornography or a commission to commit murder, because of the legislation as it exists, that person should not be able to share that with relevant police organizations? That is what she is suggesting.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 30, I asked the government why the Conservatives had such little respect for Canadians' right to privacy, a fundamental right, an immutable respect and non-negotiable right. According to documents we have obtained, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency committed roughly 3,000 privacy breaches and data breaches against Canadians in less than a year. That means there were more breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency this year than in all the departments combined since 2006, or when the Conservatives came to power. That is not trivial.

The changes the Conservatives are proposing would allow employees of the Canada Revenue Agency to hand over taxpayers' private information to the police without authorization from any sort of warrant. It is as though the Conservatives want to reward the Canada Revenue Agency for its mismanagement of private information, as we saw in recent scandals. Data breaches at the Canada Revenue Agency, the systematic collection of private information at airports and the passage of legislation facilitating access to private information without a warrant reinforce the perception that the government does not respect the right to privacy and that it is also opening the door to abuse with ill-conceived legislative reform.

The government introduced a series of bills that, according to experts, could have serious repercussions on Canadians' privacy. Indeed, Bill C-13, Bill S-4 and Bill C-31 enshrine a number of controversial practices in law.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has been sounding the alarm since last May. After revealing that the federal government is collecting vast amounts of personal information from telecommunications companies, the Privacy Commissioner's office then revealed that the federal government is also collecting personal information about Canadians from social networks.

Bill C-13 on cybercrime and Bill S-4 on the protection of digital information would allow telecommunications companies to provide personal information to other companies or law enforcement officials without a warrant. That is a very significant and serious issue.

I would like to quote a professor and intelligence expert from Laval University, Stéphane Leman-Langlois, who believes that Canadians should be very concerned. He said:

We can all agree that there is not very much privacy on the Internet, but still, there are some very weak protections in place. However, rather than strengthening privacy, which of course would be the best thing to do, the government is bombarding us with bills that will reduce those protections...

That is what is happening on the Conservatives' watch. They are reducing these protections and eroding respect for Canadians' privacy. As I said on a number of occasions, this truly is an intrusion into people's lives. That is very worrisome. We spoke about it last May, and I would like to talk about it again this month, now that Parliament is back in session, because it is really important.

The government did away with Statistics Canada's long-form census because it was too intrusive, but it has no problem allowing private companies to impinge on the privacy of millions of Canadians. That is completely hypocritical.

To shed some light on the consequences of these privacy bills, the NDP is asking for the creation of an independent panel of experts to examine how the government is using and storing Canadians' communications data.

Obviously, I am asking my colleague opposite to respond to this proposal. Does he intend to follow the NDP's recommendation and set up an independent panel of experts so that Canadians can be reassured with regard to their right to privacy, an immutable and fundamental right that all Canadians hold dear?

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech because, once again, he brilliantly explained certain aspects of this bill. As well, he told us about his personal experience, particularly in relation to copyright, which is important. Our creators should be paid and should receive royalties when they create.

My colleague also mentioned the current dysfunctional state of the House of Commons, in terms of the repeated gag orders imposed by the government. I would also like to note that in the monster bill, Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill, division 25 deals with amendments relating to international treaties on trademarks.

Could my colleague explain why the government did not split this bill? We could have examined this part of Bill C-31 in greater depth. I would like to hear his comments on that.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to say a few words about the fact that the NDP is the only party that takes advantage of all possible speaking opportunities in the House. As we know, we are sitting until midnight on weekdays to debate various issues.

The Conservatives must have missed about 200 opportunities to speak. The Liberals have also missed a lot. They are absent from the debates. I find that deplorable. It is really too bad that we are not using all the speaking and debate time we have to discuss and duly represent our ridings, voters, constituents and people.

As you know, I am the small business deputy critic. I therefore have the pleasure of speaking to Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses.

Bill C-21 includes the one-for-one rule. This rule requires the government to eliminate a regulation every time it adopts a new one. The government must also offset any new burden on small businesses, that is, time and money spent by businesses to demonstrate compliance with amendments to existing regulations, in order to ease the burden for businesses.

In addition, Bill C-21 stipulates that the president of the Treasury Board may establish policies or issue directives respecting the manner in which the rule is to be applied. He may also make regulations respecting the period within which measures must be taken to comply with the regulations, the manner of calculating the cost of an administrative burden, how the law will apply to regulations changed when the one-for-one rule came into effect, and the power to grant exceptions.

Although Bill C-21 claims to reduce red tape for businesses, it will actually make the president of the Treasury Board the arbiter of eliminating regulations. A very important point here is that the government claims to deal with something that is actually not that simple. When we meet with small and medium-sized businesses, we know that they would really like to be able to reduce red tape. However, we must be careful because this bill claims to reduce red tape, but, in fact, it is giving yet another discretionary power to the president of the Treasury Board.

Personally, I remember seeing other similar bills whose intent is often to provide greater authority and greater flexibility. For instance, Bill C-31 was meant to give greater discretionary authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. However, when a minister is given greater discretionary authority, this means that the rules may be good for some, and not so much for others. That is when things begin to fall apart and then, ultimately, things begin to get far more complicated and a lot harder to track. The minister has the authority to say yes in some cases and no in others, when in reality, the situations are identical. We cannot clearly rely on the rules.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Conservatives; we have seen this in the past. They have a habit of deregulating without any regard for the health and safety of Canadians. These are vital issues; there is no denying that. The Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, did not manage to defend the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

I must refer to the events that allow me to say today that the Conservatives are not there when it comes time to regulate appropriately. I will now bring them up. It is not easy to talk about these tragic events, but I need to.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy put the important issue of rail safety in Canada back on the agenda following decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation.

Let us look at other issues such as the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, which was ultimately kept open. For over two and a half years, the Conservatives wanted to close it down. After they threatened the centre with closure, they realized that what mattered was saving lives and that by looking to close the centre, they were endangering the lives of Canadians. In the next election, I will be sure to remind voters that the Conservatives hesitated for two and a half years. That is unacceptable. We cannot take shortcuts when people’s health and safety are at stake.

Let’s talk about another issue, again in Quebec City. As we know, the Port of Québec went through periods when the city’s air was contaminated with nickel dust. Once again, we need to ensure that there are regulations to protect the public. Normally, businesses are proud to be involved in making and enforcing regulations that benefit the public.

XL Foods was another big one. If the government cuts the number of food inspectors, such incidents should come as no surprise. There are fewer people on the ground doing inspections. When it comes to regulations, the government needs to think twice and make sure it is doing the right thing because it cannot make mistakes that could have a direct impact on the health and safety of Canadians.

In Bill C-21, only the preamble states that regulations affecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. No mention is made of the environment. It is not in the bill at all.

The same thing happened with the free trade agreements the government signed. Human rights and the environment were relegated to the sidelines even though we expected the federal government to sign free trade agreements containing clear measures. Now human rights and the environment are an afterthought. I think we can have economic development that prioritizes people's health and safety as well as their environment.

If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect people's health and safety? That could have been done. The government should make it a priority to implement regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians and their environment. This bill seems to completely disregard that obligation. We need more than the government's promises and the preamble of a bill because that could leave room for interpretation in the years ahead.

We want a guarantee that deregulation will not apply to those provisions, and we want it now. We have not been given that guarantee yet. Regulations that are in the public interest should be preserved. The idea is not just to limit, in theory, the number of regulations and determine which are good for Canadians and which are not. There has to be a reasonable way to undertake public administration. Giving more powers to the president of the Treasury Board is definitely not the way to ensure good public administration.

The many small business owners I have talked to agree that there should be less useless red tape.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, an organization that I have met with on a number of occasions, estimates that business owners pay $30 billion in hidden taxes in the form of the time and money they spend completing forms and following government rules, and it believes that this needs to change.

I am proud to tell this organization that the NDP is always open to helping small businesses by eliminating useless red tape and letting them focus on what they do best: growing their business and creating jobs. The NDP remains a partner to SMEs.

Red tape is not the only thing that small business owners come to me about. They also regularly tell me that the Conservatives boast about helping small businesses by eliminating red tape, but that they did not renew the hiring credit for small business. It was not in budget 2014. However, businesses have been clear: this hiring credit is important. It gives them some breathing room. Even though it had the means to do so, the government deliberately decided to ignore SMEs and eliminate the credit. That is not surprising, coming from the Conservatives. This is a very important measure to help SMEs grow and to create more good jobs.

SME owners are unanimous in asking me when this government will finally take serious action to regulate the anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. If the Conservatives truly wanted to help SMEs, they would support the NDP's proposal to regulate the fees that credit card companies charge to merchants.

I meet with SME representatives and they show me their bills. They have been crippled by banking fees this year and their profits have decreased considerably. They sometimes even have to reconsider their decision to go into business. This goes for SMEs that have been in business for several years and those that are just getting started. Banking fees have gotten so high that SMEs have no choice but to take them into account. These fees cut into their profits and wages so much that owners start to wonder if they have made the right choice. That is not insignificant.

The Conservatives did diddly-squat. While small businesses are the ones creating most of Canada’s new jobs, they get very little attention from the Conservative government. In fact, this government preferred to give away billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks, starting with the oil companies, obviously. Even though they produce oil, they apparently need tax breaks. I have always thought that oil producers do not need any public money.

They gave away billions of dollars instead of supporting small businesses, the real job creators. This is why the NDP decided to support small business. There is nothing better than small businesses to turn around the economy of a region or a community. Profits made by a small business generally go toward developing the region. This money flows through the town or community where the small business is located. That also means local jobs. There is a lot less of a chance of outsourcing as well. This is why supporting small businesses pays off.

The Conservatives say they want to cut red tape, but they did quite the opposite with the building Canada fund.

Rather than helping municipalities and small businesses start their infrastructure projects within an acceptable time, the Conservatives created a long and cumbersome bureaucratic system for any project over $100 million. That will result in delays of 6 to 18 months, holding back major projects. Furthermore, this government has done nothing to make it easier for small businesses to secure government contracts. We saw it in committee; this should be made easier. Several associations have done their job and tried to make the government aware of this, but contracts should be broken up so that small businesses can access them. It would be worthwhile to make improvements in this area. It is practically impossible for our small businesses in Canada to compete with big corporations when bidding on government contracts, which are so long and complicated.

Over the coming months, the member for Sudbury and I intend to continue taking part in consultations with small businesses. Young entrepreneurs and family businesses are the key to a prosperous economy in Canada. That is why New Democrats will continue to work toward a pragmatic, common-sense solution in order to contribute to their success.

If the Conservatives sincerely wanted to help small businesses, they would not drag their feet and would take action against the excessive fees that credit card companies are charging merchants. Neither would they have, as I previously mentioned, eliminated the small business hiring tax credit in the 2014 budget. In this respect, I encourage all small business owners to write their MPs to let them know how important this tax credit was to them. The NDP intends to contact small businesses in all ridings and encourage them to help us make sure that the government understands once and for all that this tax credit helped create and maintain a lot of jobs. These are not unstable part-time jobs that will end in three months, but good solid jobs.

Again, the NDP believes in common-sense solutions for cutting red tape for small businesses. Allow me to mention something that the government should bear in mind: when we meet with SMEs they often tell us about the lack of collaboration between the different government bodies. We know that this Conservative majority government has a hard time getting along with its provincial and municipal counterparts. That is a serious problem. SMEs sometimes have to fill out forms at both the federal and provincial levels. There needs to be an agreement to make it easier and ensure that SMEs do not have to fill out the same form 10 times, send them to a number of different places and follow different criteria. Those who work 80 hours a week for their SME might not have the time in the evening to figure out how each body operates and so forth. To make things easier for the SMEs, we need a government that listens, that does not say that it does not care and then goes ahead without listening to a word anyone else has to say. We need a government that will listen.

When various situations came up in Quebec, I would have liked the federal government to listen more closely. Listening closely can pay off and make life easier. Today, we are all saying we would like to improve things. I think that the current approach is not exactly the one that should be used and I hope that the government will understand that. We will not approve the additional discretionary powers for the ministers. That is not what is needed here. We need to simplify the process.

If we get rid of one approach and replace it with another then the rule of “one plus one plus one minus one plus one” might further confuse the SMEs. They want us to decide on one way of doing things and keep it that way for 10 years so that they do not have to read a new instruction manual every time they have to fill out a form.

I will now take questions.

Privacy

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading.

The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional.

Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?

Agricultural Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 9, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

Bill C-18 is another Conservative omnibus bill, making changes to nine different pieces of legislation, some of which we support, and others that pose significant concerns. Unlike the government's everything but the kitchen sink omnibus budget bills—and we have certainly seen omnibus budgets with everything thrown in together—in Bill C-18, perhaps following the good advice that the NDP has provided, changes actually all relate to agriculture. For once, we actually have a omnibus bill where all the provisions are related.

This is important, because we have seen, particularly with the budget bills, an absurd number of different pieces of legislation put together. We have seen absolutely absurd combinations, with environmental laws, natural resources laws, and taxation laws like the FATCA provisions that were in Bill C-31 all thrown together into one particular bill.

In the case of Bill C-18, we have an omnibus bill that puts in place amendments all related to agriculture, in some cases making similar edits to different bills.

First, there are amendments to the Plant Breeders' Rights Act. The key changes move Canada towards ratification of the 1991 model law of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV '91.

Second, it expands the rights afforded to plant breeders for the varieties they develop and increases the places along the value chain where plant breeders can collect royalties.

Bill C-18 also includes the following new exclusive rights for plant breeders: reproduction, conditioning, sales, export or import, repeated use to produce commercially another plant variety if the repetition is necessary for that purpose, and stocking for the purpose of any of the other protected acts.

The term of the grant of plant breeders' rights has also been increased from previous legislation, from 18 years to 20 years. It is 25 years in the case of a tree, a vine, or any other category listed by the regulation. It also includes a new clause that grants farmers' privilege, allowing farmers to save seed and condition seed for purposes of production and reproduction on their own farms. It is important to note that this privilege is not extended to the storing of seed or to the sale of harvested material from protected seed.

Bill C-18 also grants the CFIA the ability to make changes through regulation to which circumstances and classes of farmers and varieties would not be covered under the farmers' privilege. This protects the rights of researchers to use patented materials as the basis for developing a new variety or for another research use. It also enhances public accessibility to the registry of plant varieties. This of course is a major change from the previous act.

It also maintains the ability of the CFIA to grant compulsory licences to ensure that in certain situations, plant varieties are available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and of good quality.

Bill C-18 also includes an amendment that allows plant breeders to request that their plant breeders' rights be exempt from a compulsory licence. It also grants the government the ability to make changes governing exemptions from compulsory licensing through regulations, without legislative change.

There are some benefits in Bill C-18.

First, it would ensure that variety developers would be able to see a return on investment for their plant breeding research efforts, providing incentives for an important sector of Canadian agribusiness. It would also grant farmer's privilege to allow farmers to save the conditioned seed for use on their own farms. It would promote access for Canadian farmers to the results of private breeding research from Canada and other countries through more effective intellectual property rights. As members know, this is a concern people have raised.

It would protect researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights. It would enhance public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding, and it would maintain the existing compulsory licence system, providing some assurance that varieties can be made available at reasonable prices, widely distributed, and kept at a high quality. This is a very important aspect of the bill that I know members will find interesting.

I know my colleagues in the NDP are very focused on this agriculture bill, because, as we know, we have a whole variety of NDP MPs representing some of the heartland of Canadian agriculture across the country.

I would like to say at this point that we have diversity like we have never had before in the House of Commons, and from both rural and urban areas. It is just fantastic to see the NDP caucus, 100 strong, which is going to grow to perhaps double that after the next election. We are certainly looking forward to that.

One might ask why the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is speaking on a agriculture bill. Perhaps the government House leader is asking that question too. The reality, and I know members will find this interesting, is that the most fertile land in all of Canada is in Burnaby. That particular area is known as the Big Bend area of Burnaby. It is part of the Fraser delta. The Fraser River comes down, after going through the Coast Mountains, and provides for incredibly fertile ground.

I should say, because I think it is important to note, that not only is it the most fertile ground, but because of the previous actions of the B.C. NDP government back in 1972, which established the agricultural land reserve, the first government in the country to do that, the agricultural land in Burnaby has been preserved. That is extremely important. It is an urban area, but right there is the agricultural heartland of the Lower Mainland.

What is even more important to note is that the city of Burnaby, for the last 25 years, has been run by an NDP government, under the Burnaby Citizens Association. In fact, in the last municipal election, with a strong agricultural component, the mayor, the entire city council, eight of eight city councillors, and seven of seven on the school board, meaning every single municipally elected official, were members of the NDP and members of the Burnaby Citizens Association. That is the longest-standing—

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to. So we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night, and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-31.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night I gave you notice under Standing Order 52 (2) that I would be seeking leave today to propose an emergency debate on the implementation in Canada of FATCA, the U.S. foreign account tax compliance act. As you know, the Canada-U.S. enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act is contained in Bill C-31 and is currently before the House.

We read in The Globe and Mail this week that the United States Internal Revenue Service has announced that it is working on creating an amnesty program aimed specifically at U.S. residents who have resided abroad for many years. The new commissioner, John Koskinen, has stated: “We are well aware that there are many U.S. citizens who have resided abroad for many years, perhaps even the vast majority of their lives”, and promised more details of the amnesty program “the very near future”.

The IRS is now working on creating a path specifically for otherwise honest people who want to comply with their U.S. tax obligations without using the hammer of steep penalties designed primarily to punish U.S. residents trying to duck their taxes.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the latest omnibus budget implementation bill is presently at third reading stage and will soon be submitted to a final vote. There will be no opportunity to debate this issue as an opposition day motion later this month. Mr. Speaker, I am urging you to give this your urgent attention.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome an opportunity to talk about our economy and the great success we have achieved, notwithstanding going through the worst recession since the Great Depression in 2008-09.

Canadians are not known for their bragging or beating of their chests, but if we listen to the opposition we would get the impression that our economy is the video recorder version of the Betamax. The opposition would say that Ted Williams was an awful baseball player because he missed the ball 66% of the time that he was at bat. Those members would also say that Wayne Gretzky, who did not score a goal 85% of the time that he shot the puck, was a horrible hockey player because the guy only scored 15% of the time. They would ask what all the hype was about.

Canada is the envy of the world.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House this evening and speak to Bill C-31.

Our government's fiscal management speaks for itself. We have identified the issues that matter most to Canadians. We have once again addressed these issues in a focused and surgically precise budget. This budget will keep our government on track to balance in 2015 as promised to the Canadian people. Our government keeps our promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act. However, before I do, I would like to contextualize this legislation.

During the global recession, our government made the difficult but necessary decision to engage in deficit spending, making record investments from coast to coast to coast in infrastructure projects supporting jobs and putting Canadians to work.

Our investments worked. While the global recession was difficult for many Canadian families, the effects never reached the severity experienced abroad, such as in the United States and Europe.

More important, our investments helped the domestic economy keep moving so that when the recovery began, Canada was much better positioned to rebound, and recover Canada did, the best recovery in the G7. We have led in job creation with over one million net new jobs. We have led in growth of disposal income. We have led the world in debt-to-GDP ratio.

However, this success does not change the fact that we created a deficit. Our government understands very well that long-term deficits, which increase the debt-to-GDP ratio, are toxic for the economy. The more debt a country takes on, the more hesitant businesses become to invest and create jobs. This is because uncertainty is created in the economy and everyone, especially businesses, knows that at some point the debt will have to be paid, and it often takes the form of spending cuts and/or increased taxes.

These cuts and taxes become more severe the larger the debt gets and the longer governments delay to make the necessary decisions. Therefore, once the recovery began, instead of irresponsibly spending money we did not have, our government immediately began passing budget after budget to completely eliminate our deficit, make government lean, spend strategically and responsibly, and create an environment conducive to investment and economic growth.

We have been successful, but members do not need to take my word for it. Canada's number one record in the G7, rock-solid credit rating and international leadership in fiscal responsibility speaks for itself.

On February 11, our dear friend and colleague, one of Canada's longest serving finance ministers, the late Hon. Jim Flaherty, introduced economic action plan 2014. This budget is very important. Since its introduction, I am very pleased to say that our budget is indeed balanced.

However, a balanced budget does not mean that we start spending every extra penny on shiny baubles, which is the strength of economic action plan 2014. It continues to reduce government spending where possible, decreasing the cost to taxpayers without reducing transfers to the provinces or health care transfers.

I want to stress that we balanced the budget without drastic or draconian cuts to important services and funds on which the provinces and Canadians rely on. We instead reduced the size of government and reined in unnecessary spending.

Moreover, the economic action plan continues to focus on this government's number one priority: jobs and the economy. There are still many Canadians looking for work and trying their best to support their families. They are relying on our government to continue creating the right conditions for business to invest and create jobs.

This implementation act, the first economic action plan act, focuses on reducing barriers to employment in both the demand and supply side. Hiring Canadians should not be an administrative burden for businesses. We are reducing unnecessary regulations on job creators and incentivizing them to grow and hire.

Just the same, a lack of education or training should not be a barrier to employment, and that is why we are helping Canadians access trade skills training.

I would like to use my remaining time to highlight a few particular measures in the first economic action plan act that will help further grow our economy, create jobs and improve Canada's prosperity and standard of living.

First, as part of our government's ongoing efforts to refine the immigration system to make sure it works in Canada's best interests, $11 million will be spent over the next two years, and $3.5 million every year afterwards will be invested to provide a more robust labour market option process. This will further help government ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at jobs.

Bill C-31 would help facilitate this by eliminating a backlog of immigrant investor program and entrepreneur program applicants. The elimination of this backlog would help businesses quickly adapt to changing labour markets in Canada by having more efficient access to the most qualified candidates, and enable them to remain productive and profitable and generate jobs and revenue for the Canadian economy.

Second, our government would continue to remove unnecessary regulations on businesses in order to foster an environment more conducive to investment and economic growth. Regulations on businesses are necessary to ensure that they play by the rules, treat their employees well, follow industry standards, and pay their share of taxes.

However, overregulation suffocates businesses as more and more resources are diverted to deal with unnecessary or inefficient administrative obligations. Ultimately, businesses waste money on administration that could have been invested in growing their business and subsequently hiring more Canadians.

Bill C-31 would reduce red tape on more than 50,000 employers. Specifically, the threshold at which small and medium-sized businesses would have to provide remittances for source deductions would be increased. This would further decrease the tax compliance burden on SMEs.

Third, with the resurgence of trade skills, our government would reduce the barrier to employment in well-paying industries by making training more affordable to Canadians. Apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades would be provided with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

This measure, like the Canada jobs grant incentive, is part of our government's strategy to connect Canadians with jobs and increase incentives to additional education or training. A more educated and skilled work force would improve the productivity of our economy, make us more competitive, make Canadian goods wanted around the world, and grow economic well-being at home.

Our government will continue investing in the development of our natural resources, particularly in the mining sector. Countries around the world are making the transition to advanced economies, and they are investing in infrastructure and are hungry for energy and raw materials, all of which we Canadians have in abundance.

Bill C-31 would extend the mineral exploration tax credit of 15% for another full year. This tax credit is relied upon by junior mining companies, exploration companies that are making key discoveries and appraisals of new and existing deposits. This is a very important measure to mining firms in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming in northern Ontario, close to the Ring of Fire, one of the world's largest mineral reserves.

Having a strong appreciation for the volume and location of deposits in the Ring of Fire will play a key role when we begin developing the resources; excavation will be more efficient, and we will be able to generate more goods for export.

Northern Ontario and Canada will greatly benefit from the development of the Ring of Fire. I am pleased with this measure.

Bill C-31 would continue to build on our government's success of balancing the budget, making responsible and strategic investments to keep the economy on track, cultivating an environment conducive to job creation, and focusing on connecting Canadians with the skills and training they need to participate in the market.

I encourage the members opposite to support these important measures and help empower Canadian businesses and workers.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. It was very interesting watching him confront the current government with the very bad decisions it has made in recent years.

I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Canada has a poor record on key files. We accumulated a $61-billion trade deficit in 2013. Canada has had a trade deficit in excess of $45 billion for five years in a row. Canadians' debt reached record levels in 2013. People owe $1.64 for every dollar of disposable income they earn in one year. We are facing some truly worrisome situations that must absolutely be addressed. However, we feel that what the current government calls an economic action plan does not tackle the major challenges that are going to catch up to us and hurt Canadians and the economy, if we do not do something about them immediately.

The NDP's position will be to oppose the bill at every stage because there is nothing in Bill C-31 that indicates that the Conservatives are actually addressing these real problems.

This bill has 360 pages and amends 60 laws. Once again, it is an omnibus bill. It brings back bad memories of Bill C-38 in 2012.

At the time, Le Devoir ran the following headline: “A mammoth bill to change the rules without debate—The 431-page bill amends more than 60 current laws”. It seems that we are living in groundhog year. Everyone knows the movie Groundhog Day. Under the current government, we have been living groundhog day since 2011.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain the implications of an omnibus bill to the people at home. It reduces how much time the opposition parties, and the official opposition party in particular, have to analyze the issues. We do not have enough time to address the flaws in the bill. For example, this bill does not propose anything for SMEs. There is nothing solid, as far as we can tell. The bill eliminates the job creation tax credit for small businesses at a time when the unemployment rate might be up to 14% for people 25 and younger in a number of regions. It is absurd. How can the government attack a program that received support from all the regional chambers of commerce in the country? It is unbelievable and unacceptable.

We also do not have enough time with these omnibus bills to address any abuses that are hidden in these hundreds of pages. For example, this bill raises a lot of concerns over privacy protection with respect to the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. This is an American tax law on foreign accounts. The government is trying to deal with this in an omnibus budget bill.

However, the sharing of Canadians' information between financial institutions and the Internal Revenue Agency under this agreement, FATCA, would invade the privacy of roughly 1 million American citizens. This is hidden somewhere in the hundreds of pages of yet another omnibus bill.

That is not insignificant. There is another difficult aspect that the people at home need to understand. It is not their cup of tea to try to understand how this works in Parliament in Ottawa. The fact that the government stuffs everything in there makes it hard for the committees to do a decent job. There are decisions involving veterans and the environment hidden among these hundreds of pages.

These are important decisions that should have been and should be dealt with in separate bills that would allow the various all-party committees to invite all kinds of experts to examine the government's decisions. We could then find some better solutions, if it turns out that these are very bad decisions, as often happens. The decisions can sometimes be excellent if there is good co-operation.

We cannot do this kind of work when every single time this government tables a budget in this House, we have to deal with hundreds of pages and dozens of amendments to our laws.

One example that hits close to home for my constituents is rail safety, which once again is in a budget bill. This is a very important issue for my constituents. In the past 30 or 40 years, there have been three major train derailments in downtown Montmagny alone. These are recent events in Quebec, and dozens of people burned alive after trains carrying explosive products derailed. This is a priority for us.

Now, cabinet decisions about changing the security standards for the transportation of dangerous goods will be kept secret. Cabinet decisions on this issue will remain secret. With these changes, the public will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken safety measures, and experts will not be able to advise the minister before the changes are implemented. There are clauses in this bill to allow that.

Where were the Conservatives last summer when we witnessed the worst rail tragedy in our country's history? How can the government then hide a few lines in an omnibus bill saying that from now on, cabinet decisions on rail safety will not be transparent and public? How can the government do such a thing? It is clear that it does not have even the slightest interest in public safety.

Temporary foreign workers are a more recent problem. The bill gives the Minister of Employment and Social Development the power to impose fines on employers who break the rules of the temporary foreign worker program. This program has been in complete chaos for the past three months as a result of the government's serious mismanagement. Recently, in Rivière-du-Loup, we had a visit from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Local television stations were there and recorded the whole thing. The minister promised that the moratorium would be lifted once the new procedures were put in place. The current moratorium is a cause of great concern for many small business owners who sometimes need to seek help from the temporary foreign worker program. As a result of the government's terrible mismanagement of this program, there is a moratorium in place. The abuses that led to this moratorium did not take place in Quebec City, Montmagny or Rivière-du-Loup, but elsewhere in the country.

It is now June 12. The minister obviously did not keep the formal commitment that he made in Rivière-du-Loup when he said that this problem would be resolved when the new procedures were implemented during the first week of June. The summer season, tourist season, is now upon us, and restaurants will have difficulty finding staff. They are wondering how they will find people to clean, wait tables and do dishes. We still have not received an answer.

It seems that the only solution the Conservatives are putting forward for the moment to improve the state of this program is a blacklist of employers who abuse the program. Believe it or not, there are only four companies on that list and they were all added since April 2014. They were added in a panic when the administrative nightmare began, as though the Conservatives were trying to save face at the last minute. It is unbelievable.

What intelligent and constructive measures could the Conservatives have included in this budget? They could have done away with the cuts to tax credits for credit union and labour-sponsored funds. These are extremely useful tools for the economic development of our regions. The Conservatives are attacking our regions with these cuts. They could have simplified the process whereby rural communities request and receive funding for infrastructure projects. Municipal officials have been waiting for nearly two years now to find out what the terms and conditions are for receiving funding under the new building Canada fund. The government announced $14 billion two years ago, but municipal officials still do not know what it takes to receive funding for their municipalities. They do not know anything about the documentation, the terms or the standards. It has been nearly two years. This is an absolute farce. These issues should have been resolved immediately after the budget was tabled. The list goes on and on.

The NDP will not support this budget because it does not address the real problems and it contains no real solutions.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

We are talking about Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. We have heard a lot of talk by all members of the House today about Canada's economy and our fiscal performance over the years.

It is appropriate to start my speech by going over some metrics, some actual numbers that tell Canadians what the performance of the government has been since Conservatives took office in 2006 until the end of 2013, which is where we have our most recent numbers.

The amount spent by the Conservative government on advertising since 2009, touting its economic action plans, is $113 million. The national unemployment rate in Canada in 2006, just before the government took office, was 6.6%. Today it is 7.2%. The national unemployment rate of youth in 2006 at the time the Conservatives took office was 12.2%. Today it is over 14%.

Among 34 OECD nations in employment creation in the 2006-13 time period, Canada ranks 20th. The number of annual consecutive deficits filed by the government is six. The number of budget deficit targets hit by Conservative finance ministers since 2006 is zero.

The amount added to Canada's national federal debt since the Conservative government came to power in 2006 is $123.5 billion. The portion of total federal debt that we have in Canada today, accumulated just since the government came to power in 2006, is one-fifth.

The per cent increase in the real average hourly wage of Canadians in 2006-13 is zero. The percentage drop in productivity, that is the GDP per employee in our country from 2006-13, is negative 1.9%.

In terms of trade, which is the area of my responsibility to watch and critique the government on, when the government came to power in 2006, Canada had a current account surplus of $20.4 billion. That is the total of all goods, services and investments going in and out of the country. At the end of 2013, we had a deficit of $60.4 billion. That is an $80 billion swing to the negative in the last seven years, over $10 billion of lost goods, services and investment in our country for each and every year that the government has been in power.

The merchandise trade deficit that exists in Canada today is a staggering $110.4 billion. That means that we import $110.4 billion more of manufactured items, the kind of items that characterize modern industrial economies, than we export. That is not surprising because under the current government, since 2006, the percentage of Canada's exports that are raw resources has gone up by 50%.

Quantitatively and qualitatively the trade performance of the government has been a disaster, no less a figure than former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said that the single biggest drag on the Canadian economy had been the government's underperformance in trade.

My hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is our finance critic now, talked about 2008 and what the real state of affairs was then. I happen to be fortunate enough to be sent here by the good people of Vancouver Kingsway at that time, so I was in the House in October 2008 as well, and I campaigned in that election.

I remember the Prime Minister, who was touted as an economist, during the campaign in September 2008 when asked if there was a recession coming, said that a recession was a “ridiculous hypothetical”.

I was in the House with many other members in October 2008, when the finance minister tabled an economic update that projected a surplus for the next year and projected an austerity budget, only to be hit within a matter of weeks with the biggest recession to hit this country since the Great Depression. Neither the Prime Minister, through his economics training, nor the finance minister, with the full resources of the Department of Finance, with all of the tools at their disposal, could forecast that Canada was headed for a massive recession.

I want to talk about the deficit position of this country. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited seven consecutive budget surpluses that averaged $12 billion. From 2006 to 2008, the government cut the GST by two percentage points. With each percentage point cut, federal government revenue was reduced by $6 billion. With that one move alone, the government had essentially eliminated the budgetary surplus, and it would have put Canada at balanced budget with just that one move.

However, the Conservatives did more. They made a policy decision to carry on with the Liberals' orgy of corporate tax cuts to go from 27% down to 21%. The Conservative government took corporate tax rates from 21% down to 15%—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her excellent question. I must pay tribute to her obsession with the co-operative movement, which she advocates fervently.

This brings me to another specific aspect of Bill C-31, specifically greater openness to demutualization. As a parallel with the co-operative movement, both mutual insurance companies and co-operatives, whether they be financial, labour or housing co-ops, are avenues for economic activity, job creation, and wealth creation. Mutual insurance companies are a very viable option that make it possible for people to get proper insurance and get around situations where the more traditional for-profit insurance companies often exclude them, preventing them from getting insurance.

These particularly important economic alternatives must be supported, as they make people more accountable and give them an opportunity to control their own lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from York South—Weston for agreeing to share his time with me.

Once again, the Conservatives have imposed time allocation, and they should be ashamed. This move was completely arbitrary and shows disrespect for the Canadians we are here to represent.

The government is abusing its majority, and it is not shy at all about doing so, which shows its contempt not only for the legality and constitutionality of the measures set out in this omnibus bill, but also for common sense and the basic social convention of mutual respect. These values seem completely foreign to the Conservatives' way of thinking.

As the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I am going to take the time that I have been given to come back to a very specific aspect of this bill that is buried somewhere in its 350 pages. This aspect affects the Comité vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou, which is a group that was created by individuals, parents of children who attend an elementary school located just a few metres away from a major railway line that connects the Port of Québec to the rest of the province. The goods that are received at the Port of Québec are shipped to other locations across Canada and the rest of North America.

This committee was established by the people who are considered to be its spokespersons: Xavier Robidas and Sébastien Bouchard. They were very active last March. As soon as I saw the announcement about this committee starting up, I got in touch with these parents, who were legitimately worried. I would like to tell the House about the very simple objective of this watchdog committee. Members can read it for themselves on the committee's Facebook page.

It says:

The [committee] wants to ensure that rail transportation is safe, that stakeholders communicate [with the population] and that they do so with transparency.

It is very simple and is based on common sense. After the Lac-Mégantic disaster last year, this very credible and legitimate request has been voiced across North America by Canadian and U.S. citizens and even by people from other parts of the world.

With the exception of some very particular extremist elements in our society, people generally agree that we live in an environment where dangerous substances, among other things, are transported. That is part of life. It is a risk that we accept when it happens within safety parameters that allow people to be demanding, and rightly so.

We would have expected the Canadian government to do something about this fear and the legitimate desire for minimum safety standards and, above all, to ensure that information is provided so that people know what to expect with respect to the transportation of dangerous substances by rail.

Aviation fuel and a number of chemical products—not to mention solid bulk, including the famous nickel, an issue I have been working on for almost two years already—are transported through Beauport—Limoilou on the railway line monitored by the members of the Comité vigilance ferroviaire Limoilou.

Coal and all kinds of potentially volatile substances, such as petroleum coke, are transported as well. An awful lot of dust can get stirred up into the air and then settle in the area, contaminating the residents and nearby school grounds. There are four schools near the rail line.

This is something that we must take on and manage. My colleagues and I have a responsibility to listen to concerns, reflect on the situation and propose constructive solutions. That is not what is happening with Bill C-31.

Unfortunately, if Bill C-31 passes all the stages, the government will be able to amend and repeal numerous rail safety regulations without even notifying the public. That makes no sense because, currently, people are able to find out about any existing regulations that have been amended or eliminated, and they can do that through legitimate and perfectly transparent means. It will take a majority to support this monster bill, and the Conservatives are the only ones who would dare blindly support it.

If Bill C-31 is passed, cabinet decisions about changes to safety standards related to the rail transportation of dangerous goods will now be kept secret. I hope that some of my Conservative colleagues will wake up before it is too late.

We are familiar with the culture of secrecy that exists, particularly within the PMO, but there are limits. Considering what the people of Beauport—Limoilou are demanding, with good reason, and for that reason alone, I will be voting against this bill.

Moreover, because of these amendments, not only will citizens not be informed, but subject matter experts will not be able to provide their opinions to the minister before the amendments take effect. God knows how little anyone listens to them anyway, considering what I have seen at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

In other words, the government will pass measures in the dark, the experts will then have their say, and the minister will be free to ignore them. This is a familiar refrain. I have asked questions about activities at the Port of Québec and nickel dust contamination so often that I am not really surprised that they are still doing things this way.

Unfortunately, despite my interest in just three or four clauses in this bill, which contains nearly 500, for the fourth time, as my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out, the government has forced us to deal with a monster, an omnibus, a hodgepodge of different measures that have nothing to do with the Minister of Finance's mission.

Once again, the government is demonstrating its total lack of respect for all Canadians, including those who support the Conservative Party. It is imposing its will while carefully maintaining its cult of secrecy—its favourite way of doing business—and avoiding any display of the courage it takes to have a real debate.

I am glad I was able to once again discuss the gaps in rail safety and confirm my steadfast opposition to this government's way of doing things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-31. It is under time allocation, so not many members of my party will be able to speak to it.

This huge omnibus bill which, according to the member for Palliser, is very easy to read, does call into question some person's ability to have basic math skills, because math skills are some of what is necessary to actually follow the money. Some of the money that is announced in this budget bill and in government's budgets is money that is old money. It was here before.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Like the current Ontario Conservative leader, math is not the Conservatives' strong suit.

One of the things about the bill is something called FACTA, which is a U.S. legislation that we are now imposing on Canadians. That U.S. legislation applies to Canadian citizens, according to the government, who happen to be considered American citizens by the U.S. government.

The legislation before us would require Canadian banks to disclose personal, private information to the U.S. government through the Canada Revenue Agency at some unknown cost. Again, being math challenged, the Conservatives have not figured out just how much this will cost us. The banks estimate it would have cost them $100 million per bank to implement FACTA and now it is being passed on to the CRA. The CRA will then have to cost that out and it will be taxpayers ultimately paying that cost. However, that is not the worst part of this.

This legislation would give the American government, through our own government, the personal, private information of Canadian citizens. We are now discovering that this has happened through the CPIC database with personal medical information being shared with the U.S. government to stop people at the border, to prevent them travelling. Do we really want to help another government to tax Canadian citizens, people born here who have never been to the United States in their lives?

Maybe the members opposite do not understand what the U.S. government has decided. It has decided that some individuals who were born in Canada and have never lived in the United States are now U.S. citizens. Those people are U.S. citizens because their parents happen to be U.S. citizens. Therefore, it is the parents of children who cause the children to be deemed to be dual citizens by the U.S. and therefore caught by FACTA. They are dual in Canada, but they are U.S. citizens under the U.S. law.

Let me tell members about a woman in Calgary whose son is caught in this dilemma. He is disabled and he has filed his U.S. taxes. His mother filed them for him. It cost his mother thousands of dollars because our government has not negotiated a tax treaty with the U.S. that allows the individuals in Canada to be treated the same under the law in Canada as they are in the U.S.

If the members opposite would stop shouting, I could actually explain this to you, Mr. Speaker.

Those individuals who have disability tax credits in Canada are not allowed that exemption in the U.S., so they have to pay taxes in the U.S., thousands of dollars of taxes. He cannot renounce his citizenship because the U.S. government will not let him.

There is laughter across the way because they do not understand this situation. The individual is mentally challenged and the U.S. government will not allow him to withdraw his U.S. citizenship—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this budget bill at third reading. I also had a chance to speak at second reading and at report stage.

This bill is so huge. It is over 350 pages long and amends, repeals or adds some sixty laws. We have criticized this process many times over. However, it seems this is becoming the usual way of doing business for the Conservative government. It puts forward a series of measures, even though many of them should be studied in greater depth. I will mention several of them in my speech, as I did in my previous speeches.

This is the government's usual way of doing things, but parliamentary tradition dictates that omnibus bills have always been an exception to the rule to be used under very special circumstances. This is highly deplorable.

If we just want to cover the content, I will be able to discuss only a few of the issues. I have already talked about the creation of rules for the demutualization of mutual insurers, which will be bad for policyholders, who do not really have any rights in this process. They stand to lose a lot compared to the mutual policyholders, whose rights are somewhat more substantial and who are the ones making this decision, motivated by greed.

When a company demutualizes, it becomes a corporation and can merge with another company or be purchased. Only a handful of people share in the profits, while hundreds of thousands of others do not and even lose some of the assets they had with that insurance policy.

As we can see from the section of the bill on the Champlain Bridge, the government wants to impose a toll on the bridge, but it is not considering the impact on traffic and Quebec's economy. The goods that move across the Champlain Bridge account for 19% to 20% of Quebec's GDP. There will be serious consequences.

For members from the Toronto area, this would be like deciding overnight to put a toll on the Don Valley Parkway because it was just paved. It makes no sense. No witnesses in committee supported the government's stance on this, yet the Conservatives are moving forward without amendment.

I also spoke about a measure that the Conservatives brought in last year on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. The bill contains more measures associated with eliminating the tax credit. I am not going to talk about these issues right away, because I would like to talk about the bigger picture of what the Conservatives have done.

I represent the beautiful riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, where the economy can range from one extreme to the other, from very promising to weak. For example, Rimouski-Neigette has the Technopole Maritime.

The city created a vocation for itself with its institutions, such as the Université du Québec à Rimouski, the Rimouski CEGEP, the Institut maritime du Québec and research centres such as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. This institute is not in my riding, but many researchers who work there live in my riding, since it is just a few kilometres away. The Maurice Lamontagne Institute is one of the main Canadian institutes specializing in oceanography and marine environments, particularly in the St. Lawrence.

All of this has helped Rimouski develop a specialty in marine research and marine biotechnology development. Many companies have moved in to take advantage of this research and momentum. Rimouski did the right thing by specializing.

However, I represent two other RCMs, the Témiscouata and Basques RCMs, which have their own challenges. With respect to per capita income, a recent report by the Institut de la statistique du Québec indicates that these two RCMs are now the poorest in Quebec.

It is not because of a lack of work. On the contrary, Trois-Pistoles and the superb Basques area have taken advantage of this natural beauty to develop their tourism industry.

I can personally attest to the entrepreneurial spirit of the people of Témiscouata. When they have a business gala, it is attended by just as many businesses, people and participants as would attend such an event in the City of Rimouski, which is three times larger than the entire Témiscouata RCM.

There really is an entrepreneurial spirit, but the situation is difficult. They could use the government's support to move forward.

I spoke about the Conservative era and the fact that since the 2011 budgets, or when the Conservative government gained a majority, the complete opposite has happened. I would like to remind members that the Conservatives' slogan during the election was “Our regions in power”. All the decisions concerning the regions have had negative repercussions.

The Rimouski region lost the employment insurance processing centre and the Canada Revenue Agency office. Although the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute is not in the riding, cuts there had a significant impact on the Technopole maritime, namely the closure of the ecotoxicology department and the firing of a number of scientists.

The various measures that have been taken with respect to research and development—in particular the ones that have redirected funding, in various ways, from basic research towards applied research—have had a major impact on the Technopole Maritime, ISMER and the institutional community.

There have also been cuts to employment insurance. I mentioned that Les Basques has something quite unique. The people there have developed a very professional niche tourism market. Tourism is a seasonal industry.

Témiscouata relies heavily on forestry. That is another seasonal industry. The people there also depend on tourism, which is a seasonal industry.

Those RCMs—including Neigette, the area surrounding Rimouski—still rely a great deal on agriculture, which accounts for 12% of the Lower St. Lawrence economy.

All of the measures included in the employment insurance reform have had overwhelmingly negative effects on regions such as the one where I live and that I represent, where the economy largely depends on seasonal industries.

With their budgets and economic measures, the Conservatives have impoverished regions such as the ones in eastern Quebec that I have the honour, pleasure and privilege of representing.

What is in this budget bill? Are there measures that will correct the excesses we saw in the previous budgets? Of course not.

We have a pile of bills that are combined in one document. This bill affects the appointment of judges and will add seats to the Quebec Superior Court as well as the one in Alberta. The bill also deals with the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act and rail regulations. The Railway Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Act are amended by this bill.

Now, changes to regulations will no longer have to be published in the Canada Gazette. Why is that? It is because the government went back to consult stakeholders again, so the general public does not need to be informed of changes to the regulations. That is what we discussed at the Standing Committee on Finance.

Especially with the year we have had, it makes no sense to deal with an issue as sensitive as the Railway Safety Act and amendments to the regulations, made without transparency perhaps, and to discuss it at the Standing Committee on Finance. Is there some logic behind this? No, there is not. The government has never wanted to provide reasons to justify the use of omnibus bills.

I could talk more about 30 different divisions in part VI that pertain to about 30 different departments, not to mention all the extremely technical amendments, such as the changes to the GST, measures to counter tax evasion or all the tax measures in the bill.

This was already mentioned by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, but I would like to point out that this is not the first time that the government has been forced to make corrections in a budget bill or that we have had to correct errors found in previous budget bills that were pushed through without amendment because the Conservatives obviously rejected all our amendments.

For example, this bill creates—that is how the government wants to present it—a GST exemption for hospital parking. The Conservative government was so pleased with this that it even sent out a press release stating that the government was again reducing our taxes by exempting hospital parking from the GST. Did it mention that the Conservatives had eliminated the exemption last year? Certainly not.

We have pointed out the problem with other measures in budget bills. It is the official opposition's role not only to oppose, but also to make proposals and point out flaws in bills so that the government can take note and make the necessary corrections. We are all here for all Canadians. That does not seem to be the case because, as I was saying, none of our amendments have been accepted, at least not for the four omnibus bills I have seen, with the exception of just one element in this bill. We proposed an amendment that was adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance, but even that took a Conservative amendment to the amendment. It took some doing and certainly was not easy to get adopted. It is therefore an NDP-Conservative amendment.

I wonder why we have to rush all these bills through so quickly, with all their flaws. The government systematically refuses to correct the flaws, even when tax experts and constitutional experts point them out.

In the time I have left, I would like to address two specific issues I have not covered in previous readings. The first is a measure that affects the Trade-marks Act. I mentioned it in a question I asked my colleague. This change to the Trade-marks Act alone is 50 pages long. We had between an hour and a half and three hours to discuss this issue and 12 others at the same time. Obviously, we cannot really get into the issues in such a short amount of time. What is more, the NDP does not even get the chance to call witnesses to discuss and analyze bills and laws appropriately.

The Trade-marks Act is extremely technical and drab. I will not dwell on it, but I must say that Canada's economic sector is extremely concerned. The government is telling us that this will make us compliant with the international agreements it has concluded. However, there are a number of ways to get there, not just one. In this case, the economic community, the business community, starting with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is opposed to these measures.

I have here an article from National Magazine, which is published by the Canadian Bar Association. When representatives of the association appeared before the committee, they expressed concern about the changes to the Trade-marks Act. I will quote the article:

If anything, Bill C-31 has accomplished one impressive feat. It has provoked a virtually unanimous response by trade-mark professionals. Law firms and other professional firms across Canada have openly criticized Bill C-31’s changes to the Trade-marks Act....

Why these changes have been proposed and who suggested them in the first place remain a mystery. Notwithstanding that, the bigger question is whether (and how) the government reacts to the outcry regarding Bill C-31’s Trade-marks Act amendments.

The Canadian Bar Association knows that the government has not reacted at all. It rejected all of the amendments we proposed. We had a series of amendments on this particular issue.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley briefly mentioned that administrative tribunals will be merged. The government wants to merge 11 administrative tribunals. It wants to merge their funding and give the Treasury Board more discretionary powers over these special tribunals. That is extremely problematic. Numerous experts who are familiar with the tribunals pointed out all of the weaknesses, problems and shortcomings that would be created if these tribunals are merged.

My colleague mentioned the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the fact that merging this tribunal with the 10 others could create serious problems. We may also contravene the international obligations we have as a member of the World Trade Organization. That is a serious accusation, to the point where the Canadian Bar Association issued at least four warnings about Bill C-31 and addressed various components that affect the association directly or that will have an impact on the profession. The association has been very active with regard to this bill.

Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, a tax expert with the Canadian Bar Association, appeared before the committee and made a very bold statement. She said that Canada's international reputation is on the line.

Canada's international reputation is on the line because of a measure that the government is trying to pass off as purely administrative. Did the government even heed that warning? No. None of the proposed amendments were accepted.

Two of the tribunals they want to merge are the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. These are the people who are whistleblowers, who report wrongdoing in their workplace. These people need special protection, but that protection is being compromised because more discretionary powers will be given to the Treasury Board president. He spends a lot of time overseeing the machinery of government, and he is in a position of power with respect to various services that may have employed these whistleblowers.

How is a whistleblower, who is already in a pretty vulnerable position, supposed to feel comfortable going ahead, and how can he feel fully protected by a tribunal that will be merged with several others to make one single tribunal, while greater powers are being given to the Treasury Board president? This is someone who can take steps to cut back the tribunal's funding and logistics. That would give him undue influence, a fact that really worried the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

I want to say a little more about the intergovernmental agreement. I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks on the subject. I do not necessarily agree with him, but his remarks provided information, and I really appreciate that. Once again, that did not justify the need to negotiate this issue extremely quickly because there are privacy concerns. The Privacy Commissioner and other witnesses raised those concerns.

One thing to note about this tax treaty between Canada and the United States is that it is not an information exchange because the information is flowing in one direction only. It is a tax treaty designed to comply with the United States' unilateral measure, FATCA. This measure could jeopardize dual citizens holding both Canadian and American citizenship. They could be seen as Americans who would have to pay the United States a portion of everything they have ever earned, even if they have lived their whole lives or almost their whole lives in Canada, paying what are, in many cases, higher taxes in Canada.

There is something else my colleague and I have in common, since both of our ridings border Maine. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when it was much easier to cross the border, many Canadians, either from Témiscouata or New Brunswick, often gave birth in the United States and then returned to Canada. They did this because hospitals and health care were lacking. Children were therefore born in the United States, but never lived there and were immediately brought back to Canada. These people could be considered Americans and could be subject to this agreement. That is a very serious concern that has not yet been addressed. Since we had more time, it would have been good to study this provision separately and more carefully, in order to identify the weaknesses.

We need to respond to FATCA and propose an agreement. We cannot accept just any agreement. We need an agreement that takes all of these concerns into consideration.

I could go on about this for hours. I will stop here, but I do want to answer questions from my colleagues and probably expand on these ideas.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, for the minister and for those in the House who may be “Hooked on Phonics”, I think I should just kind of go through the name of my riding so people can kind of get it.

It is Tobique—Mactaquac. One person told me one time it is like “toe” of a foot, “bic” like the “Bic” pen, Tobique; then Mactaquac would be like if there was a duck named Mac and someone was going to teach Mac to quack. Then we would be good to go. That is just for future reference.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-31 concerning our government’s economic action plan 2014. As we know, many measures are really crucial for our economy, and that is why I support Bill C-31.

It is not possible to discuss all the clauses, but in the time I am allowed this evening I would like to talk about two things. First, I would like to address the clause that creates a stable environment in the area of income tax, and more specifically the Financial Administration Act. Second, I would like to share a few observations on the provisions concerning the implementation of the Canada—United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement.

There is a clause concerning financial administration, and more specifically the initiative that I proposed in my private member’s bill, that will improve transparency when there are potential changes to our Income Tax Act.

When the Certified General Accountants Association testified before the committee, it said that clause 31 required the Minister of Finance to table a list of legislative proposals in Parliament every year. The first version of this bill proposed to include the legislative proposals announced publicly that were not enacted by Parliament since the last federal election, not all proposals.

The committee decided to amend that clause because it thought we could improve clause 31 significantly by amending it. In its initial form, the clause required that the minister report only on the tax measures proposed during the current Parliament. Accordingly, the list tabled would not include the numerous tax measures that were already in the wings before the current Parliament took office.

The committee members adopted the CGAs' recommendation, and we amended the Public Finance Act. Now, the Minister of Finance has to present cumulative reports, not just the changes since the last election.

In addition to that, it would also provide for the government a 12-month lag for a new minister, after an election, to file their first report of these unlegislated tax measures.

I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for working together to incorporate constructive suggestions from CGA-Canada to improve clause 31.

I would like to spend a little time on the enhanced Canada-U.S. tax exchange agreement and cover a number of topics under this. First is a bit of the history of where we are and how we got here, a bit of what FATCA is and what it is not, and what the repercussions would have been if we had just let FATCA happen as opposed to taking the initiative to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S.

I would also like to talk a bit about the due diligence processes that are going to be in place for the banks, as well as the exceptions from reporting for the banks. I maintain that the changes and the intergovernmental agreement that we have negotiated is a good agreement to protect as many Canadians as we possibly can.

The U.S. has had a taxation on citizenship since 1913. It is one of only two countries in the world, the other being Eritrea, that has that kind of taxation. Most, like Canada, tax on residence, but the U.S. does not.

In fact, that was challenged in the early 1920s, through the Constitution, in the U.S., as being unconstitutional. That constitutional challenge was actually defeated. Here we are with U.S. citizens required to pay taxes in the U.S.

We all agree, and I do not think anybody in our committee disagrees, that FATCA is overreaching, on the part of the U.S. There is no question about it. We are left with the situation where, as a government that deals with the 28 other countries that have signed intergovernmental agreements, and there are about 33 that are actually working toward agreements in principle now, we have to learn to deal with this in order to protect as many citizens as we can.

In the discussions we had with the U.S. Treasury, this spring, in Washington, it was pretty evident that the U.S. Treasury, in spite of some of the lobbying we did, was not hearing any of it and that FATCA was still going to exist. The fact that FATCA was passed in 2010 means that is how the U.S. was going to apply that law.

With that in mind, we have a choice. Do we just let FATCA happen, as it is and as it was passed by the U.S.? Or do we try to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement in the best interests of Canadians based upon what we are going to have to deal with? Because it is a false choice to say that we can opt out of FATCA. We cannot opt out of FATCA. There is no way we can opt out of FATCA.

If we let FATCA happen, then we are going to be faced with up to a 30% withholding tax on the transfers coming in, not only to banks, but also to individuals. As we know, there are a lot of investments that are U.S.-denominated and there is going to be a 30% withholding. As we heard in committee, that is not just a withholding tax. It is not a withholding against tax. It is a withholding tax. Essentially, there is potentially double taxation.

There are also potential privacy issues if we just let FATCA go the way it is because, then the IRS is going to negotiate individual agreements with every bank. That is what is going to have to happen. And every bank that wants to continue to do that is either going to have to suck up the 30% withholding or it is going to have to come up with an agreement to actually transfer this information to the IRS.

Also, it could get so crazy, to the point where banks would actually have to turn down clients if they ask them, “Are you a U.S. citizen?” They would have to turn them down, under the way FATCA is worded.

With the IGA and the intergovernmental agreement that we have, there is no withholding tax. The transfer of information that is going to be transferred between Canada and the U.S. will actually go through existing tax exchange agreements. It will go through the CRA, to the IRS, and it will be used very strictly within the rules and regulations of that information transfer. That is a very important concept.

Also, it would ensure that we have that privacy kept and it would also allow the banks to take on U.S. clients.

I want to talk a bit about due diligence. When we talk about due diligence, Canada did really well in the negotiations of the due diligence of this agreement because accounts under $50,000 are not even reportable. Accounts between $50,000 and $1 million are done through an electronic scan. If there do not happen to be any U.S. indicia on the account, such as a U.S. tax identification number, a U.S. address, or some other U.S. identifier, then that account is not reported. All of a sudden this million people we are starting to talk about in Canada might be impacted. When we take out the underage people who might not even have a bank account, we are squeezing this down to a very small number of people. If the account is over $1 million, then, in addition to the electronic scan, there will be a manual search in case of U.S. indicia.

I would suggest that the individuals with accounts over $1 million do have the wherewithal, in that case, if they happen to be U.S. citizens, to deal with that and its challenges and to actually ensure that they do the proper filings. It is important to understand that those are some of the things in there. Not only that, we filtered out the RRSPs, the RESPs, and even the agriculture accounts.

Furthermore, there is a favoured nations clause in there so that if a better deal comes around, as time progresses, Canada will be able avail itself of better clauses.

I have heard a lot about FATCA. Most of what I have heard is that there is a lot of mix-up between the filing of taxes, which has been an obligation for U.S. citizens since 1913, and this obligation, which is on the transfer of information through the CRA to the IRS under existing processes. They are two separate things.

Furthermore, I would maintain that the deal that was signed, the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the U.S., is the utmost best we can do from the standpoint of protecting taxpayers. We have done very well when we compare ourselves to the 28 other countries that have agreements with the U.S.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak in the debate on Bill C-31 concerning the budget. We can say from the start that this budget will not go down in history, for a number of reasons.

First, there is nothing in this budget to help middle-class families overcome or improve difficult situations in their lives. Second, there are no possibility whatsoever of creating jobs. Ultimately, this budget does nothing to stimulate the Canadian economy. We are well aware that there will be an election in 2015. This budget is therefore a strategy that is being put forward.

An omnibus bill over 300 pages long that deals with a little of everything is a catch-all. Among the things it deals with are railway safety and the Champlain Bridge. There is a multitude of information in this bill, when we really do not have the time to debate each of its elements in depth.

I would say, however, that there are some positive points in this budget. For example, I could mention the program established for whistleblowers, in spite of the fact that the government cannot tell us, for example, how much money that program is going to generate or how much it will cost. It also contains measures to raise the adoption tax credit and the credit for certain medical expenses, as well as lowering the GST on health services.

What I am going to focus on tonight is the government’s attitude toward the confidentiality of personal information. There are two places in this bill where Canadians’ privacy is attacked. To begin, my colleague has just talked about FATCA, and that is indeed the first element. The second element is the sharing of information between the Canada Revenue Agency and the police.

We will start with FATCA. We know that FATCA is an acronym that refers to an American law. An agreement that has been made with the Minister of Finance affects Canadians who are dual nationals, and that affects about a million people.

Under that agreement, Canadian banks will now give information about those people to the Canada Revenue Agency, and that agency will do the dirty work of transmitting the information to the IRS, the American counterpart of the Canada Revenue Agency. This is what was recently signed. We are truly appalled by it, because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate.

The other element concerns the sharing of information with the police. Today, I put the question directly to the Minister of National Revenue, because the purpose of clause 28 of this bill is to allow any official of the Canada Revenue Agency to transmit personal and confidential information to any police force, without the taxpayers’ consent. This is a frontal attack on Canadian tax confidentiality. This clause violates the right to liberty. It is going to lead to unreasonable searches. That is why we must not go ahead with clause 28.

In fact, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this point, in Jarvis and in Ling. Those decisions hold that once an audit becomes an investigation, in particular for tax fraud, the taxpayer’s rights as guaranteed by the Charter come into play. Failure to caution the taxpayer about the possible use of the information obtained in a criminal proceeding is a violation of the rights guaranteed under section 7.

This violates the principles prohibiting self-incrimination.

I am wondering what the Conservatives hope to change with section 28. I spent almost 20 years at the Canada Revenue Agency. As a fellow chartered professional accountant, I understand these situations. The Income Tax Act clearly sets out the circumstances under which a government official cannot obtain information. I am talking specifically about subsection 241(1), which states:

Except as authorized by this section, no official...of a government entity shall...knowingly provide, or knowingly allow to be provided, to any person any taxpayer information...

It clearly states “except”, but under what circumstances? Subsection 241(3.1) stipulates that government officials can provide information if people are in danger. Subsection 241(3) stipulates that information can be provided when criminal activity is involved.

Right now, when Canada Revenue Agency auditors come across criminal information in the course of their duties, they have a duty to provide that information to special investigations through a liaison officer. That way, a clear distinction is made between the civil audit and the criminal investigation. Once the file has been sent to special investigations, investigators will meet with the taxpayer, if they decide to take the case.

However, they must first inform the taxpayer that he is under investigation since they have the authority to conduct searches. They have a lot of authority but they always require approval from a judge to exercise it. The result is that the auditors can impose civil penalties while the investigators can seek a conviction. These taxpayers could spend up to two years in prison.

To come back to the amendment to section 28, if a Canada Revenue Agency official gives information to the police and the police decides to use it to conduct a search and take things farther, can the police actually use that information if the taxpayer did not give his consent to the Canada Revenue Agency to share the information with the police? This would automatically compromise the evidence that the police could use to convict that person.

I am therefore wondering why the Conservatives want to go there. I do not understand. This is part of the Conservatives' philosophy. They have no interest in the privacy of Canadian taxpayers. Their philosophy is to move forward, regardless of the situation and without regard for people's privacy. That is not right. We need to put a stop to that. We must remove the amendment to section 28 from this bill because it puts at risk Canadian taxpayers who are in this type of situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech, especially the part about trademarks. For two and a half years I was a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that studied intellectual property and trademarks extensively.

Like my colleague, I was extremely surprised to see that a large part of the budget implementation bill concerned trademarks. The bill should have been split.

I would like the member to further comment on the impact that implementing Bill C-31 will have on Canada's economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by setting the table a bit in terms of the budget discussion we are having right now and draw to my colleague's attention the May 3 edition of The Economist magazine article on the Canadian economy, which states:

Maple, resting on laurels

Canada has not learned every crisis lesson...

[Canada's] post-crisis glow is fading.

It credits Canada's success is coming through the downturn better than other countries to three factors: first, a strong banking system, which accredits the previous Liberal government for having maintained a strong prudential regulatory framework and not following the U.S. and European models of deregulation; second, the strong fiscal situation that the current government inherited, the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of the country; and, third, oil and gas and minerals that we have under the ground and off the shore of Newfoundland. I think most of us realize that no single government or party is responsible for putting the oil and gas under the ground and we all know that it is Danny Williams who put it under the water off Newfoundland.

Given the fact that the government cannot necessarily take credit for all the success in coming through the downturn, it is important, though, the government recognize that things are not going so well right now. Hence, The Economist saying that Canada's post-crisis glow is fading. It actually cites the reality that our economy is growing more slowly than the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. It speaks to the IMF projecting growth will be around 2% this year, which is very anemic. Our employment rate is still below pre-crisis levels and Canada ranks fifth in the G7 for job creation since 2008. That is in The Economist magazine.

Just to set the table, it is important that all parties realize that we have our work cut out for us and the economy is not growing as quickly as that of many of our peer countries within not just the G7 but the OECD, and there is a lot of work to be done to develop good, full-time jobs. We have lost 27,000 full-time jobs in the last year. Full-time jobs are being replaced by part-time work.

As I rise to speak on Bill C-31, there is nothing really in this budget implementation act to deal with some of these issues. There are a lot of other things that have nothing to do with the fiscal framework of the country at all. I would like to go back to the days when budget bills were actually about the budget and were actually written by the Department of Finance as opposed to all these other departments and agencies which have only a peripheral connection to budget issues.

The Conservatives have taken to cramming their budget bills full of measures that simply do not belong in them. This year's omnibus bill includes changes to trademark law, rail safety, designations of rank at the Department of National Defence, the virtual museum of Canada, administrative tribunals, and the number of federal judges. It is a bit of a dog's breakfast in a kitchen sink bill. These measures simply have no business being in a budget bill.

It does not make any sense for the finance committee to be tasked with examining rail safety issues. In fact, it should be the transport committee that not only evaluates these measures, but ultimately votes on them at the committee.

To make matters worse, the Conservatives have introduced a lot of these changes without public consultation. They jam a bill to the point of bursting, ram it through Parliament, ignore public consultations, basically avoid real debate and also miss the opportunity for proper scrutiny. Hence, there are measures in this budget implementation act to correct mistakes in previous budget implementation acts.

In terms of trademarks, three weeks ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce issued a call to action to their members in response to the trademark provisions of Bill C-31. Canadian entrepreneurs, who are the real job creators of our country, are concerned that Bill C-31 would remove the requirement to use a trademark before it could be registered.

We have heard from chambers across the country, from Surrey, Burnaby, Kamloops, Leduc, Winnipeg, Sudbury, Sarnia, Oakville, Milton, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, East Kawartha, Haliburton Highlands, Northumberland, Fredericton, Gander, Beaverton, Winkler and the Northwest Territories. These chambers of commerce have contacted us to say that Bill C-31 and these changes to the trademark provisions will increase the cost of doing business in Canada and will make Canada a less competitive country.

They are concerned that Bill C-31 will lead to trademark trolls and greater levels of litigation. They ask that the trademark provision of the bill be removed. They take great exception to the fact that they have not been consulted by the government.

We have heard from specific companies, including Giant Tiger, Sobeys, Credit Union Central of Canada and PepsiCo. These businesses that operate in Canada and employ a lot of Canadians are offering their valuable advice and professional expertise on an issue with which they have great familiarity.

However, instead of listening, the Conservatives have basically ignored their concerns and dismissed them out of hand. In fact, at the finance committee the Conservatives attacked the credibility of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. They actually questioned the chamber's true motives and suggested it was just self-interested lawyers who wanted to maximize fees, not employers who wanted to grow the economy and hire more Canadians.

There has been a lot of discussion on FATCA. Members of the business community are not the only ones who are being squeezed by Bill C-31. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are left out in the cold. The minister and even some finance officials could not actually answer the question of how many Canadians would be affected. The reality is that it is about a million Canadians who are caught in this dragnet.

Bill C-31 includes the intergovernmental agreement, or the IGA with the U.S., to implement FATCA. This should not be in a budget bill; it should be before the justice committee. There are strong foreign policy implications and issues of extraterritoriality. The agreement reached by the government is flawed. There are a lot of Canadians living in Canada with a connection to the U.S. They do not even know they are considered by the IRS to be taxable as Americans, in many cases.

The list includes persons born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have never lived in the U.S. While there are some exemptions for Canadian banks in terms of reporting, there are no exemptions for the Canadian citizens who happen to, in some cases almost by accident, be considered American taxpayers under this legislation.

One of the concerns that we have is that registered programs, for instance registered disability savings plans and registered education savings plans, these types of programs into which the Canadian government contributes matching grants to the investments made by Canadian citizens and taxpayers, those matching grants, we were told at committee and it was confirmed, will actually be considered taxable income by the IRS.

The intention, of course, of those matching grants by the Canadian taxpayer is to help young Canadians get an education or to help disabled Canadians benefit. It is not to effectively subsidize the U.S. Treasury.

These are some of the challenges in this legislation. Unfortunately with an omnibus bill, we have not been given the opportunity as parliamentarians to do our jobs properly and, at the appropriate committee, to scrutinize this massive, complex and unwieldy omnibus legislation by the Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-31. I would like to split my time with the member, my colleague from Bourassa.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent and passionate presentation today, exposing Bill C-31, the budget implementation act, for what it is.

In particular, I was here when the member asked a question of the parliamentary secretary concerning FATCA and the compliance cost of it. He pointed out that it was $100 million that one bank would have to spend in order to come into compliance with it. He mused about what the cost would be for the government to bring this into line, but he got absolutely no answer.

I wonder if the member could comment on what this lack of understanding says about the fiscal management style and relevance of the Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a resounding reception. New Democrats like this work thing, staying here late, working on budgets, working on bills, and trying to do the good work of Canadians.

I will refer my comments to my Conservative colleagues along the way, and hopefully there will be some good give and take in the questions and answers.

What we are debating here tonight here is Bill C-31. This is the debate that ought to be occurring, as opposed to what just happened in the speech from my friend across the way, which was all about fun things he wanted to talk about, some of it slightly based on fact but most of it based on spin from the Prime Minister's Office.

Bill C-31 is an omnibus bill of some 360 pages. I have to give some credit to the Conservatives for providing a lot of important education to Canadians on parliamentary procedure, such as prorogation and omnibus legislation. Many Canadians did not have any idea of what they were until the Conservatives started to abuse their power, and now they know what they are. For that bit of education about our parliamentary system, I thank the Conservatives. For the abuse of their power, I certainly do not.

In these 360 pages that affect more than 60 laws on the books in Canada, the Conservatives have buried all sorts of things that they hoped would not see the light of day. If they did, the tradition and pattern of the Conservative government would have been to lift them out and make them their own standing bit of legislation. They would have been elevated, with champagne and balloons and all sorts of good fun. However, they did not want Canadians to know about them.

Let us put to rest the idea that anything involved in the process of passing this bill has been anything short of a farce. The Conservatives are ramming through this legislation. Of course, like almost all legislation introduced by the government, it was put under what they called time allocation. That was another bit of education for Canadians on parliamentary tricks and tactics promoted by the government.

What time allocation does is shut down debate at every single stage. It closes off the number of MPs who can speak and it closes off the amount of scrutiny that we can apply to a very complicated piece of legislation. Many aspects of this legislation will affect the day-to-day lives of Canadians and the strength and veracity of our economy.

The Conservatives consistently put politics ahead of policy. They simply say that because they wish it so, so shall it be. What we see in this omnibus bill are fixes to the last omnibus bill, because they got it wrong. In that one there were fixes to the previous omnibus bill, because they got it wrong there too.

Why did Conservatives get it all wrong? It was because they did not listen. They have this incapacity to listen. I understand why they do not listen to the official opposition: it is because we have a naturally contrarian approach to what goes on in the House. It is quid pro quo, which is fine, but they not listen to experts either. They do not listen to academics or people in the business community. They do not listen to anybody.

That level of arrogance has been on a noticeable increase, much like the unemployment rate in Canada. That level of arrogance has grown steadily, just as the debt has grown under the Conservatives, with more than $140 billion tacked on for future generations to pay off.

When $140 billion is borrowed, $140 billion is not paid back. Anybody who has ever borrowed any kind of money at all knows that the amount paid back at the end of day, with interest and time, is much more than what was borrowed.

The Conservatives always talk about their care and concern for future generations. I remember the 2008 budget that was referred to earlier by my friend, and I love Conservative revisionist history. They are able to look back on things that happened and are in the record, in black and white, and then pretend them away if they do not like what they see.

The budget brought in by the Conservatives, right in the teeth of a global recession, was not a stimulus budget or a budget to help put Canadians back to work; it was an austerity budget. If I remember properly—and I do, because I was in the House and looked across as the Conservatives brought their budget in—it was meant to cut programs and services. The budget was meant to deprive the economy of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on the very cusp of a global downturn.

Why did the Conservatives reverse their position? It was not because they had any enlightenment as to how the economy actually works; it was because their own jobs were threatened with defeat.

As we will remember, right about that same time there was the threat of a coalition government. The Conservative government panicked, prorogued Parliament, and shut things down. Can anyone imagine this happening in other countries, by the way? There are some countries that come to mind, but none that we would ever want to imitate, not at all.

However, the government, about to face a vote of defeat, turned to the Queen's representative and said, “Let us get out of town, because we don't want to fall to the majority of MPs in the House.” That conversation is an entire speech.

As late finance minister Jim Flaherty joked, he said, “We're all Keynesians now.” Suddenly the Conservatives got religion on the idea that government has some role to play in the economy. Rather than doing what was suggested by all the experts, which is to directly infuse money into the economy in places where it would work, they instead invented all sorts of programs and the economic action plan. We still see the annoying ads and the billboards for them all over the place.

These measures cost tens of millions of dollars to roll out. They could instead have done something like an enhancement of the gas tax, which would have gone directly to municipalities that had projects ready to come off the shelf and onto the market. It took an extra year and a half for that money to actually touch the Canadian economy, thereby increasing the pain and suffering of those who had lost their jobs.

Even when Conservatives figured out that Keynesian economics is not the devil's work and even though they realized, finally, under threat of failure of their own government, that there was an important conversation to be had, they failed to do it properly and ended up spending tens of millions more than was required. That money was completely wasted.

Let us get back to Bill C-31.

As I raise points of criticism tonight, I would like my Conservative colleagues to acknowledge, and Canadians who are watching to realize, that despite all the criticisms New Democrats have raised, we did not just oppose what the government was doing. We actually brought forward proposals and amendments. We suggested changes to the bill that were based on the evidence we heard at committee. We did not hear a lot because, again, the Conservatives shut down the process and limited the number of voices that could be heard.

We were passing amendments to Canadian law. In the final stages of this bill, we were changing law every two minutes. This is what the Conservatives call oversight and accountability. They were making significant changes to Canadian law without any understanding of the repercussions and without bringing forward any witnesses.

Regardless, we brought substantive amendments. We brought even more at the previous stage of this bill that we are now debating tonight. Every single time—with one small exception, which was when I worked with my friend across the way for a technical fix on the bill—they were refused. Even when the evidence was overwhelmingly strong that the government had got it wrong and that the impacts were going to be disastrous for Canadians, Conservatives stubbornly refused.

We tried to be reasonable with them. The amendments were completely founded on the consensus we got from the witnesses, who understood many of these issues far better than any parliamentarian involved, and arrogantly and consistently the Conservatives refused every single one. We introduced nearly a thousand amendments on omnibus legislation, and the government was consistent in refusing all of them. What is ironic is that the fixes that are now in this omnibus bill to fix the last one were changes we attempted to make during that process and that debate, and Conservatives said no, no. They said they had it right.

Let us get into the actual details of the bill. I want to touch on one point that my friend raised earlier, the $14 million a year that is going to the NEB that is going to help with participation for Canadians. There are some tens of billions worth of projects on the docket as potential development projects, and the Conservatives offer up $14 million and want to slap themselves on the back.

Here is what they have actually done to environmental assessments in this country, according to the Auditor General. They can dispute the Auditor General if they so wish. By gutting the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, they have taken the average number of environmental assessments from 4,000 per year down to between 12 and 15 per year. These assessments are the public hearings on mines, new major builds, pipelines, and all the rest at which companies are forced to bring their science forward, their evidence and facts, and community members raise concerns. That is the process they engage in.

We are going to go, on average, from 4,000 of those assessments in Canada per year down to between 12 and 15 per year. I am not saying 12,000 or 15,000, but 12 or 15. All the other projects are simply going to get rubber-stamped and approved by the government with no public input, no hearings, no evidence, no science, none of it. One would think that a resource-based country like Canada would have learned from past mistakes. That is why we have the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Last year the federal government and all federal taxpayers put $160 million into Yukon alone to deal with old, abandoned mines that are leaking because they were built badly. What we said was, “When you get things wrong in resource development, it's expensive.” It is not just expensive for the environment; it is also expensive for taxpayers. Therefore, let us get smart. Let us evolve. Let us understand the impacts as well as we can before we build the project, rather than have to pay and clean up the mistakes afterwards.

Conservatives like to turn back the clock, as they so often do. They have been watching too many reruns of Leave it to Beaver to realize that the world has moved on. What the world has realized is that science is important. However, time and time again we see the government purposely make itself ignorant. I do not know if we have ever before seen a government of a G7 country that says it would rather not know much about the economy. The government cut 20% from the labour market assessment, so 20% of that budget is gone. It does not want to know what is going on in the labour market, but what it will do is bring in temporary foreign workers for any problem it perceives or for any anecdote it has from an employer.

Of course, that program has absolutely exploded. That program is addressed in the bill. That is one of the laws that is addressed in the bill. Here was a missed opportunity by the Conservatives to fix the obvious and known problems with the temporary foreign worker program. Did they do it? Not at all.

They are caught in a bit of a dichotomy here, because they keep saying that the program is fine, that it is strong, that they are hard on employers and have a blacklist they put them on. Oh, the terrifying blacklist. After two years, there are two employers nominally on the blacklist. One might think there have not been any abuses, but in Alberta alone last year, 160 cases of abuse of the temporary foreign worker program were raised. That is just one province. Obviously, the abuses are there.

There was an opportunity for a fix here, an opportunity for the government to pull back and close those massive loopholes that one could drive a pickup truck through. The Conservatives obviously got the temporary foreign worker program badly wrong.

The effect is not just the abuse on those temporary foreign workers. We in the NDP believe that if someone is good enough to come to Canada and work in Canada, they are good enough to eventually become a Canadian, as opposed to the indentured labour program that the Conservatives set up. Rather than fix those programs, they chose not to. It was another opportunity the government missed.

There was a program that was ragingly successful for small businesses, the true job creators in our country. Depending on the year, eight or nine out of every 10 new jobs in Canada are created by small and medium-sized businesses. These businesses are the ones that drive the economy, drive innovation, and absolutely support communities and families.

The Conservatives did something smart: they borrowed an idea from the NDP. They said if they were going to offer a tax cut to small businesses, which is a good thing, it should be connected to a job being created. I know it is a radical suggestion to say that if we give a tax break or a benefit of some kind to someone, they should give something back. The NDP said that was a good line to connect, that taxpayers would support that idea. Lo and behold, even the Conservatives supported it. It was the small business hiring tax credit, which half a million small businesses supported and applied to. It created those jobs that we so desperately need. With such a successful program, what did the Conservatives do? They cancelled it.

What was it the Prime Minister said today? He said it was a time-limited offer. He's the ShamWow prime minister now. It is time limited only. Here is this very effective small business program, but it is time limited. “Call now. We'll throw in a set of knives for you if you hurry.”

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business decried this cancellation. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it was wrong. Small business operators across the country asked why, if the government had a program that worked, would it cancel it?

Here is something the Conservatives did not cancel that we have seen over time: the massive shifting of tax away from corporations, particularly the largest and most profitable. This tradition was started by the Liberals, to be fair, but it was continued with great vigour by the Conservatives. Tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks were given to corporations with no strings attached. The Conservatives, and previously the Liberals, said, “Just take the money, and we hope you'll do some great investment in research and development and create those jobs and invest back.”

What has happened? It turned into dead money, as former finance minister Jim Flaherty put it. Almost half a trillion dollars are sitting in the coffers of corporate Canada that they are not reinvesting and not putting into R and D and not using to create those jobs. Why is that? It is because there are no strings attached. That is how it works in life; so too does it in business. If we give someone something for free, they will take it gladly. If we include some implication, some sort of contract attached to getting a break from the taxpayers of Canada, then they can be expected to create a job with that break, as opposed to what these guys have done.

Getting back to this participation thing, the Conservatives have created massive uncertainty when it comes to resource development in Canada. We see it through the fiasco of the Enbridge northern gateway proposal, where they retroactively changed the law that governed the NEB, taking the decision away from the independent panel that they always talked about as an independent tribunal, saying that they were going to let do what it does. Then why did they, in an omnibus bill, retroactively change the process while we were halfway through it to take the decision away from the NEB and land it in the lap of the Prime Minister, who within seven days, is going to make a decision on this?

Gosh darn it, he is caught between a rock and a hard place, because they would not listen to the economics of exporting raw bitumen to China being a bad idea for the value-added chain in Canada; that this is a non-renewable resource that we get once. They would not listen to the environmental implications; they accepted a project without admitting whether bitumen, this thing that comes out of the oil sands, sinks or floats. Now why would that be important? Well, we could ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. He would know, because whether it sinks or floats affects how the cleanup operation would be designed. If it sinks, boy that would sure be hard to clean up. Lo and behold, two days after the NEB sent in the report, without knowing the answer to that fundamental question, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had in fact done a study on bitumen in water in a tank here in Ottawa, and it sent the report in two days after the panel had reviewed the project and said, “Goodness, let us just go ahead and give it the green light”. Now the Prime Minister has a week to make up his mind. He has not listened to the economics.

He has not listened to the environmental concerns of putting supertankers on B.C.'s north coast, which as anyone who has been there knows, is fraught with peril. It is the place I represent and know well. There is going to be a massive accident if this goes ahead.

Now they are listening to the politics. The 21 B.C. Conservative MPs are suddenly faced with a bit of a dilemma: who are they going to listen to? Are they going to listen to the voters who put them here, or are they going to listen to the Prime Minister who has had blinkers over his eyes since day one on this project? It was his government that said that anybody who raises concerns about this pipeline must be a foreign-funded radical, an enemy of the state. What do people think the effect was in British Columbia for those who were raising legitimate concerns about this project? They were offended and maybe saddened to see a Prime Minister use this kind of rhetoric against his own people: enemy of the state—how dare he?

What they did ultimately, as we are now seeing, was react in the way we would expect Canadians to react to a bully. They stood up, are standing up, and are standing shoulder to shoulder with first nations and non-first nations allies, community to community; and the town of Kitimat itself passed a plebiscite vote rejecting this project. Yet the Prime Minister will not listen to any of that.

The Conservatives ignored the Canadian chambers of commerce on the trademark provisions that were in this bill. There were also the intellectual property components; and FATCA, on which my friend from Victoria has done amazing work, exposing this travesty that over a million Canadians may be exposed to the IRS because the Canada Revenue Agency is going to play some sort of middleman role and pass on the private banking information of up to a million Canadians. Here is who are affected: Canadians of dual citizenship, who are Canadian, by the way. The minister was in committee time and again and said no Canadian would be affected. Is a dual citizen between Canada and the U.S. not a Canadian? Are individuals who were born in the U.S. but have lived almost their entire lives here, with Canadian citizenship and voting in Canadian elections, not Canadians? The mayor in one of my towns is affected by this. Are those not Canadians? The minister, bold-faced, stood in front of the committee and said no one would be affected. One of the amendments we put forward was to at least give people notice when passing their personal banking information on to the IRS, and the Conservatives rejected that too. This is a bad bill; it has all sorts of consequences for Canadians.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, because it: a) has not received adequate study or amendment by Parliament; b) cancels the hiring credit for small business; c) raises costs for Canadian businesses through changes to trademark law that have been opposed by dozens of chambers of commerce, businesses, and legal experts; d) hands over private financial information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the US Internal Revenue Service under Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act; e) undermines the independence of 11 federal administrative tribunals; and f) fails to fully compensate for years of unjust clawback to the benefits of Canada's disabled veterans.

If for no other reason, the Conservatives should show a little spine and stand up for Canada's wounded vets and support this motion.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour today to speak to Bill C-31 at third reading.

This act sets out a comprehensive agenda to create jobs, keep the economy growing, and return to balanced budgets.

With economic action plan 2014, the government continues to support families and communities by keeping taxes low, putting consumers first, protecting Canadians' health and safety, and making communities more resilient in the face of natural disasters.

During the next 20 minutes I would like to talk about our economic and fiscal strengths and our plan to ensure we remain a world leader in a relatively uncertain global economy. The opposition may not find this to be the world's most exciting story. After all, it is a story about low taxes, fiscal discipline, and long-term thinking. Canada's story in recent years shows a country that is getting back to work and in which businesses, families, and communities are in an enviable position to succeed moving forward.

Let me begin with this. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid and sustainable. Our government has ensured that Canada was always in a better position to weather the economic storm. For eight consecutive years, our government has demonstrated steadfast leadership and an unprecedented commitment to the Canadian economy.

In 2006, when our government assumed office, the world was a different place. Markets were booming and economic growth was strong. Even back then, the economic storm clouds were gathering. Our government's focus on sound fundamentals meant that we were ready when those storms reached our shores. We paid down the federal debt, we cut taxes for families and job-creating businesses, and we set out an ambitious plan to renew Canada's aging infrastructure.

In 2009, when we reached the depths of the great recession, our government acted quickly, decisively, and better than most. We introduced an economic action plan that funded thousands of critical infrastructure projects, including the construction of roads, bridges, and border crossings, as well as knowledge-based infrastructure like research labs, universities and colleges, and broadband Internet access in rural areas.

Fast-forward to today and we can see that those actions are paying off. Since coming to office, our government has had the best job creation record in the G7. We are leading in economic growth. We have created almost 20% more jobs on a per capita basis than our closest competitor. Canadian households have seen a near 10% increase in their after-tax inflation-adjusted incomes under our government and an almost 45% increase in their net worth. Canada has the lowest total government net debt burden of any G7 country by far.

Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next.

Government of Canada bonds are among the most sought-after investment tools in the world. That means that investors both here and abroad have confidence in our government’s ability to manage the economy, today and in the future.

While it is gratifying to highlight Canada’s economic strengths, we know we must remain vigilant. Today’s advantage will not carry into tomorrow simply by sheer luck or even good intentions. By making considered economic choices, Canada is doing relatively well where other countries are on shaky ground.

However, we cannot be complacent. That is why we will continue to deliver on our commitment to Canadians while keeping taxes low. After all, when Canadians elected our Conservative government, they were clear. They cannot afford to pay the higher taxes that the Liberals and the NDP want to force upon them.

Unfortunately, both the NDP and the Liberal leader have recently committed to raising taxes, thereby stunting Canada's economic growth. Those taxes would prevent businesses from expanding and block them from hiring workers. Small businesses cannot afford these higher-tax policies. In fact, families in my riding of North Vancouver, and across Canada, tell me that they cannot afford the NDP's irresponsible pension proposals either. They cannot afford a smaller paycheque, nor can they afford to lose their jobs.

In an all too volatile global economy, there is no substitute for decisive actions and hard work.

There remain risks from beyond our borders, which bring with them the potential for severe consequences on the Canadian economy. The result is that our economy has been restrained by weak export markets and declines in commodity prices. In addition, financial market vulnerabilities in some emerging economies could translate into weaker than expected growth in these countries and increase financial market volatility more generally.

The message is clear. Competing in such an uncertain world means sticking to proven strategies and continuing with plans that work. Fortunately, Canada has just such a plan: economic action plan 2014. Today's legislation would build upon previous actions by our government to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

First, as members well know, a growing part of Canada's economic strength comes from our rich natural resources. These sectors create jobs and prosperity, particularly in many rural communities across the country. Canada's natural resources sector represents 18% of the economy and over half of our exports, and supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly. Furthermore, it generates about $30 billion annually in revenue to governments, equal to approximately half of all spending on hospitals in Canada in 2013.

There are hundreds of natural resource projects under way or planned in Canada over the next 10 years, representing a total potential investment of over $650 billion.

A significant element of this economic boost is represented by Canada's unique oil sands industry. This sector is an asset that will increasingly contribute to the prosperity of all Canadians. The oil sands is among the world's largest technology projects, contributing about 275,000 jobs across Canada and $48 billion in GDP. These numbers could grow to an average of 630,000 jobs and a contribution of $113 billion in GDP per year, up to 2035.

Canada’s natural resources have always been a factor in our success, but never as much as today. Major economic projects create jobs and stimulate development everywhere in Canada. The reason is growing global demand for resources, in particular in the emerging economies. As part of Canada’s economic action plan, we are modernizing the federal regulatory regime by establishing clear deadlines, reducing overlap and the burden of remuneration, and by focusing resources on the big projects that have the most positive environmental impact.

For example, we are implementing system-wide improvements to achieve the goal of one project, one review within clearly defined time periods.

In our most recent budget, we announced $28 million, over two years, to the National Energy Board, for the comprehensive and timely reviews of applications to support the participant funding program and eliminated tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

To help improve offshore energy developments, today's legislation would amend the customs tariff to eliminate tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration and development. By making the status of the drilling units duty free, it would help improve the global competitiveness of Canadian energy projects and increase the potential for valuable resource discoveries in Canada's Atlantic and Arctic offshore areas.

We also announced an extension of the mineral exploration tax credit until 2015. This credit helps junior exploration companies raise capital by providing an incentive to individuals who invest in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration. Since 2006, this measure has helped junior mining companies raise over $5 billion for exploration. In 2012, over 350 companies issued flow-through shares with the benefit of the credit to more than 30,000 individual investors.

Our government remains committed to making Canada a great place in which to invest and expand a business and for hiring new workers. Economic success, however, requires more than simply being blessed with an abundance of natural resources. It requires ensuring our greatest resource, our people, have everything they need to excel. That is why our government has consistently focused on training the workforce for tomorrow.

Students participating in Canada's education system are the largest source of new labour market supply. Providing them with the right skills is essential to further Canada's economic prospects. Employers and various organizations have identified an acute need for skilled tradespeople. Employer surveys indicate that skilled trades are among the most difficult jobs to fill. In fact, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce lists skill shortages as the number one barrier to Canada's competitiveness. As the baby boom generation retires, demand for skilled tradespeople, and apprentices in particular, is going to increase. While the number of apprentices completing training and obtaining certification has doubled from 2000 to 2011, apprenticeship completion rates have averaged only about 50% over the same period. That number is low compared to other countries and substantially lower than that of community college and university students.

In Canada, apprentices and skilled trades do most of their learning during on-the-job paid employment and participate in technical training for periods of time ranging from six to eight weeks each year. They can face significant costs to complete these periods of technical training required by their program including educational fees, tools and equipment, living expenses, and forgone wages. That is why to help connect Canadians with available jobs, Bill C-31 introduces a new Canada apprentice loan. This initiative would help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year to complete their training.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the efforts made by our government to match Canadians with the jobs offered is the Canada job grant. That program is going to transform job training, to ensure that federal funding meets the workforce needs of employers and enables them to participate as full partners in the job training system.

The Canada job grant provides up to $15,000 per person for training costs, including tuition and materials, which includes a maximum federal contribution of $10,000, with employers funding, on average, one third of the total training costs.

The government held exhaustive consultations with employers and other stakeholders on the design of the grant, which reflects the results of those consultations. It is important to note that in recognition of the special challenges facing small businesses, they will be allowed greater flexibility in the cost agreements.

At the same time, to foster job creation, our government is renegotiating the $1.95 billion per year labour market development agreements to better reorient training toward labour market demand. EAP would also 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.

The bill 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.

By investing in the skills of Canadians and the resources of our country, we are acting to ensure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Finally, today's legislation builds on our governments actions to support and improve the quality of life for hardworking Canadian families.

Our Conservative government is the only party that has a record of proven successes in supporting families and communities. The opposition does nothing but vote against these supports. We are working hard to create economic benefits for all Canadians, so they can enjoy a good quality of life and long-term prosperity. We have reduced federal taxes to their lowest level in 50 years, and we are going to look at other ways of providing tax relief for Canadians, while at the same time aiming to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

Since 2006, our government has lowered taxes in a number of ways for families, including increasing the amount of income all Canadians can earn without paying any federal income tax; increasing the upper limit of the two lowest personal income tax brackets so that individuals can earn more income before being subject to higher taxes; reducing the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16%; and introducing the TSFA, the tax free savings account, to help Canadians save by earning tax free investment income.

Our tax cuts have also given individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that our government has provided significant tax relief for Canadians, benefiting low- to middle-income families the most. He says:

Cumulative tax changes since 2005 have been progressive overall and most greatly impact low-middle income earners (households earning between $12,200 and $23,300), effectively resulting in a 4% increase in after-tax income.... In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent.

That is what leadership is. It is simply not possible to tax and spend our way to prosperity. As a result of actions taken by our Conservative government, the average family of four will save nearly $3,400 in taxes this year, and the net worth of families is up over 44%, with The New York Times saying we have the most affluent middle class in the world for the first time ever.

While we are focused on creating savings for Canadians, the leader of the Liberals has the same old Liberal high-tax, high-spending agenda that would threaten jobs and set working families back. How can someone who thinks budgets balance themselves be trusted with jobs and the economy? At the same time, the leader of the NDP continues to push risky, high-tax schemes, like the $20-billion carbon tax, that would hurt Canada's economy and kill Canadian jobs.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I should mention that the Conservatives limited time for debate on this bill. This is really problematic and it infringes on our right to express ourselves on bills that will affect the lives of Canadians and immigrants.

It is more or less an omnibus bill. In fact, it is the first major reform of the Citizenship Act since 1977. We really ought to do our homework to come up with the best legislation possible.

I oppose this bill and I will take my ten minutes to explain why.

I would like to begin by recognizing the work done by groups in my riding that welcome immigrants, such as ABL Immigration, which works in the Lower Laurentians to help immigrants better integrate into our society and country and have access to services that can help them.

My fellow Canadians are ready to welcome newcomers, to have new people come to live here, but this bill goes against Canadian values.

I would like to mention that I was a panellist at a meeting in Montreal on Bill C-24. Julius Grey, a very well-known lawyer in Montreal whose name is probably familiar to all members, and the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, which is active in Montreal, also participated in this event.

With the people who took part in the discussion, I was able to see that this bill raises a number of concerns about the Conservative government's approach. There were also concerns about the negative impact of that rather complex legislation, which includes many measures.

Since March 2008, or since the Conservatives took office, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration practices, rules, laws and regulations. We found that not all of these changes have been positive, including the moratorium on sponsoring parents and grandparents.

In my riding I met people affected by this measure. In fact, I meet people from across Canada who are affected by the fact that they cannot bring their parents and their grandparents here. In recent years, fewer family reunifications have taken place. This threatens the well-being of Canadians.

We saw that the government also chose to punish vulnerable refugees. On this issue, I want to note that Bill C-31 imposes a number of measures that experts deem dangerous for refugees. These provisions give the minister the power to hand-pick which countries are deemed safe, without consulting independent experts. They also give the minister the power to detain asylum seekers for one year, without reviewing that decision.

This bill also contains provisions to deny certain refugees access to the refugee appeal division. Bill C-31 also imposes a mandatory waiting period of five years before legitimate refugees can become permanent residents and be reunited with their families.

As we can see, these are very tough measures that adversely affect the safety of refugees who come to Canada after fleeing unstable situations in their country of origin.

We have also seen that under the Conservative government there has been an increase in the number of temporary foreign workers to the detriment of Canadian workers. Furthermore, and I am sure that I am not the only member to have noticed this, our riding offices are reporting that processing times, which are currently 31 months, are harming our constituents who come to our offices looking for help. Unfortunately, too many of these people want to know the status of their file. The only thing we can tell them is that they have to wait, even though the processing times are unreasonable. Instead of attacking refugees and preventing families from being reunited, this government should instead be tackling processing times. That should be the priority.

I will now focus on the measures in the bill that the NDP members are concerned about. First, we have seen that Bill C-24 concentrates many new powers in the hands of the minister, including the power to grant citizenship and to revoke it from dual citizens. This creates two tiers of citizenship and penalizes people with dual citizenship. It allows a minister to revoke the citizenship of a person who has dual citizenship and commits illegal acts, whereas someone without Canadian citizenship will be punished in the criminal justice system instead.

We believe that this is rather arbitrary. We should not have two tiers of citizenship. I am very proud of my Canadian citizenship and I know that my parents, who immigrated from China, were as well. A Canadian is a Canadian, period. We should not have two types of citizens, those who have dual citizenship and those who have single citizenship.

Under the provisions of the bill, the minister may revoke citizenship if he, or any staffer he authorizes, is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a person has obtained citizenship by fraud. That poses significant problems because this clause is based on the balance of probabilities. If the minister has reason to believe that the person has obtained citizenship fraudulently, he has the right to unilaterally revoke that citizenship. Clearly, that prevents the individual from appealing to the courts and it places more arbitrary powers in the minister's hands.

This bill is problematic for another reason, namely the provisions related to the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. The minister can arbitrarily choose to strip someone of citizenship if he believes that the individual does not intend to reside in Canada. That penalizes those who obtain citizenship and then perhaps get a job offer elsewhere but still plan on returning to Canada. It penalizes people who find themselves in rather unique situations.

The final measure in this bill that I would like to raise is the fact that the length of time someone spends in Canada as a permanent resident will no longer be taken into consideration for the granting of citizenship.

Clearly, the NDP feels it must oppose many of the measures. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as well, for the reasons I have just presented.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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 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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Report Stage

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I was not digging for a compliment, but I appreciate it. I was simply looking to increase the visibility of adoption as an issue in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-31, our government's budget implementation act, to speak about the importance of the budget that we put forward for Canadians. Obviously, we are focused, as a government, on the economy, creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. We do have the strongest job creation record of any country in the G7, with over a million net new jobs, with over 85% of those being full time and in the private sector. I am proud of our government's record.

We have been able to keep taxes low while we are growing the economy, maintaining or increasing transfers to our provinces on an ongoing basis. That was not the Liberal record back in the 1990s, where the taxes went up and the transfers went down. We have been able to do both and grow the economy.

We have also made difficult decisions. Budgets do not balance themselves. They do take time, especially post-recession. To bring the government's budget back into balance, it takes some tough decisions. We have been making them. We are on track to balance the budget. That is good news for Canadians because ongoing structural deficits, like those they have in Ontario, lead to tomorrow's taxes. We do not want to see that situation. That is bad for the economy. In fact, our tax increases save the average Canadian family about $3,400 a year, and that is very good.

Obviously, we recognize that for economic recovery the outlook remains fragile, when we are looking globally at the G20 and beyond. Growth among these countries continues to be uneven, as it is here in Canada. We must continue to do more. That is why this budget and the implementation act become very important to us.

I do want to highlight a few of the items that I think were really critical, with respect to what the government is doing on its budget, including the significant investments in a new international crossing between Windsor and Detroit. We put $631 million down over the next two years as cash to begin to really accelerate projects to bring that into reality.

We heard recently that the Coast Guard in the United States, only yesterday or the day before, gave the final permit for that bridge to move ahead.

Obviously, we would have a binational authority to oversee the project, which would be populated with important Canadians and Americans, to move that project forward. We look forward to that development.

That initiative, though, would build upon the tremendous record of this government, beginning back in 2006, with the gateways and border crossings fund, with a significant down payment in 2007 on what is now the Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway. That was a $400-million down payment. There were investments to begin purchasing land on the Canadian side of the border for a plaza, a customs inspection plaza, connecting to that Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway. There was the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act, which came in a prior budget in this House, to insulate the DRIC from further lawsuit on the Canadian side. We have done our best to move that forward. This will be a P3 project that would be very significant for our region, not only in terms of construction jobs when it comes, but for the long-term business investment that Windsor-Essex county needs, not only for the auto industry, but for every other industry in the region to continue.

That was also fulfilling an important component of our national auto strategy that we announced in 2008.

Both Bill C-31 and our budget, also, would take important next steps with respect to the Regulatory Cooperation Council and our beyond the border action plan, another part of our auto action plan strategy in 2008, where we could see greater harmonization of standards particularly important for the auto industry, where they now produce a North American car, so to speak, instead of cars for various balkanized regulations across North America. That is important, in terms of the productivity and the forward-looking projections for that industry. This is an important component that we had to have, and we would make further progress on that in Bill C-31.

Our budget also included significant investments for rural broadband. I know that, just since the announcement, our Essex County Council has already been working hard to update its strategy for not only extending broadband to its last remaining regions but for upgrading the speed on that.

There is nothing more important, in my humble estimation, if I want to speak to an issue of real passion for me in Bill C-31, than the adoption expenses tax credit.

In 2008, I brought forward Motion No. 386. It was calling for a study at the human resources committee, where we would take a look at the supports that were available on the federal side for adoptive parents and adopted children. That laid the groundwork, with its ultimate hearings and report, and a solid foundation for us to begin to look at it in a systematic way, to see what we can do from the federal side to improve adoption outcomes across Canada.

Anybody who has been paying attention to the adoption issue will know there are some important things that need to be done. One is baselining the actual number of children we have and what forms of temporary care they are in across Canada. The provincial and territorial systems report very differently on these matters, but we know that there is an emerging crisis in child welfare across the country, if we look cumulatively at what is happening.

From that, we know that there are an estimated 30,000 Canadian children who are at the stage where they are ready for adoption permanence, but there is no plan for adoption permanence for them.

When we looked further, in our study, we looked at areas where maybe the federal government could help. One of those is financial supports. The process for adoption, unless one goes through a public agency, can be very expensive.

I remember my interventions with then-minister Jim Flaherty in pre-budget consultations for budget 2013. He asked what we could do, and I suggested that the first thing we needed to do was expand the eligible criteria to more accurately reflect the range of costs that parents would face if they were choosing adoption.

Prior to that, the adoption expenses tax credit only covered the post-placement costs, those costs that are incurred once a child is placed and going forward. We note, for those who have to incur a home study, for example, that they can be very costly. In Ontario, people have to undergo what is called “PRIDE training”, important courses to understand the types of transitions that parents and children are going to go through in the situation of an adoption or a foster-to-adopt. Those can be very expensive as well.

That was the first thing we did with economic action plan 2013. Our government, to its credit, knew that there was more to be done. It did make a commitment in the last throne speech that it would do more to help with respect to adoption. That is why, in our economic action plan 2014, we would raise the adoption expenses tax credit from just a little over $11,700, where it has currently risen by way of index. Now we would raise that to $15,000, and it would remain indexed over time, as well.

That would apply to adoptions that are finalized, beginning in 2014 and going forward. That should be encouraging news. We do know that the cost of adoption is one of the two major financial obstacles.

The other, of course, is the environment that happens in the provincial and territorial systems, which we cannot touch from the federal side, and that is the process of adoption and how the child welfare systems work. I certainly would hope that at some point the Council of the Federation will speak of this issue in a structural, ongoing way that they need to have more adoption outcomes as a result of their system.

Currently, they only conclude cumulatively about 2,000 domestic adoptions a year. Meanwhile children are continuing to go in the front end in alarming numbers in crisis intervention, so they would do well to encourage themselves to target an increase in the number of adoptions that they finalize over time, and to monitor their improvement over time, as well. I certainly hope they do that.

These are some of the aspects I spoke of last spring in my national adoption action plan in this House. There is so much to do on this particular issue, and I am proud to say that our government is doing its particular part. Those financial obstacles are a very fundamental key, one of the two keys that parents will face in a decision about whether to adopt.

The more we can bring that a lot closer to affordability for them, the more chance that these children are going to get into permanent, loving, adoptive families. It is critical they do. What we know from kids who age out of the system is that they are more likely to end up in poverty, more likely to end up homeless, more likely to have poorer educational outcomes and poorer relational outcomes over time, including intergenerationally. We know that they are more likely to end up either in the mental health stream or the criminal justice stream. Society is paying for this on the back end. We are looking at ways, obviously, over here where we can pay a little bit on the front end to help get them into situations that are a whole lot better.

I think that is worthy, and I think it is something all members of this House can support.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key items that has been discussed little in this Parliament with respect to Bill C-31 is the increase in the cap of the adoption expenses tax credit. In our last budget we recognized that some 30,000 Canadian children are adoptable but are not being adopted.

I wonder if the member could comment briefly on the importance of not only the last budget wherein we increased the number of eligible expenses but also this budget in which we have increased the tax credit itself to cover more of those expenses.

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

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of this bill, I asked a very simple question about something my constituents of Beauport—Limoilou are concerned about.

There is a palpable sense of insecurity among parents of primary, secondary and college students. There are four schools along the railway. It is a very busy line that is used to transport potentially dangerous materials from the Port of Québec to the rest of Canada and even the United States.

Bill C-31 provides for certain amendments that will allow cabinet to make decisions on rail safety in total secrecy, and I do not accept that.

How can my colleague accept this secrecy?

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

Mr. Speaker, last February, I gave a speech after the tabling of the 2014-15 Conservative budget. I told my colleagues in this House about my concerns with regard to the issues of housing for the homeless and infrastructures. Now I think I am going to be repeating myself.

Bill C-31 contains no proposals about community access to the Building Canada fund, and this is a huge flaw in a budget implementation bill. However, rather than repeating exactly the same thing that I have been saying about all the Conservative budgets, I would like to quote the people who are the most deeply affected by the government’s poor decisions.

First I would like to put things in context. In the 2013-14 budget, $14 billion over 10 years was announced for the creation of the new Building Canada fund. When the 2014-15 budget was tabled, one year later, we still did not know how to submit projects for the fund. It is always the same thing with the Conservatives: they pat themselves on the back when telling us about new programs, but always wait until the last minute before telling us any details about them.

Meanwhile, groups, other levels of government and the people who should be using these programs are worried about the possibility of breaks in funding, potential layoffs or construction seasons that are being threatened.

That being said, almost a year after the announcement of the new Building Canada fund, on February 13, 2014, the details were finally announced. However, when you look into what is happening at the municipal level and the positions taken by a number of mayors, it seems that the government failed to consult the municipalities before announcing the details of the new program.

I do not understand this. Every time he is asked a question, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs spends his time giving us the same talking points: the municipalities have been consulted at every step in the design of the new Building Canada fund.

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has in fact had an opportunity to make submissions on the broad lines of the new infrastructure program, but has the federation really been consulted on the details? The answer is no, and those are the facts.

The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs is always quoting the same statement by the immediate past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, to show that the municipalities were pleased with the announcement the government made on February 13, 2014. Clearly, they were pleased. They had been waiting for a year to get more details. The problem is that the minister did not read to the end of Mayor Dauphin's statement.

He went on to say:

However, important questions remain about how the rest of the New Building Canada Fund will be used to meet local needs.Municipalities own a significant majority of public infrastructure [about 60%] and, for a fund that will span the next decade, we must be sure that it is used accordingly. This is the only way to ensure that local governments can address infrastructure challenges in their communities. We are also concerned by rule changes that could force municipalities to carry a larger share of infrastructure costs in the future, the eligibility rules for local roads, the screening process for projects structured as public/private partnerships (P3s).There are 45 days before April 1 when the municipal construction season begins. The federal government needs to work with FCM on details of the New Building Canada Fund...to [ensure that] it delivers the best value for Canadians.

It is rather strange that the minister is telling us that he consulted the FCM, when the very day the details of the new program were announced, the president of the FCM asked the government to work with the organization to review the criteria. Did the minister hear that plea from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Once again, the answer is no, and the evidence is mounting.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill.

A solid middle class is the foundation of Canada's economy. Middle-class Canadians are the glue that binds our society together, and we recognize that our country can only be as strong as its middle class.

Fortunately, Canada's middle class has seen increases of about 30% in their take-home income since 1976, and the share of Canadians living in lower-income families is now at its lowest level in the past three decades.

A recent Statistics Canada study has revealed that since our Conservative government has taken office, the middle class has flourished significantly. I quote:

The median net worth of Canadian family units was $243,800 in 2012, up 44.5% from 2005 and almost 80% more than the 1999 median of $137,000, adjusted for inflation.

Another study, this one from The New York Times indicated that Canada's middle class is better off financially than that of the U.S. I quote:

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000—now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Further, since 2006, Canadian families in all major income groups have seen increases of about 10% or more in their take-home incomes.

It may be hard for the opposition to believe, but even the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms that our government has put $30 billion of tax relief back into Canadian pockets annually, benefiting low-income and middle-income families the most.

This is great news for Canada, and it reflects our government's careful navigation through the worst global economic downturn since the start of the Second World War.

Since the beginning of the recovery, Canada's economy has posted one of the strongest job creation records in the G7, with more than one million net new jobs created since the depths of July 2009.

At a time when other countries' financial systems were brought to the brink of bankruptcy, Canada's banks remained the soundest in the world. When other countries increased taxes, we kept taxes at record lows, and the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in over 50 years, thanks to our tax plan.

Since 2006, Canadians have benefited from significant broad-based tax cuts introduced by our government. These tax cuts, which the opposition voted against time and time again, have given individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them and have built solid foundations for our future economic growth, more jobs, and a higher living standard for Canadians.

Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief, with the low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief.

In 2014, an average family of four is saving close to $3,400 in taxes, while one million Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls altogether. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our government believes in keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

That is why we cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. It is why we increased the amount Canadians can earn tax-free. It is why we reduced the GST from 7% to 5%, putting more than $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family of four in 2014. We established the landmark tax-free savings account, the most significant advance in the tax treatment of personal savings since the introduction of RRSPs in 1957.

In addition, we introduced a variety of tax credits that recognize the costs borne by hard-working Canadian families. These credits include the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit, the children's arts tax credit, the family caregiver tax credit, and the first-time homebuyers' tax credit.

As a parent, I believe there is no higher calling than that of raising a child, and no reward is its 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.

We heard parents' concerns that the adoption expense tax credit was not sufficient. That is why in economic action plan 2014 our government acted by enhancing the tax credit to support these parents even more. By better recognizing the costs of adoption through increased tax relief, we are making it easier for middle-class families to grow and to make Canada stronger.

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 all want it to remain strong and sustainable so that it will be there for Canadians when they need it. Under our government, health care transfers are at an all time high, going from over $20 billion when we formed government to over $32 billion this year, and growing. Unlike the old Liberal government, we have not cut funding to provinces for health care and education.

I find it comical when we hear that the Liberals cut the deficit. Well, we are doing that too, but they did it on the backs of education and health care. We are doing it in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Similarly, health care transfers will also grow under our funding formula, and 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 there are external health care costs that Canadians have been paying for out of pocket, such as service animals. For example, in the case of severe diabetes, alerts can be raised by diabetes alert dogs. That is why Bill C-31 has proposed an expansion of the list of eligible medical expenses. These important measures are just a handful of examples illustrating how we have responded to the needs of Canadian families and helped Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money.

Perhaps one of the most profound ways we are helping middle-class Canadians is by making sure future generations will not be paying for the past obligations of their parents and grandparents. We are doing so by returning to balanced budgets in 2015. In fact, that was one of my key motivations when I decided to run for the Conservative Party of Canada: I do not want our children's futures mortgaged.

Unlike the Liberal leader, who believes that the budget will magically balance itself, our government has made tough decisions to return to balance, and we have never wavered from our objective. In fact, I am reminded of how my husband and I sat down and talked about the importance of paying off our mortgage when we were younger. We needed to make tough choices. In the same way the government is doing now, we made responsible choices. The result is that we have no mortgage. The Government of Canada is doing that for future generations right now, and I am so proud of the work that is being done. By eliminating the deficit, we will ensure solid, stable prosperity for all Canadians well into the future.

Indeed, balancing the budget and reducing debt would ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support important social services, such as health care, rather than to pay to reduce the debt with interest costs. It would preserve Canada's low-tax plan and allow for further tax reductions, fostering growth and the creation of jobs for the benefit of all Canadians. It would also strengthen the country's ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging and unexpected global economic shocks of the kind our government so successfully withstood in the recent economic crisis.

Our government understands the importance of middle-class Canadians. As our actions have shown, we listened. We have ensured a middle class for our country that will continue to lead the world.

I am very proud of Bill C-31. I am very proud of our government's responsible approach to deficit reduction. It is a measured and responsible approach. I sincerely hope that we can engage the opposition to support this very important budget implementation bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have had the opportunity to speak to another omnibus bill. What most concerned me the first time was the famous Champlain Bridge, an issue on which little progress has been made.

Believe it or not, this bill contains some provisions that are very important to the greater Montreal area, especially to the people in my riding of Chambly—Borduas.

Having said that, the last time I spoke to Bill C-31, we focused on the fact that the bill was eliminating the government's responsibility to comply with the User Fees Act, consult Canadians and ensure that a future toll follows the guidelines in order not to create problems or put further pressure on the economy. At present, this is the problem we see: people living on the south shore and in Montreal are being asked to pay for infrastructure that already exists.

At the end of the day, the major issue with the bridge in this bill and in the changes made is the toll being imposed, as my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie often says. All the elected officials, business people and residents feel that the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs was either unable to consult the public or simply did not want to do so. This still has not been done.

Since I last spoke to Bill C-31, we have been able to mobilize hundreds of volunteers on the south shore and collect thousands of signatures from people who are against this toll. A day of action was held on May 3. That was really an opportunity for us to see the extent to which people in the region, like many Quebeckers in fact, feel that they are being treated with contempt by the Conservative government. This is a very good example of the government's contempt.

The Prime Minister rises in the House to say that it is a local bridge and it is too bad if there are no consultations. In reality, I believe that over 14% of Quebec's GDP is based on the ability to cross the Champlain Bridge. Billions of dollars of economic activity are at stake. This bridge is by no means a local bridge. When we consider the economic issue and the importance of the greater Montreal area, I think it is very important to show respect to the public, the elected officials and the business community.

It is no coincidence that the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Chambly, in my riding, Denis Lavoie, have spoken out against this bill, together with chambers of commerce and the public.

We feel that this problem is symptomatic of the Conservative government's contempt for Quebec, but often also for various jurisdictions, in its discussions with the provinces and its dealings with the municipalities.

That being said, the government is demonstrating a clear lack of vision when it comes to the Champlain Bridge. I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. When we heard from witnesses from Transport Canada, namely those responsible for the project, we asked them questions about the terms and conditions set out in Bill C-31 because that was the topic on the agenda that day. They told us that the terms and conditions served to speed up the process. They did not want the Champlain Bridge to be subject to the User Fees Act because they wanted to speed up the process.

As we know the minister postponed the deadline, which is somewhat problematic given that the government does not seem to have done much and seems incapable of proposing a real business plan.

I have family friends and constituents who use the bridge every day. Given the safety issues at play here, everyone in the House would agree that a new bridge is needed ASAP, as we say.

The government is neglecting its obligation to consult in order to speed up the process, but it is unable to say how much time that will buy and what difference it will make. The government claims to be eliminating legal uncertainty in order to make the process faster, but how much faster? Will this buy us days, weeks, months? The government cannot tell us. This shows once again the government's lack of transparency, rigour and consultation in this matter.

The government's lack of consultation or failure to do its homework is another problem. Take for example, the regional impact study that was conducted by the Government of Quebec's department of transport. It is extremely important to determine what impact the new bridge will have on the other bridges, which do not fall under federal jurisdiction, and on traffic in the greater Montreal area, whether it be on the island itself or on the south shore. After all, if there is a toll on one bridge but not on the others, it is safe to assume that this will have an impact on which bridges people use. The report published by the Government of Quebec makes that very clear.

In committee, we asked the witnesses whether the federal government had carried out such a study. The federal government has been talking about this issue and working on it for a long time, since before the 2011 election. After all, this bridge is under federal jurisdiction. However, the federal government does not seem to be as aware as the Government of Quebec about the repercussions of a toll on the region. Once again, that says a lot about the government's failings and sloppiness. We will continue to oppose a toll, and we will do so in an accountable and transparent way by consulting the people, of course.

I would like to touch on another important aspect of Bill C-31. This is yet another issue that does not really belong in a budget implementation bill, but it is very important to my constituents. I am talking about rail safety. Bill C-31 contains provisions relating to rail safety that give even more discretionary power to the Governor in Council, the cabinet, and the minister. That really worries me.

In the wake of tragedies such as the one at Lac-Mégantic, people have been demanding more transparency and more information about the dangerous goods being transported through their regions. What regulations is the government making, and how will they affect our communities? A railway goes right through the heart of my riding, through residential neighbourhoods, and past several schools, including Otterburn Park, where my mother teaches. We know how important transparency is to reassuring people. People want to feel safe. That should be the government's primary concern. Giving cabinet, the Governor in Council, and the minister more discretionary powers and letting them make decisions without informing the public in a transparent way goes against that principle and does little to reassure people.

There is much more I could say. This budget implementation bill includes two transportation files, and that speaks volumes about the shortcomings in the process. The government has used this bogus process many times since it came to power. There are many other components that will affect the people of Chambly—Borduas, but those are two key concerns for my constituents. We will continue with our demands on these issues.

That is why we are opposing omnibus Bill C-31, which is also known as an “omnibrick” bill. As the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard said, it is 400 pages long. We are wondering how many hundreds of pages it will be next year and the year after that. We hope that this will be the last time but, unfortunately, the government is not giving us many reasons to trust its approach. We will continue to oppose the way this government does business.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, as reported (with amendment) from committee.

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, with all the talk we have had this morning, there has been no talk about jobs. It is a fact that Canada has had the strongest job record of the G7. In fact, a million jobs have been created.

People in my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex are concerned about well-paying jobs in the private sector.

Could parliamentary, I mean the Minister of State for Finance please inform the House how Bill C-31 would affect jobs and create quality jobs for my constituents and other Canadians as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on Part 5 of Bill C-31, specifically on the issue of FATCA and its application to registered savings plans, RRSPs, registered education savings plans, and registered disability savings plans. Those plans have matching grants provided by the Government of Canada, funded by the taxpayers of Canada, that are intended to go to people with disabilities or to young people to save for their educations. Under FATCA, earnings from those deposits made by the Canadian government would be taxable by the IRS.

Does the Minister of State for Finance believe that this would be consistent with the intentions of those programs and that it would be appropriate for the Canadian taxpayer to be funnelling money to the IRS and the U.S. treasury?

Second, has the government calculated how much money would be going to the IRS from the Canadian treasury as a result of FATCA and the provisions of this bill?

Report Stage

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member will have five minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate on Bill C-31.

[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.

[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.

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 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.

Motions in Amendment

[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.

[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.

[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. Butts' name in Bill C-31 anywhere.

[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 advisor 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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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 and actually introduced amendments to correct mistakes in the current omnibus budget bill, not the last one. It showed up at clause-by-clause 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. 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.

[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 prebudget 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.

[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.

[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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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.

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

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to its study on the main estimates 2014-2015.

As well, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'll try to keep Mr. Keddy happy by waxing ineloquent. I see we have about 10 minutes left, so I guess I have to run with those 10 minutes, do I?

We heard from the Canadian Steel Producers, who are very concerned about the changes in the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. They wrote the following to the committee about the proposed change: [It] introduces clear risks to the functioning of the trade remedy system, with direct impacts on the domestic industry, importers, and the government itself. Substantive impacts are likely to weaken the trade remedy system, not strengthen it. This is of direct concern to Canadian Steel Producers.

They also said, “we note that there was no prior consultation”—where have we heard that before?—“on the ATSSA proposal with domestic industries most likely to be affected, nor with trade legal advisors.” And they ask CITT be removed from the section in Bill C-31.

We also heard from the Canadian Bar Association, who apparently have a few opinions about these things, including:

...that the ATSSCA not be passed into law. If the ATSSCA is to become law, we recommend that at a minimum excluding the CITT, the CIRB and the PSDPT from its reach.

So as I say, Mr. Chairman, we seem to be hearing this as a refrain, this is the kind of legislation which should be dealt with separately, it should not be part of an omnibus bill, there was no consultation, and both the trade associations and the lawyers are upset. It's quite a testimony to how to run a government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance, and we're considering Bill C-31.

Colleagues, we are on division 27 of part 6, dealing with the Old Age Security Act. There are three amendments. The first amendment amends clause 371, the second one amends clause 372, and the third one amends clause 373.

Perhaps we could ask the official to....

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

No, but you didn't consult with the Canadian Bar Association on the drafting of Bill C-31?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I have one final comment.

You just advertently or inadvertently illustrated why this process is so terribly flawed. This is a serious amendment, and there are diametrically opposed views.

Maybe I can narrow the view by saying that the consultation has not taken place with respect to what's in Bill C-31.

Is that true?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Bill C-31removes the requirement to use a trademark before it can be registered and the owner can be given exclusive rights.

Canadian Chamber of Commerce has sent out a call to action for its members against this section of C-31. We have since heard from chambers across the country, from Surrey to Gander to Northwest Territories, who are warning that this provision will increase business costs and risks in Canada, complaining about a lack of consultation from the government, and asking that the trademark provisions of C-31 be removed from the bill pending further study.

We are also hearing these concerns from numerous employers across Canada; everyone from the retailer Giant Tiger, food manufacturer Pepsi-Cola, and Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating.

The Canadian Bar Association also warned us that the provisions “…will cause such serious problems that we recommend they be removed”. Furthermore, it stated:

The CBA Section is not aware of any specific consultations with any interested parties on the effect of these amendments. It has been suggested that the change is at the request of [the] Canadian Intellectual Property Office and may be more driven by internal efficiency for the Trade-marks Office than protection of Canadian business interests. There is no apparent policy reason behind these changes, and the changes are not required to adhere to the Madrid Protocol nor the Singapore Treaty.

It continued that these provisions in C-31 would:

…have a negative impact on Canadian business. Canadian business people and those seeking to protect trademarks in Canada will face additional expense and economic disadvantage vis-à-vis business people in other jurisdictions.… At the same time that Canadian businesses face these increased costs and uncertainties, they will also likely face increased filing fees for separate class fees and more frequent renewals.

And finally they said:

An abrupt change from a use-based system, without consultation and analysis by stakeholders, serves only to disrupt the economic relationship between Canada and the U.S. CBA Section members have been contacted by the American Bar Association members who were shocked to hear that these changes were in progress.

To address these concerns, the Canadian Bar Association explicitly requested three amendments to re-reinstate the requirement for the applicant to use the trademark before obtaining a registration. We've introduced these as Liberal-18, 19, and 20, which amend clauses 330, 339, and 345 respectively. They also help address the very serious concerns we've heard from Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.

It's pretty obvious, Chair, that the business community both large and small is upset. It is upset from one end of the country to the other. They complain about the same things that the Canadian Bar Association is complaining about; i.e., there was no consultation, and interestingly the Bar Association also says that there is no policy reason behind these changes, and they are not required in order to adhere to the Madrid Protocol or the Singapore Treaty. And just to add insult to injury, you have the Americans upset as well.

As we read this, you have pretty well covered all of North America. It's kind of hard to do, to get done, apparently it's an accomplishment of some kind, but nevertheless it does seem to have generated a lot of commentary, all of which is negative, from all of the chambers and both the American and the Canadian bar associations.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes.

On clause 302, Bill C-31 introduces severe penalties for employers found in breach. This amendment adds a formal review mechanism for employers against whom penalties are imposed. Again, this amendment was recommended by The Canadian Bar Association in order to ensure there's fairness and due process given the severity of the consequences.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order, as we continue our meeting 39 discussing Bill C-31. We are at division 16, Telecommunications Act.

There's a request for a number of recorded votes, so I'm going to propose that we could do it as we do in the House, but I need the unanimous consent of the committee. We can do anything we want by unanimous consent, but if people want a recorded vote, I could say, “Mr. Saxton, how are the Conservatives voting?” and I could say, “Monsieur Caron, how are the NDP members voting?”, and “Mr. McKay, how are you voting?” That way everybody is recorded, but we can hopefully speed it up, because the concern is that colleagues have amendments on issues that we may not get to before 11 o'clock, and as you know, at 11 o'clock I just put every clause forward without any discussion. So that's my proposal, but I need unanimous consent to do it that way.

Go ahead, M. Caron.

Mr. Caron, do you have something to add on that?

Energy Safety and Security Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a preliminary comment. I find it incredible that our country's federal government has taken so long to address risk management, internalize costs and protect the public interest.

In his speech about nuclear energy, the hon. member for Don Valley West said that safety is a top priority. However, it is all relative, given that liability is limited to $1 billion. As he said, Canada's nuclear industry is mostly privatized. The Conservative vision, which the Liberals support, is clearly behind the times when it comes to the future of Canada's nuclear industry. The Conservatives' shoelaces are untied and they are about to trip over them without realizing that they are going to crash to the ground.

The government is seriously going to have to take the time to listen to what the NDP is saying, in order to understand the real issues in the debate we are engaged in right now. Obviously, I would point out another paradox that borders on the ridiculous and in fact is so ridiculous, it enters the realm of caricature. Today, the government imposed a time allocation motion on a bill that has been sitting on the shelf and was even torpedoed by the Prime Minister when he failed to abide by the fixed election date law in 2008. The bill sat on the shelf for years, and catching up got put on hold for decades before the government corrected one obvious flaw, only in part and relatively clumsily.

There is nothing to prevent me, like all of my New Democrat colleagues, from supporting the bill at second reading. We will at least have a base to work on, somewhat wobbly though it may be. In cabinetmaking, when a table is wobbly, you can always try to level it, particularly if you have some expertise and a degree of skill. You have to make sure it is solid and the dishes will not fall off.

In the second part of my speech, I am going to focus on the nuclear industry. The nuclear industry needs to assume its responsibility completely. I do not think that comment will generate debate. To start with, it is a matter of the public interest. I would hope that everyone will agree that the safety of the Canadian public as a whole is absolutely non-negotiable, in spite of a few somewhat nonsensical comments from government members.

We also need to learn from the various events that have taken place in the past in various parts of the world. Based on that, we have to draw the following conclusion: in the Canadian context, setting the limit at $1 billion will be insufficient to cover the cost without requiring that the government invest large amounts of taxpayers’ money to deal with certain potential accidents. Zero risk does not exist anywhere. If I take my car out tomorrow, I assume a share of the risk, for which I pay through my insurance. However, the risk must be completely assumed by the industry. That is a very basic question of how a market operates. We are talking about internalizing the costs associated with the risk to be assumed. It is a very simple principle. Plainly, understanding how a market functions in economics is an insurmountable obstacle for many government members.

There is also the issue of the competitiveness of the Canadian nuclear industry. It must be viable and exportable, and our Canadian businesses must be able to compete and offer their skills and expertise by having optimal conditions on our domestic market, no matter the area of activity, whether it involves the design, construction, operation or development of certain parts of the systems in the nuclear industry.

We are not the only ones talking about this. This is a concern shared by experts in different fields about both the nuclear and the oil and gas industries. I will first quote Joel Wood, senior research economist at the Fraser Institute, who had this to say about the absolute liability cap:

Increasing the cap only decreases the subsidy; it does not eliminate it.

The subsidy is obviously a concept that I hope my Conservative colleagues will be able to grasp. I hope that they will be able to follow my logic. However, I am not very confident that they will since the Conservatives manage to confuse collective savings with the Canada pension plan and a tax, for example, which shows that the government has a very limited understanding of very important social issues.

Mr. Wood goes on to say:

The Government of Canada should proceed with legislation that removes the liability cap entirely rather than legislation that maintains it, or increases it to be harmonious with other jurisdictions.

When speaking of other jurisdictions, as the member for Saint-Jean said, we are speaking about foreign examples that are comparable in terms of the development of the nuclear or oil and gas industry.

Let us take a look at oil and gas development. One of the first elements is rather strange. In fact the bill deals strictly with offshore development, and does not deal with the entire issue of oil and gas development and transportation. We are already wondering why the government took a slapdash approach.

Earlier, I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was filling in for my very esteemed colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for the clause by clause study of the bill.

During the period for questions and comments on omnibus Bill C-31, which I would remind the House is a monstrous bill that is impossible to study in the context of our work in the House or on committee, I raised some very serious concerns that the riding of Beauport—Limoilou has about the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. Bill C-31 was compromising, possibly even severely compromising, the regulations in that area.

Unfortunately, in Bill C-22, we are going to, yet again, end up partially correcting past failings and massive negligence by the Liberals and Conservatives. There is a reason we see them working so hard on joining forces to try to stop us. We saw that earlier this week with the conditions put on the debates scheduled to take place between now and the end of June.

We cannot look at this type of activity separately or in isolation, using a piecemeal approach, without understanding all this might entail for our society, our citizens, the environment and even for industry. It is truly deplorable to see the government improvising so easily and providing hollow, ready-made answers that do nothing to address the legitimate concerns that Canadians might have.

[James Wu]

Again I don't presume to speak for the government, but on behalf of the department let me just say in using the similar approach in the framework that exists under the life demutualization framework we appreciate there are concerns and unique aspects of the mutual P and C industry, and hence that's why adjustments or expansions of the regulations-making framework were recommended and tabled in Bill C-31.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In our opinion, the content of clause 14 is not in line with the government's commitment to establish an effective and fair regulatory framework for the demutualization process.

I think the provisions that enable the government to bring certain matters before the courts illustrate a lack of seriousness. They also illustrate a lack of political will to establish a real framework and to protect the industry against private interests.

Once again, clause 14 of Bill C-31 does not take into account the need to modernize laws and procedures relative to subscription notes and, consequently, to subscribers' right to vote in the context of a demutualization process. This bill contains no information on the nature of mutual companies' assets and the way they should be used and allocated following a demutualization.

In addition, a witness representing the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies said that mutual companies' assets should be considered as the mutual insurance industry's collective assets. That's especially the case when a mutual insurance company goes bankrupt, as other mutual companies should handle any outstanding contracts.

We heard a number of witnesses discuss this. Several of my colleagues from this committee were there when we studied the issue of demutualization during a meeting entirely dedicated to that topic. The discussion was interesting because this is a very complex sector. During that study, some fairly informative facts were brought forward, especially when a typical case was discussed involving the Economical Mutual Insurance Company, which talked about some issues with demutualization.

The company currently has over one million insurance policies. However, only 943 individuals are mutual insurance policyholders. The company has a capitalization of about $1.3 billion. An attempt at demutualization had begun that would have enabled each of the mutual policyholders—so each of the 943 individuals—to obtain personal assets in the amount exceeding $1 million. What would have happened to regular policyholders? They would have been left high and dry.

In short, it is really important to think about the interest of all those mutual insurance companies' users. It is also important to ensure that those policyholders—not only mutual policyholders, but all policyholders—can have a say in the case of demutualization proposals.

Currently, the bill delegates far too much authority to the courts. It relieves the government of its responsibility to make a decision, despite the commitment the government has made. Finally, the legislation allows the courts and tribunals to determine what happens in the case of a demutualization, and that could put all the power in the hands of mutual policyholders.

So if mutual insurance companies or shareholders are driven by short-term profits, the mutual company itself is at risk. The company is also potentially at risk. In fact, the president of the Economical Mutual Insurance Company did not even conceal the fact that the company, or the mutual, planned to be absorbed by or to merge with another company and eventually disappear altogether.

Once again, individual policyholders ultimately suffer in a situation where mutual policyholders are interested in short-term profits.

I know that our amendments are somewhat similar to those moved by the Liberal Party. However, ours aim to integrate policy holders, either by ensuring that they are invited to general meetings where demutualization would be discussed, or by giving them a say should they participate in that general meeting.

I invite my colleagues to seriously consider the decision they will make during this vote because some fairly significant consequences will arise for thousands, if not millions, of individuals. I know that Mr. Van Kesteren, among others, has done business with a mutual insurance company in his riding.

Give this some serious thought because your vote will have a fairly considerable impact.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

This is meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance, continuing our consideration of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

We are dealing with clause-by-clause consideration. Colleagues, we are at division 12, Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act. This deals with clauses 206 to 209. We have an amendment with respect to clause 207.

Is there any discussion on clause 206?

(Clause 206 agreed to)

(On clause 207)

On clause 207 we have amendment NDP-15.

Mr. Cullen.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Because they are related to each other. I'm under some disadvantage in that this is normally Mr. Brison's file. These are two amendments that we are basing upon the findings of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner for the wrongdoing of ECBC CEO John Lynn.

I'm just quoting from the report which says:

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 or the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia into executive positions at ECBC with little or no documented justifications and without demonstrating that the appointments were merit-based.

The report also says:

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.

There are two problems with Bill C-31 in light of the commissioner's wrongdoings. The two amendments seek to address these problems. Under clause 182, the individuals were improperly hired by Mr. Lynn. They are still at ECBC and have become permanent employees of the public service. Under clause 183, it singles out CEO Mr. Lynn as the only member of the board eligible for compensation or termination.

In quick summary, Mr. Chair, what we have is a serious breach of the ethical and hiring practices, yet there's a reward at the end, by turning these folks into permanent employees of the public service and giving Mr. Lynn a good payout.

The first amendment will ensure that an employee who was hired after June 1, which is when Mr. Lynn became a CEO, through a process that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner considers to have been a wrongdoing, under paragraph 8(e) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, would be excluded from the ECBC employees who have automatically become employees of the public service. It would prohibit them from becoming members of the public service.

The second amendment removes the exception of allowing the CEO, and only the CEO, to receive compensation on termination. It's not clear why the service decided to give the CEO the special treatment in the bill. Removing this is the only appropriate...given the report of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's finding of wrongdoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

My ruling is as follows. Bill C-31 seeks to amend the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act by removing the requirement that a comprehensive report be submitted by the agency president to the responsible minister. The amendment aims to re-establish the requirement for a report, and that it be submitted to the minister every four years.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, the amendment seeks to maintain the report requirement, which is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

That deals with NDP-14.

Is there any discussion on clause 177?

Mr. Cullen.

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

But here's the difficulty. We have Bill C-31 that allowed for individuals' importation of intoxicating liquors across provincial borders. That was for the individual. It wasn't for a business entity. I think, really, this needs to be rethought, not brought in as an amendment but brought in as a private member's bill or an idea that committee could study at some other point, but not here.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here because I'm not a regular member of this committee, but I've had copious notes prepared for me by my colleague, Mr. Brison.

His point is that we generally support this division; however, it does have one serious problem, which I'd be interested in your thoughts about. As the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association said in their brief:

As currently proposed, [Bill C-31] would require suppliers to ensure product was labelled in compliance with the Hazardous Products Act and its regulations prior to its importation. This requirement creates an unnecessary burden on suppliers....Allowing suppliers to import product for relabelling would be consistent with the provisions of other modernized regulations....It is not always practical or possible to label product in another country prior to importing it into Canada.

The recommended amendment, which is being put forward as amendment LIB-14, is that the amendment creates an exception for Canadian employers to import product for relabelling, which is consistent with the intent of the bill. It removes an unnecessarily onerous restriction that will place Canadian jobs at risk by making it difficult for some employers to do business in Canada. We hope that you'll agree with this proposal.

What are your thoughts?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

The ruling is that Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which civilian war veterans allowance applicants and recipients will receive a compensation. The amendment seeks to expand this period.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states, on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on a public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility, infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible. This applies to NDP-13 and to LIB-13.

I will then move to discussion on clause 105.

Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I will do my ruling.

Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which war veterans allowance applicants and recipients will receive a compensation. This amendment seeks to expand this period.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility, infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible, and this applies to NDP-12 and LIB-12.

Therefore, I will go to discussion on clause 104. I will start with Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

My ruling is that Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which Canadian Forces income support applicants and recipients will receive compensation. These amendments seek to expand this period.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, this amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That applies to NDP-11 and LIB-11.

Therefore, I'll move to discussion on clause 103.

Do you have a question, Mr. Cullen?

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

Very specifically—and I appreciate the ruling, Chair—this is the machination of what we have here, which is an omnibus bill. Within the omnibus bill is an attempted correction of an injustice, as I think all of us around the House agree, whereby a clawback through the ELB was inflicted upon veterans who are suffering from various injuries, such as PTSD or other physical injuries, and only through a very expensive court case was the government forced to acknowledge this at all.

I'm going to quote Sean Bruyea, who appeared before this committee and testified on this very thing. Allow me, Chair—and I'll stop at this—to quote Sean Bruyea, retired captain:

Justice, or the appearance of justice being done, is plainly not being offered in Bill C-31. Should you pass the legislation as is, you will force the most disabled veterans under the flagship Conservative veterans benefit program known as the new Veterans Charter to enter the paralytic morass of years of unnecessary and bitter legal battles. These battles will sap the health, the family stability, and the dignity of military veterans and their families.

The fact that we have full awareness of what it is we're doing, which is inciting yet another round of litigation that is incredibly expensive and incredibly tiresome to the veterans who have already suffered once.... To re-victimize those veterans for the sake of what was offered only as a policy decision and to not allow this clawback to go back to the first moment when it started, which was 2006, is simply beyond me as a Canadian. I don't understand how we can talk about a Veterans Charter and respecting our troops.... If the government seeks to take a bow for this one because it was in their kindness that they offered to return this clawback, I fail to see many veterans celebrating it across the board.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

I have a ruling on amendment NDP-10 that applies to LIB-10 as well.

Bill C-31 establishes retroactively a period for which earnings loss benefit applicants and recipients will receive a compensation. The amendment seeks to expand this period. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767 and 768:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, therefore, the amendment, by modifying the period of admissibility, infringes on the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. The amendment is therefore ruled inadmissible.

That applies to amendments NDP-10 and LIB-10.

We will move to discussion on clause 102.

I will take speakers for clause 102. I'll start with Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. It is meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance, dealing with clause-by-clause discussions of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Colleagues, we are starting with part 6. We will proceed division by division. The first division, division 1, is payments for Veterans Affairs, which deals with clauses 102 to 107.

We have Mr. Butler here for any questions from members. I again want to welcome Mr. Butler back to the committee.

(On clause 102—Earnings Loss Benefit)

Under clause 102, we have amendments NDP-10 and LIB-10, and I will just highlight to the member that the chair will have a ruling on NDP-10 that will apply to both.

I would ask Mr. Cullen to move NDP-10.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting 39 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are televised, colleagues. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, we are continuing our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

We are dealing with part 5. As you know, we dealt with parts 1 to 4 at Tuesday's meeting. Part 5 deals with the Canada-U.S.A. enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act.

We have with us two officials from the Department of Finance, Mr. Ted Cook and Mr. Brian Ernewein, whom colleagues on the committee know very well. Thank you for being with us.

(On clause 99—Enactment)

We will start with clause 99. I'll just indicate, as your agenda shows, that we have an awful lot of amendments pertaining to this clause, so I suspect there'll be quite a debate on this.

We are going to start with amendment NDP-6, and I will just identify that if NDP-6 is moved, LIB-2 cannot be proceeded with, as they are identical. Obviously that deals with LIB-2.

If LIB-3 is adopted, Green Party amendment PV-1 cannot be moved, line conflict, nor NDP-7, as it's consequential. Also, if Green Party PV-1 is adopted, NDP-7 cannot be proceeded with.

We have all of these amendments. We'll start with the NDP. It's up to members, but sometimes they wish to group their amendments, or sometimes they wish to speak individually to each amendment. I'll leave that up to the respective members and parties themselves.

I will start with NDP-6, and I'll go to Mr. Rankin, please.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Canada-U.S. Relations

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in adjournment proceedings to pursue a matter that I raised in question period on March 3. It is appropriate, although the hour is late or one might say it is early morning of May 29; it is the day on which the subject matter of my question will be going through clause by clause before the finance committee. The subject of my question is a very significant and dangerous piece of legislation buried in the current omnibus bill, Bill C-31.

The question that I asked is somewhat poignant. I will share with members that when I went back and read the text of the question, I realized that this was the last time in question period that I put a question for former minister of finance Jim Flaherty, our late and dear colleague. As much as I was very fond of Jim, as I read the answer I realized that the reason I put in a slip to pursue it in adjournment proceedings was that I did not actually get an answer.

As I say, it is poignant and bittersweet to pursue in adjournment proceedings at 12:15 a.m. the matter of the constitutionality of something that many Canadians have probably never heard of: the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, otherwise called FATCA, which is buried in Bill C-31, the current omnibus budget bill.

What this Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act does is this. We know that sometimes we call the United States “Uncle Sam”. In this instance, Canada bent over until we said “uncle”, and that is on the matter of the U.S. doing something quite extraordinary. It has passed a domestic law and insisted that the rest of the world bow down and allow a U.S. law to apply extraterritorially all around the world.

As a former U.S. citizen myself, I find it ironic. When my family first moved to Canada, it was very clear that going to Canada and becoming Canadian citizens was something to which the U.S. government said, “Okay, forget it now; you cannot come back here and pretend you are Americans. We know you are Canadian now; no coming back here”. The laws were very clear that we were not U.S. citizens anymore. That was fine with me, because I was Canadian and that was all I wanted to be.

Now that the U.S. seems to find itself a little short of money, it is almost like people going around and trying to lift up the sofa cushions and reach for loose change under the seats where they had not looked before, in case they might find some money. Maybe a more appropriate visible image is of grabbing people who have any connection to the United States by their ankles and shaking them upside down to see if any loose coins fall out of their pockets.

The reality of this is that we have, under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, acceded to the United States as if we were subject to a binding treaty with it, something called the “intergovernmental agreement”. In point of fact, the U.S. Congress has not ratified this so-called treaty, so it should not be binding on Canada at all. On top of this, we know that no less a constitutional expert than Peter Hogg has advised the Government of Canada in his letter, which I obtained through access to information, that the provisions under this act “...are discriminatory in a way that would not withstand Charter scrutiny”.

In other words, we are being forced through an omnibus procedure and into committee tomorrow at clause by clause, and unless my amendments are accepted, we will once again have passed a piece of legislation that is discriminatory, treating Canadians of different classes in different ways, which offends section 15 of the Charter. We will have done that to accede to something that is not even accepted by the United States as a treaty, because it has not ratified it.

There is a solution to this, and this solution has come from many legal experts. We should remove this from Bill C-31.

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

Keeping personal tax information confidential is a principle of the tax system. That's the reason so many Canadians are reluctant to share their personal tax information. Bill C-31 will allow CRA to use its own discretion to give confidential tax information to police.

Who at CRA will make the final determination in each case on whether information should be shared under this provision?

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the meeting back to order. This is meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are dealing with Bill C-31.

Colleagues, we dealt last with clause 24. We have an amendment on clause 27. Is there any discussion on clauses 25 or 26?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are dealing with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.

Colleagues, as you know, we have both today and Thursday for clause by clause. My hope as chair is that we get through parts 1 to 4 today. We'll see if we can. Obviously, it will depend on members' input.

We do have a notice of motion in the name of Mr. Cullen, and he's indicated he would prefer to move that at the outset of the meeting.

Mr. Cullen, if you're ready, I'll go to you to move your motion, please.

The Budget

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the changes to trademark are very important for small and medium-sized businesses across Canada.

What we are doing in Bill C-31 is enacting three international protocols that protect the interests of small businesses on the international scene. These three treaties will allow Canadians who work in the IT sector and those who are dependent on their intellectual property on the world stage not to have to hire 50 and 60 lawyers around the world but to hire one.

When a patent is registered in Canada, it will be recognized on the world stage so that Canadians who are investing in intellectual property will be protected on a global level, not just a Canadian level.

I understand that the Canadian Bar Association does not like it, but it is because it is good for small business.

[Michael Spratt]

Yes. What we're looking at under PIPEDA is that with regard to the information disclosed for the purposes of law enforcement, there's no necessity to disclose to the person who you're talking about, who the information pertains to. Bill S-4 takes it a step further, of course, and says it's not just law enforcement or the government, but it's other organizations as well. We see in Bill C-31 that no longer are there strict controls over the sharing of information between Revenue Canada and other organizations.

This is a pattern, and it's a concerning pattern. To that extent, if would be very useful if this issue could be studied in depth in relation to the other issues that impact it as well.

[Michael Spratt, Member and Criminal Defence Counsel, Criminal Lawyers' Association]

Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here.

As you may know, the Criminal Lawyers' Association is a not-for-profit organization comprising more than 1,100 criminal defence counsel from across Canada. One of our objectives is to educate not only our membership but also the public on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law. The CLA has routinely been consulted and invited by various parliamentary committees to share its views on proposed legislation pertaining to these issues. The CLA supports legislation that is fair, modest, constitutional, and supported by the evidence.

To cut to the chase, the CLA is simply unable to support Bill C-13. Quite simply, Bill C-13 is not only overly broad but is also likely unconstitutional.

Bill C-13 purports to be concerned with tackling cyberbullying by stopping the spread of intimate images that are disseminated without the subject's consent. The real tragedy of Bill C-13 is that those provisions are necessary, laudable, and should be proceeded with; however, in reality that aspect takes up only a small percentage of the bill. Bill C-13, in the balance, sacrifices privacy in favour of expanded police powers and liberal disclosure standards.

Bill C-13, along with Bill S-4 and Bill C-31, represents a dangerous and in our opinion unconstitutional pattern of erosion of privacy.

Let me speak of the cyberbullying provisions. They are important, are laudable, should be proceeded with, and are indeed necessary in the modern world that we live in. Largely, I don't have any objection to the small percentage of the bill that deals with those provisions.

Having said that, I would add that there is a legitimate argument that those provisions in and of themselves may be overly broad, in that the standard imposed for the mens rea is “recklessness”. That standard of recklessness may go too far, in that it may make individuals potentially liable who don't know or could not have found out the circumstances to which the images that are the subject of that provision relate. To that extent, the problem with the cyberbullying provision is not necessarily its aim but rather its execution in that one small regard.

The bill's aim is to punish those who transmit intimate photos sent to them, when the person who took those images has an expectation of privacy. That is likely to have significant public support, as it should; however, the scope of the provision is potentially overly broad, because it expands the mens rea element. By making “recklessness” one of the potential mens rea standards for that offence, the provision may catch not only the individual who was the original recipient of the image but also those down the line—the second-hand recipients of that image—who may have no knowledge of the circumstances in which that picture was taken or made.

Some caution comes from Don Stuart, a pre-eminent expert in the field of criminal law. As he points out in Canadian Criminal Law, the fifth edition, there is a risk that the recklessness standard can devolve into a far broader conception of fault than is desirable, and a more nuanced approach would involve defining recklessness as knowledge both of the risk and that that risk was likely.

That provision can be seen in other aspects of the code; for example, in item (a)(ii) of section 229, which deals with murder.

A modified recklessness standard in the cyberbullying provision would target the so-called “revenge porn” conduct, without drawing to the net those who simply pass on the photos without context and may not necessarily be as morally culpable.

If the provision is allowed to remain there without a clearer definition of recklessness, the section may attract some charter scrutiny. At that point, the issue would become one of over-breadth: does that section capture individuals who may not be morally blameworthy, but may nonetheless be captured under the recklessness standard? As I said, this is a minor issue with that aspect of the bill.

More troubling is the “lawful disclosure” aspect of Bill C-13. The bill announces itself as being about cyberbullying and protecting Canadians from online crime, but certainly it far exceeds those parameters.

I will start by saying that of course the most controversial aspects of Bill C-30 have been removed—the mandatory warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information. However, there are still some serious concerns. I'll deal with two issues.

The first is that there is simply insufficient judicial oversight in obtaining those orders.

Now, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered the standard for reasonable suspicion, which is the standard we're dealing with in the legislation, in the case R. v. Chehil. The court made it crystal clear that the standard of reasonable suspicion falls well below the normal requirement of reasonable and probable grounds. That's the normal standard we usually deal with. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that the state's interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual's interest in being left alone at the point where credible-based probability replaces suspicion.

The data, which is the subject matter of the searches contemplated in Bill C-13, contains a great deal of personal information. It's a misnomer to simply call it metadata. That dilutes the importance and impact of that data.

I understand that a pre-eminent expert in this area, Dr. Michael Geist, will be testifying at this committee later this week, and I think he will agree that metadata is deserving of an increased level of protection. And indeed he's not alone in that view. When we look at reports in 2013 from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, both reports reveal the heightened expectation and the intimate information that can be revealed through metadata. I would commend you to read those reports. It's quite shocking what can be discerned about an individual's communications and basic information about the individual through simply an IP address or some of the other metadata that's discussed.

Metadata as a starting point has a heightened expectation of privacy, and that is something that has been echoed by the Supreme Court, which agrees seemingly with Dr. Geist and with the privacy commissioners. In the recent case of Vu, which dealt with metadata found on a personal computer, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's submissions—we intervened in that case—finding that ordinarily this information, metadata, can help a user retrace his or her cybernetic steps. In the context of a criminal investigation, however, it can also enable investigators to access intimate details about a user's interests, habits, identities, drawing on a record that the user created unwittingly. Of course, in modern times there's a capacity to store, catalogue, and cross reference this information, revealing more and more.

The Supreme Court's comments about the heightened privacy inherent in this type of data is simply incompatible with the proposed reasonable suspicion standard that's found in Bill C-13. That incongruity exposes this proposed legislation to charter scrutiny, and in my opinion supports a conclusion that there's not only charter scrutiny here but indeed charter infirmity. There's simply no principled and justifiable reason that the new warrant provisions contained in Bill C-13 should not be based on the traditionally and judicially approved standard of reasonable and probably grounds.

Next, moving to the issue of the incentives for non-judicially supervised disclosure, Bill C-13 will also likely lead to an increased request for a telecommunications company to disclose information without court oversight and the corresponding protections. Privacy in this regard should be strengthened and not abandoned. Falling back on section 25 in the current Criminal Code is no answer to this problem. If you read section 25 carefully, you will see that section 25 requires reasonable grounds, and no comfort can be found in the appeal legislation as it offers no protection.

Of course as we see with that existing provision in Bill C-13, it broadens the scope of disclosure. No longer will the requesting organization be under an obligation to actually be enforcing or administering an act. The room for those requests is greatly increased. And indeed we see codification of the civil and criminal immunity which isn't in section 25, and as I said, section 25 requires reasonable grounds, which is completely absent in this section.

The real concern is that the expansion of police power and limiting liability for the party agreeing to disclose will result in increased police fishing expeditions, and of course we have seen from some reports some very alarming information about current practices in that regard.

Indeed, it would have been preferable to have discrete legislation on both the cyberbullying and on the lawful access legislation. However, given the current formulation of Bill C-13, the CLA recommends that the standards for obtaining those warrants be strengthened and brought in line with what the current Supreme Court case law would suggest is appropriate. No one wants to see evidence excluded. No one wants to get it wrong at the outset, and years later find out that the constitutionally suspect legislation was passed, evidence was excluded, and prosecutions were jeopardized because things weren't done right the first time. The provisions respecting the voluntary disclosure should be reconsidered to ensure both fairness, respect of privacy, and ultimately, constitutionality.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I just want to say I appreciate the concerns that have been raised. As the official opposition you're doing your job and being a megaphone for the concerns that have been raised, but frankly we don't agree. These are IP treaties that make perfect sense, and I can understand why some, particularly the Canadian Bar Association, aren't terribly big fans of this.

By the way, there's a reason why these protocols are also consolidated in our Digital Canada 150 plan, because if you're a Canadian innovator and you want to get a patent and you have to hire a patent lawyer and it costs between $3,500 and $5,000 to secure a patent for your idea, you want to make sure a patent troll doesn't sit on your idea and steal it, because information is instantly global.

If you file a patent in Canada, we want it to be protected around the world. Patent lawyers who can charge you $3,500 to register a patent in every country in the world are going to be upset, but guess who benefits? Small businesses that have to register patents and protect their IP are going to benefit greatly from these reforms. The idea here, of course, is very simple, which is why all other countries that are signatories have ratified these agreements. They're ahead of the game. We're behind the game. We need to ratify these agreements, so Canadians whose livelihoods are dependent upon the protection of their intellectual property have the capacity to protect it internationally, and not make it impossible for them to protect themselves.

Colleagues, as Bill C-31 moves forward—and I guess it's considered over at the finance committee and not this committee—if the NDP has suggestions on how we might amend this, bring them forward. First, I think it's a pretty straightforward idea to protect Canadians' IP on an international level and not just domestic. Second, I think it's pretty easy to understand why those who are opposed to it are opposing it: their self-interest.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We are always listening. Do not forget that this treaty was signed in 2001. Many discussions have been held about this. We have held discussions, and we have definitely consulted people on the issue.

We think that those international protocols and treaties are very important for helping small and medium-sized businesses because they are the ones taking a hit owing to this.

I think it's appropriate, if I may, just to go through the three treaties in Bill C-31 that you are referring to. The Madrid protocol allows for the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions through a single international application that is filed with the international bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The Singapore treaty, the second of the three, establishes standards and rules related to procedures in national trademark offices to clarify what they can and cannot require from applicants. The third, the Nice agreement, governs the Nice classification, a list of different types of goods and services for which businesses may use a trademark and is required for accession to the Singapore treaty and the Madrid protocol, which are also—

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

At the same time, Minister Moore, it is clear that a quick response is needed because things are moving increasingly fast. I hope to have an opportunity to talk to you about the report on digital issues that was published in 2011. The reaction time is extremely long.

I would now like to discuss intellectual property. In the omnibus bill on budget implementation—Bill C-31—you made amendments to the Trademarks Act under the pretext of wanting to align the efforts while respecting treaties like the Madrid Protocol.

A number of stakeholders have come to talk to us about this. They testified before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

Government Appointments

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the commissioner found that Mr. Lynn seriously breached the code of conduct when he hired Nancy Baker, Allan Murphy, Ken Langley, and Robert MacLean based solely on political ties to the Conservative Party. All were hired to executive positions and all were appointed without a competitive, merit-based process. These tainted political appointments will become permanent in a matter of weeks when Bill C-31 makes them part of the public service.

In 2012, the Public Service Commissioner revoked two rigged appointments at ACOA P.E.I. Will the minister show leadership and do the same with these rigged appointments at Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

[Sean Reid, Vice-President, Federal and Ontario, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have covered a lot of ground on this panel already, I can see. I will cover a couple of topics, but I've also heard in previous sessions a lot of discussion around temporary foreign workers. I'd be happy to talk about that in the questions, if need be.

It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada to share our perspective on Bill C-31.

PCA represents and supports progressive unionized employers in Canada's construction industry. Our member companies employ approximately 30,000 skilled tradespeople, unionized primarily by the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

In western Canada, where we account for about 40% of all natural resource industry construction and where provincial regulations best support the hiring and training of young workers, registered apprentices comprise over 35% of the total PCA workforce. Despite our leadership in the recruitment and development of new tradespeople, PCA member companies, like most companies in Canada's construction industry, continue to struggle to find enough workers to meet growing demand. This is particularly pronounced in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

It's in this context that l want to express PCA's strong support for the measures within part 6 of Bill C-31, and to share our thoughts on how these measures fit into a broader plan for addressing Canada's workforce development challenges both today and into the future.

It starts with promoting and enabling skills training and apprenticeship in Canada. There are numerous barriers to entry for Canadians considering a career in the trades. These barriers include cost, proximity to employers and training providers, and family circumstances.

The Canada apprentice loan announced in the 2014 budget is a welcome step towards tackling some of these issues. For many of our prospective employees, the loan will help cover a variety of hidden costs of transitioning from a low-opportunity career path or occupation into the skilled trades—the cost of new tools and equipment, transportation costs, and income supplementation during technical training, just to name a few.

It's our hope that once implemented, this program will be flexible enough to accommodate someone who decides to change trades early on in their apprenticeship journey. At the same time, the program should maintain enough focus to facilitate improved completion rates.

While these sorts of investments in apprenticeship will help the longer-term landscape, they will not help our companies address the immediate acute skills shortages we are experiencing in certain regions and occupations. We must also look abroad to fill those gaps.

PCA supports the balanced approach of the federal government reflected in Bill C-31 pertaining to immigration. Our members are particularly excited about the potential of the express entry system, not only for recruiting high-demand tradespeople, such as heavy equipment operators and welders, but also hard-to-find corporate professionals, including engineers, project managers, and estimators. We'll continue to work closely with the federal government on the development and implementation of this new system.

I do want to highlight one other area around which we believe more can and should be done; namely, to better facilitate the mobility of workers in Canada from regions of high unemployment to regions of low unemployment. One solution that we believe the federal government should take a closer look at is the creation of a work travel grant or a lump sum training and mobility grant accessible through the EI system. Mobility grants allow a person who is unemployed in one area of the country to utilize future employment insurance benefits in the form of a lump sum payment in order to relocate to another area of the country where workers are needed. The funds advanced from the EI payments would then be used to fund job search, training, and relocation costs.

In conclusion, PCA thanks the committee for this opportunity to share our views on Bill C-31. I'd be happy to take any questions you have.

[Blair Campbell]

My name is Blair Campbell. I'm the general counsel and corporate secretary for Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company. I come to you in this capacity, but I also sit on the executive committee of the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.

I'm here today to address division 14 of part 6 of Bill C-31. It provides, in part, rules to enable the conversion of mutual insurance companies to capital stock companies, which is otherwise known as demutualization. I come to you to express grave concern over this decision and to explain the impact that these rules may have on our companies, and in particular on rural Canada.

Our company, Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company, is one of 100 mutual insurance companies serving in the property and casualty insurance market in Canada. Our company, like many of our sister mutuals, was formed by farmers between 100 and 175 years ago out of need in the farming sector and for rural property owners to provide insurance that was not adequately serviced by stock companies. Mutuals are still relevant today in rural Canada. Most of our companies are based in small Canadian towns. We have boards that consist of local farmers and business people. We serve local residents, make decisions locally, and serve the needs of many rural Canadians.

Our companies were founded on principles of mutuality and sharing. They were not formed based on capitalistic principles or ideals of individual property rights. As mutualists, we believe the assets of a mutual insurance company are a common good. They are indivisible. The surplus of our companies has been built up as security for the policyholders over many generations. This surplus was not accumulated to become the property of a particular generation. Members of the company do not have any direct or even notional ownership rights in the assets of the company, as when they leave, there is no payment of a share in the company. The surplus is held for the policyholder's benefit while they are a mutual policyholder.

The best example of proper disposition of the surplus of a mutual is in Quebec with cooperatives. When they convert, the assets of the cooperative will stay in the cooperative federation or system. As well, in France, if we are looking for precedent, policyholders voting on a demutualization proposal must also vote on the disposition of the surplus, which must be to a continuing mutual company or companies, or charity.

A demutualization decision by the policyholders of the day will be made out of self-interest. It won't be made out of acknowledgement of the sacrifice or contribution of prior generations, or the interests of future generations that will be served by mutuals. If enabling laws are made, our companies will be at risk of conversion for the purpose of expansion of existing stock companies with predatory ambitions of growth. Mergers and acquisitions professionals will become skilled in lucrative practices, converting mutual companies to stock companies.

I would just give you the example of the life companies. When the rules were made, the life companies served 50% of the life insurance market—life companies are different from our property and casualty companies—but now they serve less than 5% of that market.

It may be impossible to monitor and defend against the predatory and greed-based motivation in the examples I've given you. We are at the precipice of a decision that may have the effect of gutting the mutual industry in Canada. This will have irreversible effects on our companies and the cost of insurance services provided to Canadians, especially rural Canadians.

[John McAvity, Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the interests of time and temperature, I will try to be under the five-minute line.

We are very pleased to be here. I'm John McAvity, the executive director of the association. We have approximately 2,000 not-for-profit museums and galleries all across Canada. They welcome about 60 million visitors each year, so they're enormously important and spread out, from large metropolitan cities to small rural communities. They're also extremely popular and are viewed very favourably by Canadians. In fact, according to studies, 96% of Canadians believe museums contribute to a better quality of life.

I believe I speak on behalf of all of our members when I say that we were very pleased with the federal budget of February 11, which protected the museum programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage and also at the Canada Council for the Arts, programs that are vital to the well-being of our country's museums. There are, however, two other issues that we would like to bring forward to you today.

The first is division 11, which amends the Museums Act of Canada in order to transfer responsibility for two programs, the virtual museum of Canada and online works of reference, to the Canadian Museum of History. Particularly, we are concerned that there was a lack of consultation. We did not see this decision coming, and there are a number of subsequent questions that we are awaiting clarity on.

As a national museum, the Canadian Museum of History is a world-class institution that adheres to the highest professional standards. We applaud its mandate of raising the profile of Canadian history and have no doubt about its capacity to deliver on these programs being transferred to it.

Our concern refers to clause 193, in which proposed subsection 9(3) states:

The Canadian Museum of History may support other museums or organizations that have a purpose that is complementary to its own

On the positive side, the transfer of these programs does represent an opportunity to renew and broaden these programs, integrating new forms of technology and helping the programs move forward. We do not want to see these programs be narrowed. We want to ensure that our nation's heritage is not restricted to historical artifacts or archival materials, as per the museum's role, but also through art, science, oral history, and other forms of culture. We argue for the very broadest definition possible.

I should also go on to talk a bit about the virtual museum of Canada, because it is an important program that supports museums across the country and teaches them the process of developing online exhibits as well as helping to digitize museum collections. We need to ensure that it and the other program being transferred are inclusive and accessible to the whole community.

A second matter of concern to our community is the recent changes to the cultural property review board in this budget. This is a very valuable program that assists in the protection of cherished historical items and encourages the growth of private giving in Canada. In the last two reported years, the board's permits and actions resulted in over 34,000 items of outstanding significance and national importance, valued at over $178 million in tax credits, being saved for the public good in our museums and galleries.

On February 11, the federal budget effectively closed down one donation model that some taxpayers had used. Some had used favourable tax treatments, fluctuations in values, and exemptions from capital gains to their advantage, all very legal activities. These shelters are now ineligible under the program. Some professionals are wondering what further changes may be coming.

The next part in Bill C-31 sees the authority of the cultural property review board being transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to a new administrative tribunal. Again, there was no consultation. We were not aware of this change.

We are wondering where all of this is leading. Assurance is badly needed for the integrity, openness, and long-term stability of the cultural property review program.

We thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We're continuing our study of Bill C-31.

I apologize for the heat. We are endeavouring to address that.

I want to welcome our second panel. Speaking as an individual, we have Ms. Sandra Nelson. From the Canadian Museums Association, we welcome back Mr. John McAvity. From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we have Mr. Gregory Thomas. From the PEI Mutual Insurance Company, we have Mr. Blair Campbell. From the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, we have Mr. Sean Reid.

Thank you so much for being with us. You each have five minutes maximum for your opening statements, and then we'll have questions from our members.

We'll begin with Ms. Nelson, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My time is up. I will cut myself off, as I do others.

I want to thank you very much for being with us this afternoon and contributing to our discussion on Bill C-31.

Colleagues, we're going to take a break for a couple of minutes. Before I do, I've passed around the budget for Bill C-31. Could I have someone move this budget?

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

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

This is not for our witnesses, but I want to give committee members a heads-up that we'll be submitting a motion, not on Bill C-31, but to bring Minister Kenney to committee to talk about the temporary foreign worker program. We're hearing a lot of testimony on it, Chair, and I think that would benefit the committee. I know it's a moving target for the minister as well. He's spent some time making modifications or cancelling or suspending certain aspects of the program. More and more I'm of the inclination that the finance committee would do well to hear form the minister for some short time, depending on his availability.

I'm just giving committee members a heads-up on that.

[Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman, Chief Warrant Officer (Retired), Office of the Veterans Ombudsman]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee to share with you my views on division 1 of part 6 of Bill C-31, entitled Payments—Veterans Affairs.

I also wish to take this opportunity to briefly explain why Veterans Affairs Canada needs to take other measures to improve the support provided to injured or ill veterans and families under the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 will provide many veterans, survivors, or dependent children with additional financial support as a result of government's decision to cease the offsetting of the Pension Act disability pension from other financial benefits, such as the earnings loss benefit, Canadian Forces income supplement, and war veterans allowance. The one-time payment for those benefits will provide retroactive compensation to cover the timeframe from the date the decision was made to cease the practice of offsetting to the date that Veterans Affairs Canada implemented the decision.

Numerous veterans have called my office to complain that the short periods of retroactivity are not fair. They argue that the Federal Court settlement under the Manuge v. Canada case provides retroactivity back to 1976 for the Canadian Forces service income security insurance plan, known as SISIP. Consequently, they believe the retroactivity for the affected Veterans Affairs Canada programs should be provided to the date the programs came into force.

SISIP clients are receiving retroactivity going back to the start of the program, because in the context of an insurance contract, the offsetting of the disability pension as income was unlawful. However, Veterans Affairs Canada was operating within the full context of the legislation. When confronted with a new understanding of the disability pension, a policy change was made to amend the regulation to eliminate the harsh effect that this policy was having on veterans.

From an ombudsman's perspective, there is nothing unfair about what has occurred. Although both situations appear to be similar, they are structurally quite different.

I do not believe that this is a matter of fairness. The reality is that the Federal Court decision did not specifically compel the government to change the way it offset the disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada benefits. But the government made the change anyway. There was also no obligation for the government to provide retroactivity—but it did. This ensures that veterans are not penalized because of the length of time it took to implement the new policy.

I believe that government is treating veterans and their families equitably on a go forward basis by harmonizing how Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces deal with the offsetting of the disability pension from respective financial benefits.

Let's quickly look at other issues in relation to the new Veterans Charter. The most pressing shortcomings to address, and the main source of discontent amongst veterans, are those related to financial support. Adequate financial support is a key enabler to many intended veteran outcomes, such as successful transition to a new civilian career, reasonable standard of living and quality of life, and improved physical and mental health.

There are five main issues with the financial support provided under the new Veterans Charter: first, the insufficiency of the economic financial support provided after age 65 to at-risk totally and permanently incapacitated veterans; second, the drop in income for veterans who are transitioning from a military to a civilian career, as the earnings loss benefit pays only 75% of their pre-release salary; third, the accessibility to the permanent impairment allowance and the permanent impairment allowance supplement, which is a problem for many severely impaired veterans; fourth, the unfair practice of providing a reduced earnings loss benefit to part-time reservists who suffer an injury or illness related to service; and fifth, the non-economic benefit designed to compensate for pain and suffering, the disability award. This benefit is supposed to have kept pace with civilian court awards for pain and suffering, but it has not.

The shortcomings that have been presented to government through my reports and by the many witnesses who have appeared before the House of Commons and Senate committees on veterans affairs over the past several months are impediments to achieving the charter's core objective.

[Matthew McGuire]

Additionally, we suggest that there are those in the accounting profession, who practise the accounting profession, who are not provincially regulated, such as those with foreign accreditations. We believe they should be subject to the act to address the money-laundering risks they pose as well.

We appreciate your consideration of the issues we've identified today in the course of your review of Bill C-31. We'd be delighted to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Matthew McGuire, Chair, Anti-Money Laundering Committee, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Matthew McGuire, and I am the chair of the anti-money-laundering committee of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. I'm a CPA, a member of the Department of Finance's public-private advisory committee on AML and ATF, and a partner and the national anti-money-laundering practice leader at MNP LLP.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act proposed by Bill C-31. My comments today focus on the issues relevant to accountants and accounting firms arising from the proposed amendments and certain areas where there are amendments that we hope to see.

The Financial Action Task Force, of which Canada is a member, released its updated recommendations in February 2012. We're concerned that the proposed amendments would not completely align the PCMLTFA with the expectations of accountants and accounting firms articulated in those recommendations. In particular, FATF recommendation 22 sets an expectation that anti-money-laundering obligations for accountants should be triggered when they prepare for or carry out transactions for their clients concerning the following activities that we believe should be covered: the organization of contributions for the creation, operation, or management of companies; and the creation, operation, or management of legal persons or arrangements.

One of the greatest challenges in complying with the anti-money-laundering legislation is the determination of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the case of a suspicious transaction report for money laundering or terrorist financing. Reporting entities need information to confirm whether their basis for suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing is valid in order to develop meaningful processes for risk and transaction monitoring following the submission of those reports. The amendment in the bill that provides FINTRAC the ability to make public their involvement in cases where they make disclosures and there was a prosecution is laudable, but we think it could be expanded to make public any details of suspicious transactions and the indicators that supported the disclosure and their characteristics, of course without identifying the person who submitted it. That intelligence would surely help reporting entities, from accountants to banks to credit unions, improve their monitoring and reporting practices.

We are also concerned about proposed section 68.1 of Bill C-31. It would permit FINTRAC to file with the court suspicious transaction reports and other voluntary reports in the case of any action, suit, or legal proceedings brought or taken under the PCMLTFA. We submit that in the case of such filings, the details about the reporting entity—the folks who submitted the report—should be sealed so as to not discourage suspicious transaction reporting volumes and quality for fear of public scrutiny of those reports.

We'd also like clarity on the ministerial countermeasures with regard to the regulations that support those countermeasures. The full range of possible countermeasures is not known; therefore, we're concerned about the practical extent to which our members will be able to design systems and processes quickly to adhere to them, and the agility they require in that respect. We would ask that any regulation supporting these measures would provide sufficient lead time for compliance with the directives.

Common among reporting entity sectors, from banks to real estate brokers to dealers in precious metals and stones, is a frustration with identification standards, particularly in cases where the client does not present themselves physically for identification. Altogether, the program of client identification is not proportionate to risk, is burdensome compared with the regimes in other countries, and doesn't appear to be addressed in this bill. We understand, however, that the Department of Finance is addressing it in the course of regulations. We fully support a move towards a more practical and risk-based approach to knowing who we're dealing with.

In closing, we'd like to outline some of the changes we'd like to see as time moves on. Under the current regulations of the act, an “accountant” means a chartered accountant, a certified general accountant, or a certified management accountant. When the unification of the profession is complete across the provinces, we would like the act to reflect that renaming as well as the change from the CICA handbook to the CPA Canada handbook.

[Martin Lavoie]

The CITT, according to our members, is the most efficient and leanest of operations. We believe the proposed changes will weaken the CITT's administrative and analytical capacity and have potentially negative repercussions on our international trade obligations at large.

We recommend that the government remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal from the list of tribunals covered by Bill C-31.

Thank you again, and I look forward to receiving your questions.

[Martin Lavoie, Director, Manufacturing Competitiveness and Innovation Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I congratulate all the Boston Bruins fans for shaving their beards today. I still have mine.

I will start my remarks in French and finish them in English.

The situation of the manufacturing sector started to improve in 2010, after the great recession. Some macroeconomic indicators are announcing better days. Since 2011, the rate of plant capacity use has gone over 80%, which leads us to believe that capital and manufacturing expenditures will go up as the U.S. market picks up and companies will be faced with production capacity issues.

Investments in machinery and equipment are an indicator of productivity. In 2013, they were at their highest level since the recession, meaning at $14.3 billion. This fine performance is attributable in part to the federal government’s accelerated capital cost allowance. We feel that it is important for the federal government to keep a high accelerated capital cost allowance rate for machinery expenditures in order to facilitate investment and productivity gains.

The manufacturing sector currently has 1.73 million employees, whereas, in 2007, there were 2 million.

In 2013, exports almost reached their level prior to the recession. They are at $39.3 billion in goods, which is an increase of 34% since the 2009 low point.

However, research and development expenditures are a little more worrisome. Given the budget cuts to the scientific research and experimental development program, that was somewhat predictable.

Last year, research and development expenditures were close to their historic low of 2010, with a drop from 2011 and 2012. In my view, this performance is not likely to improve in the short term, given the elimination of capital expenditures in 2014 and the reduction from 20% to 15% of the research and development tax credit for large businesses from the federal government.

There are three areas in or related to Bill C-31 that are of particular concern for members. One is to keep supporting the companies that are facing labour and skills-shortage issues. While we agree that there should be no tolerance for abuse under the temporary foreign workers program, our members are concerned with the current uncertainty of the program.

We get calls from members asking, “Am I still okay buying this next piece of equipment if I need to bring those foreign workers here to set it up and to get some training?” There are a lot of questions. Not all of them are necessarily touched by the current situation with the program, but there is uncertainty.

Our member survey indicated that, year after year, more than 50% of our members are facing skills and labour shortages, and most of them think the situation will get worse in the future. One of our recommendations is to really make sure that we keep a foreign skilled workers program specifically for the advanced manufacturing sector.

The second area of concern is with division 3 of part 6 of the bill, which amends the Hazardous Products Act to implement the globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals. CME supports the benefits of harmonization of safety data sheets and labels on products used in the workplace. Canada, however, must make sure that all labelling requirements are fully harmonized with those in the U.S., so that companies do not have unnecessary costs related to relabelling products if there is a lack of harmonization.

We also think that importers of chemical products should be able to label their products here in Canada without the obligation to label them in the country of origin prior to their importation, as is currently required in the legislation.

I would like to say a few words on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal as well. Our members' competitiveness relies on high-quality assistance from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to make sure that their competitors compete according to the rules. Division 29 of part 6 is proposing to remove the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's budget, research staff, and registry and to consolidate these into the administrative tribunals support service of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. I ask colleagues and guests to take their seats, please.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, our committee is looking at Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have two panels here this afternoon. In our first panel we have Christopher Worswick, a professor from Carleton University. From the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, we have Martin Lavoie. From the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, we have Matthew McGuire. From the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, we have Fred Webber, president and CEO; and from the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman, we have retired Chief Warrant Officer Guy Parent, Veterans Ombudsman.

Welcome to the committee. Each of you will have maximum five minutes for an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members.

We will begin with Professor Worswick, please.

[Shannon Coombs]

The CCSPA supports the amendments to the Hazardous Products Act in Bill C-31. These amendments will put in place a regulatory framework that will be harmonized with that of our major trading partner, the United States.

Included in Prime Minister Harper's and President Obama's 2011 joint action plan under the Regulatory Cooperation Council, the globally harmonized system, or GHS, for classification and labelling is a key initiative.

We are supportive of all the efforts to bring these new regulations to fruition, but the benefits of implementing the GHS can only be realized with a high level of alignment between the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Health Canada. Canada cannot meaningfully implement the GHS by creating unique Canadian requirements that will result in different or costly labels that impact trade.

Our sister associations, the Consumer Specialty Products Association and the American Cleaning Institute, have also publicly supported these amendments, and the United States has already begun its implementation of GHS for workplace chemicals. Adopting GHS in Canada will allow our members to use one safety data sheet and one label for products used in the North American workplace.

At this time we are proposing one amendment to Bill C-31. In proposed paragraph 14(b), under Hazardous Products Act, we're looking for an additional provision that would clearly allow for product that is imported into Canada for the purposes of relabelling to be compliant with the act. As it currently stands, product imported must be labelled prior to entry. Depending on your country of origin, this is not always practical. Allowing Canadian suppliers to import product for relabelling will allow industry to have more quality control and flexibility with respect to ensuring compliant labels in the workplace.

Mr. Chair, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on this important piece of legislation. We support this amendment and we look forward to working with the government on the subsequent regulations and guidance that are developed and harmonized with the U.S. OSHA.

Thank you.

[Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here today to provide support and a suggested amendment for Bill C-31.

My name is Shannon Coombs, and I'm the president of the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. I have proudly represented this industry for 15 years in our many accomplishments as a proactive and responsible industry.

The CCSPA is a national trade association that represents 37 member companies across Canada in what is collectively a $20-billion industry employing 12,000 people in more than 100 facilities. Our companies manufacture, process, package, and distribute consumer, industrial, and institutional specialty products such as soaps and detergents, domestic pest control products, disinfectants, deodorizers, and automotive chemicals, or as I call it, everything under your kitchen sink.

I have provided to the clerk copies of our one-pager, which has a picture of our products. I'm sure many of you have used them today. Also, you would have received our goody bag a few weeks ago,that is, assuming your staff chose to share it with you.

[Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, Chair, Commodity Tax, Customs and Trade Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I am Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, and I am chair of the Canadian Bar Association's commodity tax, customs and trade law section. The CBA is pleased to appear before you to provide views with respect to part 6, division 29, of Bill C-31.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 37,500 members of the legal profession. Our primary objectives include improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It is through that lens that we have examined the portion of the bill.

We have carefully reviewed the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which intends to restructure the administration support services of 11 federal administrative tribunals. The CBA's position is that division 29 of part 6 should be withdrawn from Bill C-31 for further consultation with the affected tribunals, the users, and the stakeholders. Should this portion of the bill proceed, the CBA recommends, at a minimum, the removal of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, and the Canada Industrial Relations Board from the legislation.

We must consider the potential risks of the proposed merger. My comments will focus on: one, the risk that the merged entity will be inconsistent with Canada's international obligations; two, the risk that the separation of the staff from the individual tribunals will cause delays in the litigation process; three, the risk that putting the tribunal staff in a merged entity will diminish expertise; and four, the risk that the effectiveness of the tribunals will be diminished if their impartiality and independence is brought into question.

Impartiality and independence may be affected by the reporting structure of the merged entity, which may lead to actual bias, an apprehension of bias, and/or conflicts of interest. It is proposed that the merged entity will report to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice is also the minister responsible for the Department of Justice.

For my part, as an international trade lawyer, I will focus on the impact the merger may have on the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Canada's international trading partners may perceive the administrative staff of the CITT as protectionist and biased in favour of the Canadian government and Canadian businesses. Under the merged entity, the staff will report to the same minister as the lawyers who bring anti-dumping and customs enforcement actions against exporters and who defend the government procurement challenges filed by foreign bidders. Canada's trading partners may therefore question the independence, impartiality, and objectivity of the decisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Turning to the risk of inconsistency with Canada's international obligations, our trading partners may question whether the merged entity is contrary to Canada's obligations under various WTO agreements and free trade agreements. I can assure you that it will not take long before a lawyer raises apprehension of bias, conflict of interest, and failure to abide by treaty obligations as reasons for challenging a CITT decision in a Canadian court, before the WTO dispute settlement body, or under an FTA dispute settlement mechanism.

Canada cannot control the outcome of a decision rendered pursuant to the WTO dispute settlement understanding or a free trade agreement. Negative decisions in the international arena are a real risk. If an international trade dispute is raised against the institutional procedures of the merged entity or the Canadian International Trade Tribunal itself, Canada may find itself having to compensate a foreign party or face retaliation under an international treaty.

If the remedy ordered by an international dispute settlement panel is a monetary amount—like NAFTA chapter 11—the cost may exceed any potential cost savings of the merger or, if retaliation is in the form of increased duties on Canadian goods by a foreign trading partner, Canadian manufacturers may be negatively affected in the international marketplace. The Department of Justice lawyers will have to defend challenges, and this will by itself result in a cost to the government.

There are also risks associated with possible delays in the litigation process. The risks of litigation increase if the timeliness of tribunals are affected by the structure of the merged entity. I can tell you that, based on personal experience, the legislative timeframes of cases before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal do not allow for delays.

The preliminary injury decision in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty case is 60 days from the date of initiation. A final injury decision must be released within 120 days of the preliminary determination of dumping. Cases before the CITT are not like litigation before the courts, which can drag on for years.

Lastly, there's a risk that the expertise of the tribunals may be diluted by the merger of the administrative support services. I can tell you from my own personal experience that the staff at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal have specialized expertise in trade matters that is unlike the expertise of the other 10 tribunals' staff.

Staff at the other tribunals cannot quickly step into the role of a CITT researcher who prepares anti-dumping injury questionnaires or compiles data for the pre-hearing staff report. Staff at the other tribunals do not have the same economic and trade analysis skills that the staff at the CITT have developed over the years. Legal support services staff would not have the same in-depth knowledge of Canada's international obligations.

Finally, the CITT staff receive confidential information from the parties who appear before the tribunal, and this confidential information is fundamental to finding the facts, applying the law, and coming up with the correct decision. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal staff are sensitive to the issues of confidentiality within the CITT act and the tribunal rules.

The credibility of the tribunal is at stake. We would like you to consider these important concerns in your deliberations.

Thank you.

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, Columnist, Media Personality and Academic Researcher, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the invitation. You have much on your plate, so I will skip further formalities.

On May 29, 2012, coincidental with the announcement not to appeal the class action lawsuit involving the Canadian Forces insurance plan known as SISIP, the Government of Canada committed to cease offsetting the Pension Act pain and suffering monthly payments from four other plans: the earnings loss benefit, the Canadian Forces income support, the war veterans allowance, and civilian war-related benefits. I will speak specifically about the earnings loss benefit, or ELB.

The ELB is an income loss program and a key pillar of the controversial legislation commonly known as the new Veterans Charter. Bill C-31 provides retroactivity in returning to the veterans the Pension Act pain and suffering deduction offsets of ELB from May 29 to September 2012.

During the launch of the new Veterans Charter, including the earnings loss benefit, on April 6, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised that:Our troops’ commitment and service to Canada entitle them to the very best treatment possible. This Charter is but a first step towards according Canadian veterans the respect and support they deserve.

If the government decided that the policy of offsetting monthly Pension Act payments for ELB is not what our troops deserved on May 29, 2012, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions on May 28, 2012? For that matter, did our troops deserve the unfair deductions for any day back to April 6, 2006, when the earnings loss benefit program was created?

ELB is clearly an income loss program. The Pension Act is indisputably a program for pain and suffering. Our courts have long stipulated that income loss is to be maintained completely separate from general damages, otherwise known as pain and suffering payments. No other provincial civilian workplace insurance program in Canada deducts pain and suffering payments from income loss programs. Why have our disabled veterans and their families been subjected to an unjustifiable lesser standard from April 2006 to May 2012?

Even if we ignore the strong legal precedent of not deducting pain and suffering payments from income loss programs, this arbitrary retroactive date of May 29, 2012, comes across as petty. The indefensible retroactive date creates an additional class of veterans once again. Those in the SISIP class action lawsuit had their problem rectified back to when SISIP began offsetting Pension Act payments. Why are ELB recipients not accorded the same dignity?

Justice, or the appearance of justice being done, is plainly not being offered in Bill C-31. Should you pass the legislation as is, you will force the most disabled veterans under the flagship Conservative veterans benefit program known as the new Veterans Charter to enter the paralytic morass of years of unnecessary and bitter legal battles. These battles will sap the health, the family stability, and the dignity of military veterans and their families.

We say that we honour our injured veterans as a nation and as a government, but Parliament's actions often speak otherwise. Before we hesitate because of cost, please remember that these disabled veterans never hesitated when Parliament ordered them into harm's way, knowing full well that many would die or become disabled for life.

Major Todd, the architect of the Pension Act philosophy of pain and suffering payment, stated in 1919 that Those who give public service do so not for themselves alone but for the society of which they are a part. Therefore, each citizen should share equally in the suffering which war brings to his nation.

This is just one tangible and clear example of the debt we keep promising to pay to our veterans, but we do not

What is also troubling about Bill C-31 is what is absent: the further debts we must pay. The earnings loss benefit is not being increased to 100% of military release salary while providing lost potential career earnings, yet civilian workplace compensation schemes recognize this loss potential. Boosting ELB to 100% has been emphatically pushed by the major veterans groups and the two VAC advisory groups established to study the matter, as well as the House committee on veterans affairs.

There are also no provisions for providing child care and spousal income assistance to the most disabled veterans. The most disabled are not supported for education upgrades or to pursue any employment opportunity to better themselves or improve their esteem. The monthly supplement provided under Bill C-55 in 2011 is denied those seriously disabled veterans collecting the exceptional incapacity allowance under the Pension Act.

My first of now eight parliamentary committee appearances was in front of the Senate version of this committee, the national finance committee, on May 11, 2005. I raised then and continue to raise serious concerns about the charter. My concerns were generally ignored by government, but not by veterans and the public. Had substantive action been taken then, we would not be in year eight of the tragic mess regarding how our veterans are mistreated and often pushed aside by the new Veterans Charter and Veterans Affairs Canada.

I also warned Parliament of the harassment of those who oppose the new Veterans Charter. This was also ignored, only to explode on the national media agenda five years later, with what some call the largest privacy breach in Canadian history—my privacy. As such, provisions such as those in Bill C-31 that would allow CRA to voluntarily hand over confidential taxpayer data to the police without approval of a judge send shivers down my spine, as they should for every Canadian. Surely the magnitude of Bill C-31 is disconcerting. The consequence of ignoring Canadians' and veterans' input is indeed a perilous road.

Undoubtedly, parliamentarians and the public service work hard for democracy. However, none can claim to have sacrificed what our military has sacrificed to preserve our democratic way of life. 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.

The omnibus budget bill is a perversion of democracy, in my mind, a democracy for which almost 120,000 Canadians have lost their lives and for which hundreds of thousands more have lived and continue to live with lifelong disabilities as a result of serving our nation.

Surely Parliament can do better.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming discussion, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, on a consideration of Bill C-31, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014.

I want to thank our second panel of guests for being with us here and by video conference.

First of all we have, as an individual, retired captain Mr. Sean Bruyea.

From the Canadian Bar Association, we have Cindee Todgham Cherniak.

Welcome to the committee.

From the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association, we have Ms. Shannon Coombs, president.

Welcome.

From the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we have vice-president Mr. Gordon Lloyd.

As an individual, we want to welcome, from Vancouver, Professor Dominique Gross from Simon Fraser University's School of Public Policy.

Thanks to all of you for being with us.

You each have five minutes maximum for an opening statement, and we will then go to members' questions.

We'll begin with Captain Bruyea, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Therefore, what that means, in lay terms, is that if the intergovernmental agreement or the provisions of Bill C-31 are in conflict with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act would prevail.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Is it your view that this has had sufficient study, that FATCA, in all of its complexity, has had sufficient study? If not, do you agree with our position that it ought to be taken out of Bill C-31 and given further study?

[Chantal Bernier, Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting me to discuss the privacy implications of Bill C-31.

Like my colleagues, I will focus on the United States Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, and I will conclude with some brief comments on two other parts of the bill that have privacy implications.

FATCA is a U.S. law which requires financial institutions in countries outside of the United States, including Canada, to report certain information on accounts of a U.S. person to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS. Bill C-31 includes an agreement to implement this through the Canada Revenue Agency.

While there is a long-established practice of information sharing between nations for the purposes of taxation enforcement, all information sharing activities must be undertaken in a way that respects privacy obligations. These obligations include limiting the amount of personal information collected to only that which is necessary for the stated purposes and safeguarding it appropriately.

The risk to privacy here, then, is mainly related to over-collection, over-reporting, and information security. To avoid over-collection and over-reporting, education and outreach to institutions affected by this new reporting requirement will be crucial. To address information security considerations, appropriate technological measures, as well as controls, will be called for.

Beyond this, Bill C-31 introduces other legislative amendments that affect privacy.

First, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act—the PCMLTFA—will be modified in a way that broadens the amount of personal information collected and increases information sharing capabilities and requirements by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC.

I'm encouraged, however, by the provision of Bill C-31 that requires FINTRAC to destroy the personal information it receives that is not related to the suspicion of criminal or terrorist activity. This corresponds to our recommendations in our audits of FINTRAC.

Second, changes to the Income Tax Act will allow for broader disclosure of taxpayer information to law enforcement authorities. This means that if CRA officials have reasonable grounds to believe that taxpayer information provides evidence of certain crimes, they may disclose this information to law enforcement. It appears that this information would be shared between the CRA and law enforcement authorities without judicial oversight. We would urge the committee in its examination of this provision to seek demonstration that this provision is necessary, and if it is necessary that appropriate oversight mechanisms will apply.

In closing, thank you, Mr. Chair and members for the opportunity to discuss this issue. I welcome your questions.

[Brian Kingston, Senior Associate, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the invitation to appear before you concerning part 5 of Bill C-31.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives represents 150 chief executives and leading entrepreneurs in all sectors and regions of the country. Our member companies collectively administer $4.5 trillion in assets, employ more than 1.4 million people, and are responsible for the majority of Canada's private sector exports, investment, and training.

The CCCE supports the government's decision to enter into an intergovernmental tax information sharing arrangement with the U.S. The agreement will ensure that Canadians are not exposed to punitive U.S. withholding taxes on income from their investments under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. Fortunately for the overwhelming majority of Canadian account holders, the agreement will have no impact on how they deal with their financial institutions.

The CCCE is of the view that Canada should have been exempt from the FATCA. Canada is not a tax haven, and has a good reputation for sharing information that assists other governments in collecting their taxes. Unfortunately, an exemption from FATCA was not considered.

Without this exemption, obligations to comply with FATCA would have been unilaterally and automatically imposed on Canadian financial institutions and their clients. This would have required Canadian financial institutions to sign agreements with the Internal Revenue Service under which they would have to identify their U.S. account holders and report directly to the IRS. If a Canadian financial institution did not comply with reporting requirements, the financial institution and its clients would be exposed to punitive U.S. withholding taxes of 30% on income from their investments. This would also mean that non-compliant financial institutions could no longer do business in U.S. capital markets or with any institution that does business in U.S. capital markets.

Given the size and importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship, non-compliance was simply not an option. Canada cannot risk our partnership with the U.S., which has delivered enormous benefits to both countries over many decades.

Canada is not alone in negotiating an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. The U.S. has engaged in negotiations with over 80 countries to reach intergovernmental agreements, and 32 other countries have signed such agreements.

The agreement is consistent with the government's support for recent G-8 and G-20 commitments intended to fight tax evasion globally. G-20 leaders have committed to the automatic exchange of tax information as the new global standard, and endorsed a proposal by the OECD to develop a global model for the automatic exchange of tax information. The OECD has also signaled an intention to begin exchanging information automatically on tax matters among G-20 members by the end of 2015.

Going forward, it is important that there is coordination among G-20 members. This exercise will not prove effective if not properly coordinated, with countries imposing unilateral measures.

This is part of a global trend toward tax transparency. In line with this trend, the CCCE recently released a report that shows the tax contributions made by our members to all levels of government. There is ever-increasing public interest in how much tax is paid by companies. This report shows that Canadian companies are significant taxpayers, with an average total tax rate of 33.4% of profits.

In conclusion, the CCCE strongly supports the intergovernmental agreement negotiated by the government and looks forward to its full implementation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[Darren Hannah, Acting Vice-President, Policy and Operations, Canadian Bankers Association]

Good afternoon.

My name is Darren Hannah. I'm the acting vice-president of policy and operations with the Canadian Bankers Association.

I'm very pleased to be here today at the committee's invitation.

The CBA strongly supports the government's decision to enter into the intergovernmental tax information sharing arrangement with the U.S., because it relieves Canadians of the burden they would otherwise face due to the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

As you know, FATCA, as legislation, was passed in the United States in 2010 and is intended to detect U.S. persons who are evading tax using financial accounts held outside the U.S. Under FATCA, non-U.S. financial institutions would be required to report relevant information to the U.S. tax authorities about financial accounts held by identified U.S. persons.

The CBA has been very clear on FATCA from the beginning. We understand that the U.S. government is attempting to address tax evasion; however, we have opposed how they're going about it with FATCA. Canada is not a tax haven, and Americans do not move here to evade taxation. We actively opposed FATCA publicly and appeared before and made submissions to U.S. government authorities.

Unfortunately, despite worldwide efforts by the CBA and others, U.S. officials have no intention of repealing FATCA, and simply ignoring FATCA is not an option. Non-compliance would mean that both financial institutions and every customer of that financial institution, both in Canada and around the world, would face a 30% withholding tax on U.S. source income and the sale of any U.S.-source investments, and potentially a withholding tax on Canadian source income due to so-called “foreign pass-through payment” provisions.

This means that any bank customer or retiree who has mutual funds, stocks, or bonds would face potentially billions of dollars of lost income to withholding tax even if they had no other ties to the U.S.

For financial institutions, non-compliance would effectively mean that they would no longer be able to do business in the U.S. capital markets or with any institutions that do business in U.S. capital markets, which is effectively every major financial institution in the world.

To ensure that Canadians did not face the substantial negative consequences that would have come with FATCA, the Canadian government announced on February 5, 2014, that it had entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. government under the existing Canada-U.S. tax convention. The requirements of the IGA are reflected in the proposed changes to the Income Tax Act in Canada under Bill C-31, and financial institutions in Canada will be required to comply with the changes under Canadian law.

We have agreed with the federal government that entering into an intergovernmental agreement is the best approach under the circumstances. We recognize and support the efforts that the Canadian government has made.

Under the intergovernmental agreement, financial institutions in Canada will report relevant information on accounts of U.S. persons to the Canada Revenue Agency rather than directly to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The CRA will then exchange the information with the IRS through the provisions of the existing Canada-U.S. tax convention. The 30% FATCA withholding tax will no longer apply to retail clients of Canadian financial institutions.

So what does this all mean for bank customers in Canada? Well, for the vast majority of Canadian bank customers who are not U.S. persons, the IGA has no impact at all. Under the intergovernmental agreement, banks would be required to review their customer information. If there is no information indicating that an individual may be a U.S. person, then they won't have to do anything. If a customer has an existing account and there is an indication that they may be a U.S. person, or if they're opening a new account, their financial institution may ask them to provide additional information or documentation to demonstrate that they're not a U.S. person.

Under the intergovernmental agreement and Canadian banking law, proof of citizenship is not required to open a banking account. The vast majority of Canadians can open an account with a financial institution in the way they always have; however, if there is some indication in a new or existing account that they might be a U.S. person, then the financial institution may ask them to self-certify that they are or are not a U.S. person for tax purposes.

In conclusion, as I've said, FATCA is here to stay, and ignoring it is not an option. We fully support the government's work in putting in place an intergovernmental agreement.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[John Richardson, As an Individual]

Thanks very much for the chance to appear today.

I did take the time to watch yesterday's session, which was actually enormously helpful to me, as I'm sure it was to you. I have a couple of thoughts, though, that are my own but directly link to that. The signing of the FATCA IGA can be seen as either good news or bad news.

First, interestingly, is the good news. It's the point that Professor Cockfield made yesterday. In fact, what this does ensure is that Canada is absolutely 100% in compliance, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That's what it means to have signed that agreement.

Interestingly, the agreement specifically states that nothing happens until Canada makes it clear that it has done all of the legwork needed to actually implement the agreement, which I would assume to be all of the enabling legislation that we find in Bill C-31. Given that's the case, as Professor Cockfield pointed out, there's absolutely no reason to rush this whatsoever, absolutely none. This should not be in the dark recesses of an omnibus bill. It should in fact be brought to see the light of day in a separate bill.

The second aspect of this that's very interesting in the IGA itself—and this question was asked yesterday—is who this applies to. It applies to U.S. persons and is defined in the agreement as “U.S. citizens or residents”. Now, what is extremely significant is that U.S. citizens are defined solely by the United States today, tomorrow, and forever. That means that someone who is a U.S. citizen today might not be a U.S. citizen tomorrow—and I'll have more on this as we continue the discussion—but given that the U.S. has the right to define who a citizen is, given that I presume Canada would cede that right to them, I think it's extremely important, absolutely essential, under any FATCA agreement that the definition of a U.S. citizen could never, never, never include any Canadian citizen who is a resident in Canada.

Third, we've got the whole problem of what FATCA actually means. Having watched a few of these committees, I see a lot of technical discussion of FATCA and a lot of discussion of regulations. In other words, there's a lot of talk about how to implement this agreement, but precious little on what it actually means in terms of the lives of Canadians, and precious little in terms of what it means in terms of the country itself.

The simple fact of the matter is that FATCA, once implemented, will allow the U.S. to put a permanent capital tax on Canada every day of every year for as long as this agreement is in effect, simply by virtue of using U.S. citizens in Canada to tax and siphon revenue out of the country. It is a myth, an absolute myth, and it is completely wrong that under U.S. tax laws, U.S. citizens will not owe tax to the IRS. This is for two reasons. The first is that the U.S. tax code is hostile to anything foreign, and that would include anything in Canada in general, but secondly, anything that involves tax deferral, and it is plainly obvious that all of the pillars of Canadian retirement planning do in fact involve tax deferral.

So it is a myth that U.S. citizens would not owe tax. It is a myth. Interestingly, as I read in something yesterday, the opposite of truth is not the lie: the opposite is in fact the myth. This agreement will have severe consequences for Canada and Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 35 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are the study of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Colleagues, we have two panels before us this afternoon.

In the first panel, we're very pleased to welcome Mr. John Richardson, and, from the Canadian Bankers Association, the acting vice-president, Mr. Darren Hannah. From the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, we have Mr. Brian Kingston, and from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, we have Privacy Commissioner Madam Chantal Bernier.

Bienvenue. Each of you will have five minutes maximum for your opening statement.

We'll begin with Mr. Richardson, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thanks again to all of our witnesses for being here.

My first question is for Professor Cockfield. The constitutionality of FATCA and hence our IGA in Bill C-31 has been questioned by many constitutional lawyers, notably Peter Hogg, Joseph Arvay, and others.

The Minister of Finance told us that the minister and the Department of Justice are responsible to make sure our laws are constitutional, but he didn't really know what likelihood or what percentage of likelihood had been attributed to this agreement as to whether it would be constitutional.

You have also expressed concerns about the constitutionality of these provisions. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit for us.

[Ralf Hensel, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary and Director of Policy, Investment Funds Institute of Canada]

Good afternoon.

As you've heard, I am Ralf Hensel, general counsel, corporate secretary, and director of policy at the Investment Funds Institute of Canada. I thank the committee for inviting IFIC to participate in its consideration of Bill C-31 and I'm privileged to be its representative here today.

IFIC is the trade association representing the Canadian mutual funds industry. The fund managers, fund distributors, and service providers to the Canadian industry all contribute to IFIC's work. Canadians currently entrust more than $1 trillion of their assets in mutual funds. The industry takes its responsibilities to these investors very seriously.

IFIC's interest is in Bill C-31's implementing legislation for the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States concerning FATCA. Recognizing that non-compliance with FATCA is not a realistic option, we have advocated for requirements that impose the least possible burden and cost on mutual fund investors specifically and on the industry generally.

As you are aware, the U.S. imposes income tax based on U.S. citizenship regardless of jurisdiction of residence. As such, FATCA applies to U.S. citizens resident in Canada. We support the federal government's work and negotiations with the U.S. that have led to completion of the IGA on this initiative.

We believe the IGA is essential. It minimizes impact by reducing the number of Canadian investors who will be impacted by FATCA, the number of accounts that will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, and the amount of administration and re-documentation that will be required.

The IGA will also significantly reduce the costs to implement FATCA, costs that are ultimately borne by investors. In fact, without the IGA, Canadian investors may have their access to U.S. financial assets, held either directly or through mutual funds, significantly curtailed or have the rates of return on such assets significantly reduced.

Let me elaborate.

Under the IGA, all of RRSPs, RRIFs, PRPPs, registered pension plans—you've heard the list—all the way to TFSAs are exempted from any documentation or reporting requirements under FATCA. The benefits to fund investors are clear: millions of mutual fund accounts will be exempt from FATCA reporting. Investors will not be asked to provide any additional information to document or demonstrate their non-U.S. taxpayer status in any such accounts.

Without the IGA, Canadian financial institutions would each need to sign an agreement with the IRS that would prevent them from opening or maintaining accounts for investors who do not provide sufficient information about their U.S. taxpayer status. The IGA eliminates any need to refuse or to open new accounts or to close existing accounts.

FATCA requires tax information on U.S. investors to be sent directly to the IRS. If to do so would breach domestic privacy laws, the regulations require the financial institution to obtain from every impacted investor a waiver or consent allowing the institution to send their tax information to the IRS. We believe this is a virtual impossibility.

Financial institutions would eventually be required to close the account of every investor not willing to provide a waiver. Under the IGA, the information will be sent to the Canada Revenue Agency, which will forward it to the IRS under established intergovernmental protocols.

Canadian financial institutions that cannot comply with FATCA requirements would be subject to a 30% withholding tax on any U.S.-source income. This would significantly reduce the returns of all investors in Canadian funds that hold securities generating such income.

The IGA for practical purposes removes the threat of withholding taxes, since reporting will be taking place. Without the IGA, investor accounts would need to be re-documented every few years at substantial inconvenience and cost. Under the IGA, an investor need only fill in the form once. It remains valid unless the investor's status changes.

Finally, the IGA gives the Canadian government and the CRA authority to set the rules for FATCA implementation in Canada. With industry, rules have been developed consistent with FATCA principles but tailored to reduce the scope of impact for Canadian investors. For example, mirroring well-established industry practices used to comply with anti-money laundering identification—

[Prof. Arthur Cockfield]

—it's nothing. We're not getting anything other than the relief of the threatened economic sanctions. The Americans, in the intergovernmental agreement, give us vague assertions of reciprocity, but they will never come through. U.S. lawmakers and U.S. citizens will never accept the evisceration of their privacy rights and their privacy laws, which of course is what they're asking of you.

My main recommendation is to amend Bill C-31 so that the legislation is in place, is implemented, but only affects temporary residents of Canada—U.S. citizens who are here temporarily and not permanently. I believe this will be in compliance with the American demands and that hence there will not be any economic sanction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call back to order meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Colleagues, we have five witnesses for our second panel. We have Professor Cockfield. Welcome back to the committee. As an individual from Queen's University, we have from the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, Mr. Ralf Hensel, general counsel. Welcome. We have the president of the Portfolio Management Association of Canada, Ms. Katie Walmsley. Welcome back to the committee as well. We have from London, Ontario, presenting as an individual, Ms. Lynne Swanson. Welcome, from London. By video conference, from New York, as an individual, we have Mr. Max Reed, an attorney. Welcome.

Thank you for joining us this afternoon. You each have a maximum of five minutes for an opening statement.

We'll begin with Professor Cockfield, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay.

You may know that the official opposition, the NDP, has asked that the intergovernmental agreement provisions of Bill C-31 be withdrawn from the bill for further study.

You made reference just now in your remarks to the U.S. Treasury just announcing an 18-month grace period. In fact, Mr. Berg just mentioned continuing concerns with such things as spousal trusts.

I'd like you to comment on how real the threat is of a withholding tax if our financial institutions didn't comply right away, and whether there really is such a need for haste?

[Ian Russell]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Ian Russell. I'm president and CEO of the Investment Industry Association of Canada. I am pleased to appear before the finance committee this afternoon to make the case for the passage of part 5 of Bill C-31.

This legislative package includes important provisions related to compliance with U.S. FATCA legislation. It is the product of almost five years of extensive consultation between the Canadian securities industry, other institutions in the Canadian financial sector, and the Canadian and U.S. tax authorities.

This legislation will greatly facilitate Canadian financial institutions and their clients' compliance with the sweeping provisions of the U.S. FATCA legislation. The Investment Industry Association of Canada urges members of the committee to recommend approval of this legislation expeditiously.

No one doubts that the FATCA legislation is an aggressive policy approach to force compulsory U.S. tax reporting by U.S. citizens resident outside of the United States, effectively exerting extraterritorial reach to meet its policy objectives.

This approach, however, is not without precedent. In the last five years since the 2008 financial crisis, the Canadian securities industry has experienced similar aggressive tactics in the reform of securities regulations that have taken place under the G20 directives. Both U.S. and European securities regulators have imposed new regulations with little regard for coordinating these efforts for more harmonized cross-border rules. The extraterritorial application of these regulations has resulted in much duplication and complexity, raising costs and inefficiencies for foreign institutions dealing in the U.S. capital markets. The regulatory burden has not been mitigated through measures such as regulatory recognition of respective jurisdictions.

The United States and the EU can engage in these aggressive tactics to force compliance with their own rules, recognizing that compliance is the condition for needed access to U.S. and European capital markets by Canadian investors and their financial institutions. U.S. regulators, in effect, use the size and importance of their capital markets as leverage to force compliance with their own aggressive rules, engaging in extraterritorial rule-making.

FATCA follows this same aggressive practice. The failure to comply with U.S. tax reporting rules would have serious consequence for Canadian institutions and their clients. Canadian investors would be subject to the full 30% withholding at source on U.S. investments. Moreover, Canadian financial institutions would be required to disclose the financial information of their FATCA affected U.S. clients, or otherwise risk penalties and sanctions that could seriously interfere with their U.S. financial business. All major Canadian financial institutions, banks, and insurance companies have built a significant presence in U.S. capital markets. This offshore business is increasingly important to the overall growth of these institutions and their underlying profitability and shareholder returns.

The Investment Industry Association of Canada has taken a leading role in coordinating with other institutions and in consultations with the U.S. Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, as well as the Canadian tax authorities, to develop an acceptable framework of exemptions from the reporting obligations, phased-in reporting rules, and an overarching intergovernmental agreement that builds on the existing Canadian-U.S. information sharing tax protocol. This comprehensive framework is designed to achieve an effective and cost-efficient tax reporting mechanism under FATCA legislation, one that treats Canadians fairly; avoids inconvenience to innocent tax-paying Canadians by eliminating provisions requiring account closure and punitive U.S. withholding tax; focuses efforts on tax avoidance schemes; and respects privacy considerations.

[Marc-André Pigeon, Director, Financial Sector Policy, Credit Union Central of Canada]

Thank you Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee for this opportunity to share with you our thoughts on Part V of Bill C-31.

As you know, Part V implements an intergovernmental agreement on FATCA, or the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

Before addressing our views on this agreement allow me to begin by making a few preliminary remarks regarding the role of my organization, Canadian Central and, more generally, the credit union system in Canada.

Canadian Central is a national trade association for its owners, the provincial credit union centrals. Through them we provide services to about 330 affiliated credit unions across Canada. These credit unions currently operate in more than 1,700 branches, serve 5.3 million members, hold $160 billion in assets and employ about 27,000 people.

Credit unions in Canada come in all shapes and sizes, as you probably know. Our smallest credit unions such as iNova Credit Union in Halifax, Nova Scotia has less than $30 million in assets and only 10 employees. Our biggest credit unions, such as Vancity in British Columbia, has just under $20 billion assets and employs thousands of people.

But even our biggest credit unions are small next to the country's biggest banks which are at least 20 times bigger than Vancity, for example. This disparity means that new regulations like FATCA can pose a real challenge to all credit unions big and small alike. While the government is to be congratulated on signing an agreement that mitigates some of the regulatory burden of FATCA, we have some concerns.

Our major concern at this point is that the unavoidable regulatory burden imposed by FATCA may, in the near future, be compounded by the OECD's efforts to create a single, unified standard for automatic exchange of financial account information. Specifically, we worry that credit unions will end up with two different tax compliance regimes. We'll have an intergovernmental agreement on FATCA that includes some exemptions for smaller financial institutions like credit unions and we'll have the OECD requirements which, to date, do not contemplate any such exemptions and, though modelled on FATCA, appear to require significantly greater reporting. For that reason we're encouraging the federal government to hold strong to the view expressed in a recent declaration which it signed, that the OECD's multilateral approach “not impose undue business and administrative costs”.

For us, that means including small institution exemption thresholds, harmonizing the OECD rules with FATCA, and not having to file the same information—or worse yet, different information—with two different organizations.

The second issue we want to discuss has to do with regulatory burden more generally. Last year we conducted a survey of affiliated credit unions to gauge the impact of regulatory burden on the system. We found that small credit unions, those with fewer than 23 employees, like iNova Credit Union, for example, devoted fully 21% of their staff time to dealing with regulatory matters, whereas bigger credit unions, like Vancity with more than 100 employees or thousands of employees, only averaged about 4% of their full-time staff on compliance issues.

These results show that regulatory burden, like that imposed by FATCA, disproportionately harms smaller financial institutions and hurt their ability to compete, even with some of the exemptions and thresholds embedded in the intergovernmental agreement.

Our survey also found that the number one regulatory burden for credit unions comes from federal rules around anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. To date, the federal government has resisted applying its red tape reduction strategy to these regulations because apparently the rules do not affect small businesses. The fact is, however, that credit unions are the small businesses in the financial service sector and we are affected.

So, we're asking that the federal government revisit these rules to help offset the FATCA regulatory compliance burden faced by credit unions. We believe this request is consistent with the federal government's one-for-one regulatory burden initiative which is designed to offset new regulations which the elimination of older ones.

To conclude, we wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in its review of Bill C-31, and Part V in particular.

Our general view is that the federal government has made the best of a bad situation in negotiating its intergovernmental agreement on FATCA. We are asking that it continue to be sensitive to the needs of smaller financial institutions in the negotiations with its OECD partners, and that it more diligently apply its red tape reduction approach to the anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules.

I look forward to your questions.

[Prof. Allison Christians, Professor, H. Heward Stikeman Chair in Tax Law, McGill University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak to the committee regarding the portion of Bill C-31 that enacts FATCA in Canada.

While tax law professors are generally not known for brevity, I hope to be succinct and clear in conveying two points to this committee. First, Canada generally does not and should not furnish information to foreign countries on Canadian citizens living in Canada, or assist countries in gathering any information in aid of tax administration, except according to very specific standards to which they formally agree. In that regard, the agreement before you falls short, as it's not clear that both sides are agreeing to the same thing, nor that these standards are respected when they subject many Canadian citizens to foreign financial jeopardy, and even criminal liability.

Secondly, Canadian officials may not furnish information to other countries except under very specific terms. Thus the lack of clarity in Bill C-31 may expose Canadian officials to liability as well.

I'm going to try to explain these two points in simple terms and therefore I'm going to risk oversimplification and I apologize for that. I'm more than happy to explain the complex legal concepts formally should you have any questions for me. Please let me state at the outset that I fully understand the purpose of this law. We must ensure the integrity of the global tax system. Canada's government has demonstrated its commitment to cracking down on tax evasion by working to exchange relevant tax information with other countries. That's a goal we all want to work toward, yet there are important limits on this practice. We are working here with one of the world's most important treaties, important because of the close connections and shared economic interests of Canada and the United States.

There are long-standing limitations on how we and how countries generally react to the revenue and penal laws of other countries. We call these limitations the "revenue rule". The revenue rule says that Canada won't lend assistance to the U.S. to collect U.S. debts of people who were Canadian citizens when the debts arose. Period, full stop, no qualifications. To amplify this point, Canada does not assist in tax collection in any case unless the U.S. tax claim has been finally determined after a full measure of due process. Put this another way, we have a long history of not assisting or allowing other countries to engage in revenue collection activities in Canada for their own tax purposes.The U.S. has a very similar, if not stricter position.

But FATCA, as reflected in the bill before us today, tells us to ferret out our own citizens as likely U.S. tax debtors and present them and their financial resources to our most important treaty partner in an agreement of dubious status that may not even be a tax treaty. The bill suggests that this will be done in furtherance of the existing tax treaty. It goes significantly further. It forces us to ask ourselves how we can open our citizens and their money to the U.S., yet claims this does not constitute lending assistance. Canada must protect Canadians, and that is what the lending assistance rule and the limits on information disclosure do. They assert that the U.S. should have no enforceable tax claim that should be assisted by Canada on Canadians.

We need to make clear we won't take part in any enforcement in any form of assistance, whether it be in information or collection when ·it comes to Canadian citizens. I believe that is the spirit in which the government has accepted the terms of FATCA in the bill before the committee today, but this spirit must be reflected in the law. We cannot use a phrase like "information gathering” to blind ourselves to what is really occurring. Information sharing is not the end, it is the beginning. Our information exchange must also comply with Canadian law concerning when Canadian tax officials may divulge confidential taxpayer information. The law is not ambiguous: an official may disclose protected taxpayer information when we have agreed to do so under a tax treaty or other listed international agreement and not otherwise.

FATCA as implemented in Bill C-31 is not a tax treaty in U.S. law, nor is it a protocol to our tax treaty. Indeed, I am not sure what it is and I am not alone. Lawsuits have been initiated in the U.S. on this point and the issue is far from resolved.

The fact is that with this agreement, the U.S. will be the only nation with which Canada has both a tax treaty and a separate tax information exchange agreement, making the relationship between these two documents all the more confusing. So, what is this document when the two parties don't have a common view? If we do not know for certain, we may be in for a rude awakening in the context of civil or even criminal litigation.

There also appears to be a false impression that there is urgency in this matter, yet the U.S. has a list of countries it will "deem" to have an agreement like this in place, and Canada was the very first country on that list and it was there before we signed an agreement. Even if we weren't on the list, the U.S. Treasury recently announced another 18-month grace period, so we have the time to get this right. Let us not act in haste and repent at leisure.

I thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order meeting number 34 of the Standing Committee on Finance. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are that we resume our study of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

We want to welcome our guests here this afternoon for this bill. We have first of all, as an individual, Professor Allison Christians from McGill University. Welcome to the committee. We also have from Credit Union Central of Canada, the director of financial sector policy, Monsieur Marc-André Pigeon. From Moodys Gartner Tax Law LLP, we have Mr. Roy Berg, director of U.S. tax law. Welcome. And from Toronto, we have by video conference the president and CEO of the Investment Industry Association of Canada, Mr. Ian Russell.

Mr. Russell, can you hear me okay?

Privacy

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, there are rare occasions, when CRA officials, in the course of their regular duties, become aware of information that any reasonable person would believe is evidence of serious criminal activity.

Let us be clear. Officials cannot share information on the mere suspicion of criminal activity or based on a request initiated by law enforcement authorities.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-31 will enable CRA officials to provide information to an officer—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will reread the motion in a moment, but on the point of risk analysis, obviously that's an important consideration. Say the Liberal member's brother were to build a gas plant in Mississauga or Oakville, then before tearing it down, it would be important to know what the risk analysis was to the community.

Having said that, I move;

That, following its consideration of the subject matter of clauses 212 to 233 and 375 of Bill C-31, the Committee send a letter, in both official languages, to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance informing him that the Committee has no amendments to propose.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Chair, while I have the floor I'd like to move:

That, following its consideration of the subject matter of clauses 212 to 233 and 375 of Bill C-31, the Committee send a letter, in both official languages, to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance informing him that the Committee has no amendments to propose.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

The proposed act in Bill C-31 deems the new bridge to be “for the general advantage of Canada”.

Could you please explain that term and why it's of general advantage to Canada?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you to our officials for appearing today as we look into clauses in the budget implementation act, Bill C-31, that apply to matters of substance to this committee, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council is an initiative created out of the beyond the border agreement between our Prime Minister and President Obama back in 2011. The goal, obviously, of the RCC, which has, I believe, 29 different regulatory cooperation initiatives under the council, has been to engage not only government but also business and other stakeholders in ways to improve harmonization on matters that would be largely administrative in nature, some regulatory in nature, to achieve enhanced economic cooperation and competitiveness and to do so in a way that doesn't sacrifice safety. I think the public has to understand that this is also the important goal here.

I understand, from the industry's perspective—I come out of the auto industry; I worked on the assembly line at Chrysler prior to being elected to Parliament—Canada represents about 9% of the North American vehicle market. Regulatory differences or unique standards, be they in fuel economy or other areas, require corporate decisions about whether products can be offered in a particular market, whether or not they're likely to abate the cost of these changes in different segments of the North American market, or whether or not they have an entire North American market to abate the cost of regulatory forced improvements in their production.

First, from the government's perspective, why should we be concerned with harmonization of safety standards? Second, is it only to align with U.S. standards, or are there cases where the U.S. should be aligning with our standards? Third, is the U.S. considering any type of similar regulatory change to allow their system to be nimbler, for the same purpose that we're seeking?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I'll talk about the specific language, but as we heard from our witnesses, I think we have some pretty positive changes that I hope all parties will support.

I move:

That, following its consideration of the subject matter of clauses 242 to 251, 371 to 374, and 483 to 486 of Bill C-31, the Committee send a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance informing him that the Committee has no amendments to propose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting to order.

First of all, welcome to the witnesses who are here. I'm going to be introducing you in a few moments.

There is some leftover business that committee members have to deal with, and it has to do with Bill C-31, which we left off, if you recall, at the end of the last meeting. We were interrupted by votes and had to adjourn our meeting quickly. This is just to finish off what I believe is a motion regarding reporting back to the finance committee.

I see Mrs. McLeod wants the floor.

[Michel Gérin]

The current proposal might affect those industries as well as others. When you talk about the cultural sector, copyright issues might have more of a direct impact,which is not the subject of Bill C-31. As for video products and so on, they would be affected more by patent issues.

However, to the extent that all of those businesses, whether they are working in the video field or cultural activities, have trademarks or wish to apply for them, they will be affected in the same way as other businesses.

[Janet Fuhrer]

The Singapore treaty, there are lots of provisions in both Bill C-8 and Bill C-31 that deal with the Singapore treaty. The Singapore treaty is all about harmonizing procedural requirements for filing trademark applications.

[Janet Fuhrer]

That's an interesting question because on Madrid all we have is one provision in Bill C-31 that leaves it to the Governor in Council to enact regulations. So we haven't seen anything about how this government is going to implement the Madrid protocol.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay.

If Bill C-31 were adopted, and finding efficiencies of the use of trademark, would it be fair to say that then we would be in line with the international standards of Europe, in that they do not require the use of the declaration of use form?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

In the documentation we received from the law society and so on, they urged the government to do more consultations on this issue. I didn't think we have had enough consultation. I don't remember how long it was we dealt with this, but it was not a very long time for something as significant as Bill C-8. It did, however, certainly for all of us in the committee, show us the number of challenges there are, and the need to have good policy and good law in Canada.

Is the intent of use issue the most significant part that concerns you in Bill C-31 and Bill C-8 when it comes to the trademarks?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you all very much.

While the debate on Bill C-31 has been going on, and of course, Bill C-8, being very similar, the government has insisted that this was going to be good for business, right? But the amount of letters and other things from IP people and lawyers from across this country flagging this issue have been very overwhelming.

Can you tell me a little bit more about this? Since a lot of people seem to think this is going to hurt businesses in Canada, and you have more or less all been alluding to that fact, could you reiterate some of the ways that it's going to affect business in Canada if this goes forward?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. I very much appreciate you being here.

I'm going to continue with my colleague's line of questioning on the declaration of use form. But first I want you, as lawyers, to give me your opinion. Free legal advice, who knew?

We got some information on amendments related to the international treaties on trademarks for Bill C-31, and one of the comments was that litigation outcomes are determined on actual use of a trademark in the marketplace. In other words, they're not based on filling out a form or not filling out a form. They're based on actual use. Is that correct or is that not correct?

[Janet Fuhrer, Second Vice-President, Canadian Bar Association]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, we thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association of 37,500 lawyers, notaries, law teachers, and students. Many of our members are in-house counsel who represent significant stakeholders in the intellectual property system. The CBA national intellectual property law section deals with law and practice relating to all aspects of ownership, licensing, and transfer and protection of intellectual property.

Canadian trademark law is respected internationally as effective in protecting the rights of trademark owners. A fundamental requirement of the trademark system is that the trademark be used before its owner will be granted exclusive rights. This has been a cornerstone of Canadian trademarks law since the statute first was enacted in 1868.

The sections of the bill implementing this change—that is, the elimination of a requirement to declare use—include clause 330, which impacts section 16 of the Trade-marks Act regarding entitlement to registration; clause 339, amending section 30 concerning the contents of applications; and clause 345, removing from section 40 the requirement to file a declaration of use. But this is not just about removing a form. Really, these sections deal holistically with the requirement to use, as has been covered by Mr. Eisen.

One of the points we want to make is that elimination of the use requirement is certainly not a prerequisite of the three treaties that are contemplated to be implemented by Bill C-31—the Madrid protocol, the Nice classification, and the Singapore treaty. In fact the Singapore treaty contemplates the maintenance or introduction of a use requirement in jurisdictions that have adopted that treaty.

The proposed amendments will have a negative impact on Canadian businesses in several respects. We have outlined seven in our submission. First, as mentioned by Mr. Eisen, the trademarks register will be cluttered with registrations that no longer reflect market realities—that is, a ground of use and a date, as currently required if a mark has been used. The lack of useful information will make it more difficult to pre-clear marks, as Mr. Eisen has covered. That makes it more difficult to give meaningful advice on, for example, the chance of success by a business in Canada in an infringement or passing-off type of scenario.

Without the requirement to declare use to keep applicants accountable, more trademark opposition proceedings—these are administrative proceedings that can occur in the course of a trademark application—will be required to protect the interests of trademark owners.

There is real potential for trademark squatters or trolls. Industry Canada recently had a consultation about implementing measures to address patent trolls. This legislation, unfortunately, is introducing the possibility of trademark trolls or squatters. Think about domain names and the initiation of the domain name system and all the difficulty that occurred with cybersquatting. It's a very similar scenario here.

While deadwood registrations can be cancelled or removed summarily, under section 45 of the Trade-marks Act, for non-use, this cannot occur until three years after registration. Nothing prevents the owner of the deadwood registration from re-registering the mark, a direct consequence of the check of having to declare use being eliminated.

We believe these amendments create trademark rights “in gross”—that is, a bare or naked right in a trademark no longer cloaked in use. That jeopardizes the effectiveness of the trademark system.

At the same time that Canadian businesses face these increased costs and uncertainties, they also may face increased filing fees, because of the Nice classification system that requires all goods and services to be classified, and more frequent renewals. The initial period of registration in any renewal period is being reduced by one-third, from 15 years to 10 years, as a result of the adoption of the Madrid protocol.

In addition, Canadian businesses may face increased costs from having to re-register or apply to the Federal Court when they cannot correct errors in the certificate of registration that issues within six months. They have to make that correction within six months under this bill. They should have ample opportunity to correct errors made by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

Thank you.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our witnesses, thank you for being here.

You spoke about what you think prevents new entrants from entering the telecom sector, but can you tell us more about what you think we need to do to fix the problem? What does the government of the day need to do? Specifically, do you think the changes mentioned here in Bill C-31 are significantly going to change that and open up the marketplace?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's great.

Mr. Anderson, you describe the cap on roaming rates contained in Bill C-31 as a welcome step. You also explain that it will have positive downstream effects. Could you elaborate on that please?

[Steve Anderson, Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca]

Thanks for the opportunity to present to the committee on Bill C-31.

I'm Steve Anderson, the executive director of OpenMedia.ca. We were founded in 2008. We're a civic engagement organization working to safeguard the open Internet. For those who aren't familiar, OpenMedia.ca is perhaps best known for our Stop The Meter campaign that engaged over half a million Canadians on metered Internet billing, or usage-based billing. It is the largest online campaign in Canadian history. In addition to our civic engagement work, we also regularly participate in policy processes and produce policy reports.

My comments today will be focused on clauses 239 to 241, which pertain to the Telecommunications Act.

I'll start with a little bit of context. Canadians are upset that we pay some of the highest prices in the industrialized world for cellphone service. Canada ranks among the 10 most expensive countries within the OECD in virtually every category, and among the three most expensive countries for several standard data-only plans. We rank near last on pricing, yet Canadian operators rank fourth in the OECD in mobile revenues. Mobile usage is growing everywhere in the world, yet carrier revenue per user is going up only in North America, and particularly in Canada.

Last year OpenMedia.ca released findings in our report “Time for an Upgrade”, which showed Canadians face systemic mistreatment at the hands of the big three cellphone providers. Lack of choice in the marketplace is the cause of our woes. The Competition Bureau examined the wireless market for a CRTC submission earlier this year and found that incumbent wireless providers have significant market power, which they define as “the ability of a firm or firms to profitably maintain prices above competitive levels”.

The mistreatment and high prices persist because we have three large incumbent conglomerates, Bell, Rogers, and Telus, that control over 90% of the market. The big three have achieved this oligarchic level of market power because they control upwards of 85% of the spectrum available for use. Much of that was handed to them for free. Spectrum, of course, is the digital highway in the sky that cellphone providers use to deliver wireless service.

I appreciate that the government and opposition parties recognize these facts and have committed themselves to fixing our broken cellphone market. While there has been some positive movement by the CRTC and government to follow through on these commitments, so far prices have increased. In fact, in March each of the providers increased its rates.

In 2008 in the AWS spectrum auction, the government ensured an influx of new cellphone choices for Canadians by dedicating spectrum to new entrants. However, these new entrants did not get the regulatory support they needed to gain the market penetration required to be sustainable. With Telus recently taking over independent provider Public Mobile, Canadians now have actually less choice than they had one year ago.

I'm going to move to the cap on roaming charges that's within the legislation.

The provisions to cap roaming rates in Bill C-31 are a welcome interim step. The measures in the bill will make it so that the big three providers cannot charge new entrant competitors more for roaming than they charge their own customers. This is a welcome step because, as Industry Minister James Moore said, the big three incumbents now sometimes charge new entrants “more than 10 times what they charge their own customers”. There is no way an independent provider can compete with those terms.

To be clear, we're not talking about directly regulating the roaming rates Canadians pay, but rather the cost that independent cellphone providers pay to utilize the big three's spectrum infrastructure. While the measures in this bill do not directly regulate retail service, they should begin to level the playing field between incumbents and new entrants, and thereby have a modest downstream effect of lowering prices for Canadians. These measures should also increase the chance that independent cellphone providers will survive and remain available for wireless customers.

I initially emphasized this as a positive interim step because, one, the bill takes on only one of many unfair impediments to real cellphone choice, and two, it also simply limits the inflation of costs for new entrants to service Canadians rather than going the full distance to ensure players have the same basic costs of delivering service.

Basing infrastructure costs on retail revenue essentially means the new entrants are paying for the cost of access, plus other factors that play into retail price, such as the cost of advertising, branding and promotion; device subsidy; customer support; retail, legal, and regulatory work; network operations; and much else. While the cap is a useful step in the right direction, new entrants should not, in the longer term, be subsidizing the big three.

To have a true level playing field for cellphone service and innovation, infrastructure must be available at a cost-based rate. Thankfully, the CRTC is also in the process of reviewing roaming agreements. I expect the CRTC will establish cost-based rates for roaming, which they have successfully done to some degree for wireline telecom services. If they do not establish cost-based rates, I'm afraid that it will fall to the government to take additional action on this matter.

I want to highlight, to end here—

Yes?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Bonjour à tous.

Welcome to the 22nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we continue our study on the subject matter of clauses 175 to 192, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation; clauses 239 to 241, Telecommunications Act; clauses 317 to 368, amendments relating to international treaties on trademarks; and clauses 369-370, reduction of Governor in Council appointments, of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014.

We have with us today, from OpenMedia.ca, Steve Anderson, executive director. We have from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, John Lawford, executive director and general counsel, and Geoffrey White, counsel. Mr. Lawford's also here for the Consumers' Association of Canada.

Mr. Anderson, could you please go ahead with your opening remarks, and then we'll go on to Mr. Lawford.

Tabling of Treaty—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 28, 2014, by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie regarding the procedural acceptability of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

I thank the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for having raised the question, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader for the official opposition for their comments.

In raising the point of order, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie contended that Bill C-31 is not properly before the House nor the Standing Committee on Finance since, prior to its introduction in the House, the government failed to table a copy of a treaty included in the bill, namely:

The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada to improve international tax compliance through enhanced exchange of information under the convention between the United States of America and Canada with respect to taxes on income and on capital.

In his view, the government’s routine tabling of treaties at least 21 days prior to introducing implementing legislation, pursuant to its Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament, has evolved into a parliamentary custom and is therefore a prerequisite to debate.

While recognizing that the policy allows for exceptions, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie argued that in this instance the government had violated its own policy, thereby infringing upon a custom of the House and creating what he described as a legislative defect.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons replied that the process governing the tabling of treaties is in fact a government policy and thus is not found in the rules or practices of the House, nor is it under the purview of the Speaker. He cited numerous Speakers' rulings in support of this position. In addition, he noted that the policy does provide for exceptions, and thus that what is being done in the case of Bill C-31 is in fact consistent with the provisions of the policy.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons added that since the treaty was being implemented through legislation, opportunity existed for the House to debate it and vote upon it before it is ratified.

In raising this matter, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie made reference to what he considered to have been procedural irregularities. It is important to understand in this case what type of procedure, departmental or House, is being referenced. As well, the member asked the Chair for clarity on whether the use of this policy on treaties has become regular enough to deem it a parliamentary custom such that any deviation from it has a procedural impact. In other words, is this a matter of parliamentary procedure, one over which the Chair has any authority?

It is clear to me that the policy in question belongs to the government and not the House. It is equally clear that it is not within the Speaker's authority to adjudicate on government policies or processes, and this includes determining whether the government is in compliance with its own policies.

In a recent ruling, on February 7, 2013, I reminded the House of this at page 13869 of Debates:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.

The Chair has nevertheless reviewed the sequence of events described by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie to ascertain whether there are procedural grounds, as opposed to departmental directives, to support the idea that treaties must be tabled in the House, let alone debated here.

Not surprisingly, the review revealed that many standing orders and statutes deal with the tabling of documents, and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, on pages 430 and 609 actually enumerates the types of documents that must be tabled in the House. These include certain returns, reports, and other papers that are required to be tabled by statute, by order of the House, or by standing order. Treaties are not mentioned. In fact, the rules and practices of the House are silent with regard to the tabling of treaties.

This leads the Chair to conclude that the manner in which the government has usually chosen to interpret its own policy on treaties cannot be construed as the House having adopted that policy as its own. As always, the rules and practices of the House must emanate explicitly from the House itself. That is not to gain the merits of receiving essential information before considering legislation. However, the distinction between governmental procedures and House procedures remains and must be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Chair cannot find evidence to support the member's contention that Bill C-31 is not properly before the House because of what he has characterized as a deviation from what he contends is the usual practice.

Therefore the Chair cannot find evidence to support the member’s contention that Bill C-31 is not properly before the House because of what he has characterized as a deviation from what he contends is the usual practice.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

I understand there is a point of order from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Prof. Lindsay Tedds]

Thank you.

My name is Dr. Lindsay Tedds. I am an associate professor of economics in the school of public administration at the University of Victoria. My primary area of expertise is Canadian tax policy, with a particular focus on design and implementation.

With that, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to share my views on two tax-policy measures that are contained within Bill C-31. This is mainly the elimination of the need for individuals to apply for the GST/HST tax credit, allowing the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible. I'd also like to talk about yet another one-year extension of the mineral exploration tax credit for investors in flow-through shares.

With respect to the GST/HST credit, one of the biggest challenges levied against the tax itself is that it is regressive. However, there are features of the implementation of this tax that offset its regressivity, and a very important part of that is the GST tax credit. This tax credit puts money in the hands of low- and middle-income households to offset the tax that they are paying on their consumption.

Without the passage of Bill C-31, the status quo for applying for this important tax credit will remain and that is very unfortunate. The current administration of this tax credit requires individuals to apply for it every single year by checking a box on their tax application. By using this opt-in method, low-income individuals who overlook the box, or more importantly, do not understand the box and do not check it, miss out on this very important tax credit. Through Bill C-31, the federal government is making a very significant and very important reform to the administration of the GST/HST tax credit by eliminating the need for individuals to apply for the credit and allowing CRA to automatically determine if an individual is eligible for the credit, as we do with most credits in the tax system.

I applaud this move away from an opt-in method towards an assessed method because the credit is an important way to get money into the hands of low- and middle-income Canadians and this simple change will actually increase the money going to these households.

With respect to the mineral exploration tax credit, in form and function this tax credit dates back to 2000 when it was called the investment tax credit for exploration. The impetus for this 15% non-refundable investment tax credit for investors in flow-through shares in mineral exploration companies was the low prices of metals that occurred in the 1990s, and those low prices caused a significant contraction in mineral exploration. Now, metal prices have rebound significantly since 2000 and that tax credit, which originally was set to expire in 2003, has unfortunately been continually renewed since that time. The METC was last set to expire on March 31, 2014, but Bill C-31 extends it for yet another year. This is despite the fact that mineral taxes are at historically high levels and in fact have increased threefold since the tax credit was implemented.

Not only have the conditions that prompted the creation of the tax credit disappeared, there is actually no evidence to support the existence of the tax credit. There is no evidence that the credit induces increased exploration activity over that stimulated by commodity prices. On the investor side, the credit subsidizes high-risk investments that are used predominantly for tax planning purposes by high-income taxpayers rather than for calculated investment purposes.

The dire consequence of it is that the tax credit channels investment money away from other more lucrative but unsubsidized investments. In fact, the rate of return of investments that qualify for this tax credit is very poor, suggesting that the tax regime is the sole purpose for these investments. On the administrative side, the METC regime is associated with high administrative and compliance costs benefiting only tax lawyers and accountants.

It is time to end this tax credit that benefits wealthy investors and subsidizes poorly performing investments. Doing so will help restore fairness to our tax system and close a loophole with little discernable benefits for the taxpayers who fund it.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for providing me with an opportunity to provide you with my views on these two measures, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Dennis Howlett, Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness]

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the parts of Bill C-31 related to tax havens.

We support the implementation of several measures that aim to go after tax cheats using tax havens that were announced in the 2013 and 2014 federal budgets, which are contained in Bill C-31. But we feel these limited measures do not go far enough in dealing with what is a growing problem. We would like to suggest some additional measures that should be considered if the government is serious about going after tax cheats using tax havens.

First of all, we welcome the improvements to the Canada Revenue Agency's ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to law enforcement agencies. These are fairly minor changes, but they will help make enforcement more efficient. There may be some reduced privacy aspects here, but we feel they are justified in view of the social benefit as a whole.

Second, in terms of reporting, some of the changes on tightening up provisions and the regulation of electronic transfer of funds are also a welcome step, especially including casinos, which are a preferred method of money laundering. Tax cheaters and organized crime syndicates are always trying to find ways to circumvent the regulations, so it is logical that the government should be always trying to stay a step ahead and close off any holes in the monitoring system.

Third, on the offshore tax informant program, information from informants is one of the ways in which tax authorities are able to lift the veil of secrecy that is the hallmark of tax havens and identify individuals and companies that are evading paying their fair share of taxes. But we should not expect that this program is going to result in that many convictions.

The IRS Whistleblower Office in the U.S. just published a 2013 report that shows the U.S. collected $367 million as a result of whistle-blower information from just six cases last year. There were 12 cases in 2012, and a slightly larger amount of money was collected. Canada is roughly 10% of the U.S. economy, so we are not likely to see more than a few cases in a year.

The U.S. Whistleblower Office annual report also notes that cases typically take five to seven years from receipt of submission to be settled and claims paid, so it may be a number of years before we will see any tangible benefits to Canada.

Maybe the most important aspect of this measure may be the deterrent effect, which will be hard to quantify. But in order to maximize the deterrent effect of this measure, the government needs to do a more energetic job of public promotion and education. This is one program where spending some public advertising dollars, raising awareness about this program, would be justified.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is the protection of confidentiality of whistle-blowers coming forward. I have personally been contacted by several potential whistle-blowers who were seeking information on how they should go about accessing the offshore tax informant program, but were very worried about their safety. I know there are some provisions to protect tax confidentiality, but the CRA website does not give adequate assurance, and the government needs to do more to reassure potential informants.

The tax haven problem is growing, as we have recently shown in a Statistics Canada report on direct offshore investment abroad. They are up 10% over last year.

On some of the additional measures that we feel are needed, one would be to provide the CRA information needed by the Parliamentary Budget Office to complete a tax gap estimate. Second, increase the capacity of the Canada Revenue Agency to go after tax cheats. Third, make amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule to include a clear statement that economic substance is required in any transactions to be considered. Fourth, Canada needs to support substantive reforms of the international corporate tax rules that are being developed through the OECD base erosion and profit shifting process.

I'd be happy to answer questions about that, if you like.

[Pamela Fralick]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Honourable committee members, we do thank you for the invitation to testify today.

We strongly support the tobacco tax increase included in the federal budget and in Bill C-31. This measure will reduce youth smoking and it will save lives. It is that simple. Higher tobacco taxes are the single most effective strategy to reduce smoking, especially among youth. We want no new smokers.

We urge all parties to support this measure. In fact, the increase to federal cigarette taxes in Bill C-31 of $4.03 per carton of 200 cigarettes is merely an inflationary adjustment, though a very much needed adjustment. Prior to this change there had not been a net increase to federal tobacco taxes since 2002, a stretch of fully 12 years. This meant that the real federal tobacco tax rate was actually decreasing once inflation was factored in. There is a vast body of worldwide evidence that confirms the obvious. As tobacco prices go up, tobacco consumption goes down. The studies show that a 10% increase in the after-inflation price results in a decrease in tobacco consumption of about 4%, and even more with youth.

The tobacco tax increase is a win-win, benefiting public health and public revenue. Tobacco use and tobacco-caused disease and deaths will decrease, and almost $700 million in incremental annual federal tobacco tax revenue will be generated.

Let me address the contraband issue. Many associations funded by the tobacco industry responded to the federal tobacco tax increase by referring to contraband. These organizations have a long history of opposing tobacco control measures. Here are some facts.

Contraband has decreased substantially in Canada, as admitted by the tobacco industry. In our binder, which I hope you have, tab 1, a graph from British American Tobacco says that Canada-wide contraband was 17% in 2006; 22% in 2007; 33% in 2008; and then down to 19% in 2010. A graph on that same tab from Philip Morris also indicates a declining trend. As well, federal and provincial government tax-paid sales data for these years, as well as subsequent years, confirm a dramatic decrease in contraband.

Tab 2 of our binder shows a massive growth in price-discounted cigarettes sold legally by tobacco companies. The tobacco industry has reduced prices by $20 or more per carton on some brands, and the federal tax increase of $4 per carton counters only part of this.

Tab 3 of our binder contains a graph showing provincial and territorial tobacco tax rates. Tobacco taxes are far higher in western Canada than in Ontario and Quebec, yet contraband volumes in western Canada are minimal. This graph illustrates that the cause of contraband, as we have it in Canada today, is not high tobacco tax rates. Higher tobacco taxes and low contraband are both possible, as the western provinces have shown.

There's no doubt that additional contraband prevention measures would have a further beneficial effect. We support the announcement in the budget for an additional $92 million over five years for contraband enforcement, and we continue to endorse Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act.

As well, we have other recommendations for contraband prevention.

First, the RCMP should pay more attention to blocking the supply of raw materials, such as leaf tobacco, cigarette paper, and cigarette filters intended for illegal factories. Second, the federal government should modify plans to move the Cornwall border post to a new location in Massena, New York. Instead, there should be a two-part border post with checkpoints in both Massena and Cornwall to better intercept contraband. Third, the federal government needs to persuade the U.S. government to shut down the illegal factories on the U.S. side of Akwesasne.

The tobacco tax increase and contraband prevention measures in the federal budget are essential components of a comprehensive strategy that should also include, one, a ban on flavoured tobacco products; two, plain packaging, as has been implemented in Australia; and three, sustained, well-funded programs by Health Canada.

Tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, killing more than 37,000 Canadians each year. Smoking is still responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths, and there are still five million Canadians who smoke, and too many children.

I will finally comment, as I close my presentation, and express support for another measure in the federal budget, lotteries and the proposed legislative change to allow charities to use computers and other modern technologies in their lottery ticket sales and operations. It will reduce administration costs and allow the Canadian Cancer Society and other charities to direct more money to their important program services and research.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order and encourage colleagues and our next panel to take their seats, please. We are resuming discussion here of BillC-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

At our second panel here this afternoon and evening, we have four individuals presenting. First of all, from the Canadian Cancer Society, we have the president and CEO, Ms. Pamela Fralick—I always forget, is it Fralick or Frolick?

[Carole Presseault]

Thank you.

When we saw clause 31 of Bill C-31, we had some concerns around the timelines, and we worked out a table. With the committee's patience, I'll walk you through it.

In June 2013, we had Bill C-48, which removed that considerable backlog. Sometime this year, subject to parliamentary approval, Bill C-31 would be published, and then in October this year, we'd have a report covering the fiscal year 2012-13. That's what it would do. That's what this bill does.

October 31, 2015, presumably will be right after an election. There will be no list, no table. In October 2016 there would be no report. So the earliest we would have the next report would be 2017, covering that period since the writ was dropped.

Basically, over the next three years, you have a report covering 2012-13, and a report covering the period up to March 31, 2016, which you'll have only in 2017. I'm sorry, this is just the way that we worked through the dates.

The report that Parliament will get in October 31, 2017, will be for up to March 31, 2016, but will not cover the period before the writ was dropped. That's where our major challenge is with that. We've called it cumulative

for lack of a better word.

That's the word we've used. The problems that were identified by the Auditor General, the former Auditor General previously, was this issue that we're not able to pinpoint the backlog.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my turn to say hello to all the witnesses joining us this afternoon.

My question is for Mr. Eljarrat.

Not so long ago, in 2012, Mr. Eljarrat was representing his organization at a meeting of a Quebec parliamentary commission. The topic of discussion was breaches of confidentiality of information.

We know that the Canada Revenue Agency has a lot of power to obtain information. We also know that we have a voluntary compliance system in place for the Income Tax Act. However, the negative impact of measures such as the one proposed in Bill C-31 is huge, not to mention the fact that the agency has also concluded information exchange agreements with the Quebec revenue department, among others. While I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly, the Ordre des comptables professionnels agréés du Québec and the Barreau du Quebec told the minister that proposing such a measure was really inappropriate. One of the experts in attendance was Mr. Eljarrat. I would like him to remind the committee members of the negative impact a measure like the one proposed in Bill C-31 can have.

[Carole Presseault, Vice-President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-31 concerning the government's Economic Action Plan 2014. We appreciate this opportunity.

You have come to know us well through our many appearances before this committee. CGA-Canada is currently working with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada—CPA Canada—to integrate operations under the CPA banner.

Unification will enhance the influence, relevance and contribution of the Canadian accounting profession, both at home and internationally.

In the midst of global economic uncertainty, CGA Canada recognizes the federal government's strong economic leadership to balance the budget and achieve a surplus in 2015. While this bill is deep and wide in its scope, includes a vast array of measures, and affects several federal acts, our comments today will focus on one measure.

We support the proposal in clause 31, part 1 of Bill C-31, on outstanding tax measures. I initially thought that was a typo, but it is clause 31, part 1 of Bill C-31, which amends the Financial Administration Act.

The purpose of this clause is to require the Minister of Finance to table annually in Parliament a list of legislative proposals, but this is not just any list. This list will include publicly announced proposals that have not been enacted by Parliament since the last federal election.

While this measure is definitely a step in the right direction to better manage changes to the Income Tax Act, you have the ability today to further improve clause 31. In its current form, this measure requires the minister to report only the outstanding tax measures from the current Parliament. As a consequence, the list will not include, potentially, the outstanding tax measures that date beyond that Parliament.

Committee members may want to follow the example of Bill C-549, introduced by one of your colleagues, the member of Parliament Mike Allen. Similar to clause 31, Bill C-549 amends the Financial Administration Act to require the Minister of Finance to table a report listing tax measures, which the government publicly announced its intention to legislate.

However, Bill C-549 goes further by requesting cumulative reports as opposed to reports that only start from the last election. Bill C-549 also requires a parliamentary committee to review the report tabled by the minister and submit its findings to Parliament.

We believe it would be preferable for the Minister of Finance to report all outstanding measures without making a distinction between past and present Parliaments. A cumulative list of proposals would greatly improve transparency.

As some of you will remember, it took 12 years for Parliament to pass the latest income tax technical bill. I'm of course referring to Bill C-48. It was almost 1,000 pages in length and enacted hundreds of outstanding tax measures.

To this, we heard very loudly from many parliamentarians, “Never again.” We agree. Canadian taxpayers deserve a more effective and efficient process to manage introduced and legislated outstanding tax measures. In this spirit, we recommend you consider making a minor technical amendment to strengthen the intent of clause 31 to ensure cumulative reporting of unlegislated measures.

CGA-Canada thanks the committee for recommending that the federal government explore ways to simplify Canada's Income Tax Act to reduce complexities and inefficiencies.

We urge you to continue to champion this important issue. Whether it is through the creation of an independent expert panel or an office of tax simplification, or through a parliamentary committee study, we need a national dialogue. Taxation affects every single Canadian, yet there hasn't been any meaningful discussion on Canada's income tax system since the Carter Commission in the 1960s. It is time for parliamentarians, stakeholders, academics and Canadian taxpayers to talk about tax reform.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for your time. We look forward to participating in the ensuing discussion.

[Beatrice Raffoul, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations and Canadian Healthcare Association]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I'm the vice-president of public affairs of the new organization formed by the recent merger of the Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations and the Canadian Healthcare Association. We represent the institutional voice for research hospitals, regional health authorities, their research institutes, community hospitals, and long-term care facilities. For the past four months we have been known under the hyphenated version of our two names, and I invite you to stay tuned for the announcement of our new name on June 1.

The association is pleased to have been invited to appear before the committee to participate in the study of the main estimates and, more specifically, to discuss clauses 56 to 60 of Bill C-31, concerning hospital parking and GST/HST.

In budget 2013, supplies of paid parking were deemed to be taxable, whether provided by the private or public sector, including charities, as it was perceived that all supplying of paid parking was determined to be a commercial activity in order to maintain competitive equity with private sector suppliers. It should be noted that, since the introduction of the GST, paid parking has been excluded from the general exempting provision for supplies made by a public sector body, PSB, for the purposes of the GST/HST. A PSB is a municipality, university, public college, school authority, hospital authority, charity, non-profit organization, or government.

Budget 2013 proposed two measures to clarify that certain special exempting provisions—supplies of the property or service that are made for free, or occasional supplies of paid parking by a PSB such as those made as part of a special fundraising event—would continue to qualify for the exemption.

The Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations, on behalf of our members and the broader hospital community, immediately brought the implications of such measures to the attention of the Minister of Finance and through him, to the government. To the credit of the minister and the government, implementation of these budget 2013 elements was delayed. Mr. Flaherty and his staff recognized the unintended consequences that they were being apprised of required further analysis. As well, the government recognized that these measures, at the very least, required more consultation. We assisted the government in this consultation process, and we thank them for that opportunity.

A large number of hospitals across the country, although not all, had their foundations or auxiliaries as the operators of their parking facilities. These additional revenues contributed greatly to their donation envelopes for research, medical devices, medical equipment, patient care, and other important items that hospitals and research institutes require, all in the service of better care, better health, better value for the population they serve. In addition, it had been noted that the impact was not just the GST but the full HST where harmonization had taken place.

The late Minister Flaherty's announcement, on January 24, that the proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act to provide an exemption from the goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax, GST/HST, for hospital parking for patients and visitors was welcome news to the health care community, and for the most part would reverse the budget 2013 proposed measures.

We are very pleased to see these amendments reflected in sections 56 to 60 of Bill C-31, and urge the members of the committee to approve these sections.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

[Mark Tonkovich, Associate, Baker and McKenzie LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear in front of you today. I've had the privilege of seeing tax disputes from many different angles: as a lawyer in private practice, as counsel to the federal Department of Justice, and as judicial clerk to the Federal Court of Appeal.

My current legal practice focuses exclusively on helping taxpayers resolve controversies with Canadian tax authorities. But I am here today as an individual, and my comments reflect my personal views, not necessarily those of my firm nor our clients.

Against this background, I am pleased to offer whatever assistance I can to the committee as it consider parts 1 to 4 of the federal budget bill. But I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight two initiatives that stem from the budget.

Canada is working hard to balance budgetary needs and foreign policy against the sophisticated tax planning that exists on the global stage. One continuing challenge is ensuring that the CRA has the tools it needs to maintain the integrity of the tax system while respecting the basic taxpayer rights of consistency, predictability, and fairness. After all, our society and our laws correctly recognize each taxpayer's right to arrange his or her affairs in the most business-savvy and tax-efficient manner.

Returning to the bill, Bill C-31 contains provisions touching on two new information-gathering tools aimed at helping the CRA to achieve its mandate. The first is the introduction of the new electronic funds transfer, or EFT, reporting regime in part XV.1 of the Income Tax Act. The second deals with the CRA initiative today called the offshore tax informant program, or OTIP.

The Department of Finance released legislative proposals relating to the new EFT reporting regime this past January, and the proposed rules are contained in Bill C-31. The rules will require most financial intermediaries to file reports with the CRA days after completing an electronic fund transfer of $10,000 or more, flowing into or leaving Canada at a client's request. The new regime includes detailed provisions defining which financial entities must submit reports, a corresponding record-keeping obligation for those entities, the creation of an offence for the failure to comply with that obligation, and rules explaining that EFT information can also be used for non-income tax purposes.

Although the CRA will need resources to properly monitor and analyze this new EFT information, the proposed regime will undoubtedly provide a fuller picture of traditional fund transfers across our borders. In turn, this will make it easier for the CRA to consider whether those funds have been properly accounted for, for tax purposes.

Moving to the second initiative, the offshore tax informant program, this a whistle-blowing program that was first announced in 2013 budget and was formally launched by the CRA in January of this year. OTIP aims to pay awards of between 5% and 15% of federal tax collected as a result of tips provided to the CRA concerning major international tax non-compliance. Anecdotally, I understand that a number of would-be informants have already started approaching professional advisers and have begun opening informant files with the CRA.

In contrast to the detailed legislative framework for EFT reporting, there are no legislative rules defining the new informant regime. There are a number of provisions in Bill C-31 that relate to the informant program—which I've set out in a schedule to my speaking notes—but these generally touch on how award moneys will be taxed, and how informants will be kept abreast of the status of their file.

Otherwise, all rules pertaining to OTIP are left to the CRA. This includes who can be an informant, whether awards could be paid for information concerning domestic non-compliance as opposed to international non-compliance, whether there are limits on how tax information can be obtained, and whether an informant's identity will be protected down the road.

Leaving the framework to the CRA is efficient in some respects. It allows the rules to be changed without the need to pursue legislative amendments, but it also falls short in certain other respects. For example, without legislative rules or regulations, the extent to which CRA policies can be relied upon or enforced by informants is unclear, as is the breadth of the CRA's authority to pay awards out of taxpayer dollars.

There's also a lack of clarity concerning how information can be obtained, and whether viable tips can, or should, be acquired by breaking the law or breaching professional or ethical obligations. An important public institution such as the CRA should not be seen as encouraging taxpayers or their advisers to cheat or steal to obtain potentially helpful tax information in order to make a buck.

Finally, the scope of the informant's obligations in any future tax assessment or enforcement proceeding is unclear. It's also unclear as to what ends the CRA will go to protect an informant's identity.

Legislated rules providing a certain degree of protection for informants would make the system easier to administer and more reliable for taxpayers. For these reasons, we propose legislative rules or regulations would assist in bringing clarity to the program.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 33 of the Standing Committee on Finance, orders of the day pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, continuing our study of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

I want to welcome our guests to the committee this afternoon. For the first panel of discussion on this bill we have, presenting as individuals, Mr. Stéphane Eljarrat. Welcome.

We have Mr. Mark Tonkovich, associate with Baker and McKenzie LLP. Welcome.

From the Association of Canadian Academic Healthcare Organizations and Canadian Healthcare Association, we have Ms. Beatrice Keleher Raffoul, welcome. She is vice-president for public affairs.

We have from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, Ms. Carole Presseault, vice-president. I understand this will be her last appearance before our committee in this capacity today. Welcome back to the committee.

We have the president of the Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada, Mr. Harry Blackmore. Welcome to you, sir.

You will each have five minutes, maximum, for your opening statements, and we will then go to questions from members.

We'll begin with Mr. Eljarrat, please.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, unfortunately, we will not have a full hour with you. While we would like to be able to discuss a bit more in depth the major issues we are studying, the members in the House are debating another time allocation motion on a democratic reform bill. That is more than 60 time allocation motions introduced by the government.

It is quite a strange process. We are studying the main estimates, which are quite voluminous, and there are some aspects that fall under your responsibility since they concern the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Department of Justice's entire budget, the courts administration service and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. However, we have to study all that with only five minutes for questions each.

I will try to be brief and I would like the answers to be brief as well.

My first question has to do with the budget of the Supreme Court. Are we to understand that you are going to appoint someone to the Quebec position that is still vacant? Is that part of your main estimates? When are you going to start spending those funds? In other words, are you going to proceed with the appointment as soon as possible?

I have a second question for you.

In these estimates, the Department of Justice funding for transfers to provinces for legal aid services drops significantly. That funding comes from t. We know that the provinces are asking for a bit more funding in that area because the needs are huge. I don't understand why savings are being made at the expense of legal aid.

Here is my third question.

Bill C-31 is creating a new administrative tribunals support service as an act. Do you expect this service to involve spending? I am not sure your estimates list the financial impact of the 11 tribunals that will fall under this service. Do you expect to save money with this service? Or do you expect to have a period of transition?

I would have liked to have more than five minutes to have an intelligent discussion. I doubt I will be able to have answers to all those questions. Perhaps you can promise to provide us with the answers later, if you don't have time to answer all my questions.

I assume that I will have to ask your colleague, the Director of Public Prosecutions, about his mandate, as described in the main estimates, and about his role in the RCMP. I will come back to that later.

Mr. Chair, are we going to come back to committee after the vote?

[Serge Buy]

I'm pleased to be here to speak on the subject of Bill C-31, the budget implementation act. I'm pleased to be joined, thanks to the fact that we have our conference here in Ottawa this week, by the chair of our board, Mr. James Loder. We will talk about apprenticeship more specifically.

A number of positive measures were taken by the government which, in our view, will mean that more Canadians will access much needed support to gain meaningful employment through this budget. Rather than going through each of them, I would like to spend a bit of time to highlight some of the measures we believe will have a real and direct impact on people.

The Canada apprenticeship loan is a measure that will provide apprentices much needed support to help them complete their training. When I was here on Tuesday last week, I mentioned the fact that we needed to provide the tools needed for people to complete their training. This is certainly one of them, and we thank the government for doing this. We see this as an important measure that could help increase the number of apprentices and help some of them to complete the apprenticeships.

The measures announced last week by the Prime Minister to support youth employment in high demand fields by paying for real-life experience will also enable young people to get their foot in the door and finally be able to answer the question: do you have any experience? Well, yes, this program will allow them to have the experience that they need.

We also applaud, and really do applaud, the measures designed to strengthen on-reserve education. Our members have had several successes with those types of projects and we think they should be expanded. When one visits the education and training for aboriginal people section of the program, however, they notice a number of programs designed to help first nations and Inuit students to enter university, legal programs, etc., all designed to take them away from the reservations for a long period of time. Completion rates are low. Programs delivered on reserve have a much higher success rate.

The example I quoted on Tuesday, which, by the way, was in the example from the school led by the chair of our board, showed the difference between an on-reserve and off-reserve program. Off-reserve completion rates were 7%; on-reserve rates were 76%—a big difference, a very big difference. We would hope that the government would consider, even if only as a pilot project, to support career colleges' efforts to develop on-reserve training programs, as several projects across the country exist, but await some support.

One measure that we struggle to understand why it is not included in the budget is the provision of grants to students enrolled in programs of less than 60 weeks. With the risk of sounding like a broken record—and I will sound like a broken record—it is hard to understand why we would penalize students who want to obtain meaningful employment faster just because their programs are less than 60 weeks. The government is looking at getting people back to work faster, and it is looking at helping employers fill vacant jobs, all of this to improve our economy. We're doing our part, but we can certainly do more with a government that's willing to partner with us. This government has done quite a bit, and we're willing to continue working with it.

The chair will continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Let's get moving along with the second hour.

For committee members, and also for presenters, I've been given notice that there could possibly be a vote. We may be interrupted, at which time we would end the session.

Welcome to the second hour of our committee study of Bill C-31.

Joining us now, from the National Association of Career Colleges, is chief operating officer, Mr. Serge Buy. With Mr. Buy is James Loder, who is the chair. We welcome you back, Mr. Buy. I believe you were here last meeting as well, on another matter.

Joining us from the Canadian Home Builders' Association, we have the chief executive officer, Mr. Kevin Lee; and Mr. Jack Mantyla, the national coordinator of education and training.

We'll turn it over to you now, if you'd like to go first Mr. Lee. Then we'll go to Mr. Buy afterwards. You have 10 minutes.

[Annette Ryan, Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Employment and Social Development]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good morning.

I am pleased to appear here today to speak to you about division 17 of part 6 of Bill C-31, which provides enhanced flexibility for Canadians taking care of ill family members to access employment insurance sickness benefits.

To provide context for the amendments proposed in Bill C-31, I'll briefly start by reviewing the Helping Families in Need Act, which was tabled in September 2012 and which did three important things to improve special benefits and support the families that are relevant for the section reviewed this morning.

First, the Helping Families in Need Act established a new benefit for parents of critically ill children, who are referred to as PCIC, of up to 35 weeks to support parents who are taking time away from work to provide care to support a critically ill child of less than 18 years of age.

Second, it provided a new flexibility to Canadians receiving parental benefits, allowing them to suspend those benefits and to access sickness benefits, if they are ill or injured themselves, and subsequently to reactivate their remaining parental benefits, if applicable.

Third, the act that was tabled in 2012 amended the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of parents who were taking leave of absence to care for these children, or also for children who were murdered or missing, which was another grant introduced at the time outside of the EI program.

With the coming into force of the provisions of the Helping Families in Need Act on March 24, 2013, the government effectively changed the rules for Canadians receiving EI parental benefits so that they can now qualify for sickness benefits if they fall ill and then can subsequently draw the parental benefits. The government, then, was essentially bringing new flexibility and responsiveness to the EI program for parents caring for children.

The new measures under discussion this morning in division 17 of BIll C-31 further extend this type of flexibility to access sickness benefits for EI claimants who are receiving the parents of critically ill children, PCIC, benefits, or compassionate care benefits, CCB, which are benefits that are extended for up to six weeks for Canadians who are taking care of an ill family member, whether parents, spouse, or members of the extended family—sisters, siblings, that type of thing. These benefits are similar in nature to parental benefits in that the claimant receives temporary income support to take care of vulnerable family members.

The proposed change would allow parents in receipt of PCIC or compassionate care benefits to interrupt their claim and draw up to 15 additional weeks of sickness benefits under the EI program. Based on our estimates, this change might benefit approximately 300 claimants per year. It's a bit difficult to put a firm number on it with the new flexibility, but we cost it at roughly $1.2 million per year. There are administrative costs on the order of $109,000 per year that will be absorbed within existing reference levels of the department. The proposed legislative amendments would not cost a lot of money but would provide additional income support and flexibility during essentially very difficult periods of family life.

I will note this morning that women receiving EI maternity benefits cannot suspend benefits in the same way. Maternity benefits provide income support for a 15-week period surrounding childbirth to allow recovery from physical or emotional effects of the pregnancy and childbirth. The logic is that because sickness and maternity benefits both essentially provide income support related to physical or emotional recovery, there is not that same logic to allow women who are receiving maternity benefits to suspend and to go on sickness. That is a core logic to table for you.

That said, the Helping Families in Need Act was structured so that, should a new mother's illness continue beyond the 15 weeks of her maternity benefits, she can now switch to sickness benefits when she starts parental benefits, which gives her the possibility of collecting up to 65 weeks in total of special benefits—15 weeks of maternity, 15 weeks of sickness, and 35 weeks of parental benefits—if that's the amount of time she wishes to take. This ability to combine benefits for maternity claimants was not available to birth mothers prior to the Helping Families in Need Act.

Finally, in addition to the changes to the Employment Insurance Act, amendments to part III of the Canada Labour Code are also being proposed in order to fully align existing leave provisions, particularly those regarding compassionate care leave and leave related to critical illness, with the associated EI special benefits. Changing the benefit policy means changing the Labour Code.

More specifically, these amendments would clarify that compassionate care leave and leave related to critical illness can be interrupted to allow employees to take sick leave and work-related illness and injury leave and then return to work.

I'll also mention that these legislative amendments, once approved, will need to be followed by changes to the EI regulations and the EI fishing regulations, so that we can ensure equal treatment among claimants across economic regions and types of claimants. All legislative and regulatory amendments would come into force on the same day, which has been targeted for the fall of 2014.

Finally, I will note that in division 17, a very limited technical amendment is also proposed to the Employment Insurance Act. This amendment adds a reference to the PCIC benefit in an instance where it was inadvertently overlooked when the EI legislation was first introduced to bring in this bill.

Let me conclude by thanking you again for the opportunity to contribute to your study. This brings an enhanced flexibility to accessing the EI sickness benefit, which is essentially targeted to enhancing the fairness of the program and strengthening the support provided to Canadians who are away from work taking care of family members when those people giving the care become ill or injured themselves. That's the core of the measure before you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to meeting 22 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today is Thursday, May 8, 2014, and we're here to study the subject matter of clauses 242 to 251, 371 to 374, and 483 to 486 of BillC-31.

For our first hour we have a number of officials from the Department of Employment and Social Development with us. We have Ms. Annette Ryan, director general of employment insurance policy; Mr. Jean-François Roussy, director of employment insurance policy in the skills and employment branch; Mr. Laurent Quintal, assistant director of strategic policy from the labour program; Mr. Atiq Rahman, director of operational policy and research from the Canada student loan program; and Ms. Nathalie Martel, director of old age security policy.

Did I miss anyone?

We welcome you. As I understand it, there is a speaking order. I believe it is Ms. Ryan who will go first, and two other speakers will follow her.

Please commence your presentation.

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

Okay.

As per Bill C-31, board members will not receive any compensation for their termination.

Did anyone look into transition options for them further to the loss of their board positions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Frenette, I want to come back to the fate of the ACOA board members. The way things were handled, as far as losing their jobs goes, is rather troubling.

Were the board members advised of their impending fate before Bill C-31 was introduced in the House?

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

So it provides a shortcut allowing the government to skip steps and fix things it doesn't like quickly.

Bill C-31 does away with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board, made up of representatives from each of the Atlantic provinces.

How do you plan to fill the hole that the board's elimination will leave? Can you give us any assurance that ACOA will have genuine regional representation?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order, meeting 32 of the Standing Committee on Finance, for the second part of this session today.

Colleagues, we are continuing with parts 5 and 6 of Bill C-31. I'll just encourage you, because there's a fair amount to cover today in an hour. When the bells ring at 5:15, I'm going to ask for a consent at that time that we continue until 5:30. They're half-hour bells, so it will enable us to get to the votes.

We are going to start again with part 5.

Mr. Ernewein, Mr. Shoom, Mr. Cook, welcome back to the committee.

We'll start with Mr. Cullen, please.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you.

Bill C-31 legislates key aspects of the budget, which is a prudent responsible plan to control spending and will help lead to the balanced budget in 2015. Our responsible fiscal position is key to economic growth and job creation for the long term.

We have reduced direct program spending for the third year in a row, something that no other government has done in decades. We've eliminated waste to decrease the cost of government, without cutting programs that Canadians depend on. The deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds since 2009-10 and is projected to fall to $2.9 billion this year. A surplus of $6.4 billion is expected next year, after taking into account a $3-billion contingency fund.

There are significant advantages to a balanced budget. It further positions Canada as an attractive place to invest and expand business. It instills confidence in consumers and investors by helping to keep interest costs low. It means tax dollars are used for important social services, not for interest payments. It strengthens the country's ability to respond to longer-term challenges, such as population aging and global economic shocks. It allows for further tax cuts, fostering economic growth.

Nevertheless, balanced budgets are not an end to themselves; they're a means to an end, and that end is a better, more prosperous future for all Canadians.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the committee for the first time in my new role, to discuss economic action plan 2014.

I would like to provide a brief overview of the objectives of Bill C-31 and highlight some of its key initiatives.

This is our government's 10th budget since 2006. Over that period, our country has been confronted by unprecedented economic challenges from beyond our borders. With the help of our economic action plan, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G-7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Nearly a million net new jobs have been created since July 2009; we have the best job creation record in the G7. Over 85% of those new jobs are full time, and over 80% are in the private sector. Some two-thirds are in high-wage industries.

However, in light of ongoing global economic uncertainty, Canada cannot rest on its laurels. That is why economic action plan 2014 focuses on creating jobs and the right conditions for long-term economic prosperity while remaining committed to returning to a balanced budget in 2015.

To that end, this government understands, as do most Canadians, that balancing a budget takes a sound fiscal plan and discipline. The budget will not balance itself. Balancing the budget keeps taxes low and ensures that government services are sustainable over the long-run. It also gives us the flexibility to deal with the unexpected, like the recent economic shocks we've had to overcome.

Our government has not wavered from our objective, and it has cut the deficit by nearly two thirds since the economic downturn. Our goal is now within sight. Including the measures announced in economic action plan 2014, we expect to realize a surplus of $6.4 billion in 2015-16, including a $3-billion amount, an annual adjustment for risk. Unlike previous governments, we are not returning to balance by raising taxes on Canadians or cutting transfers to persons or to other levels of government. In fact, major federal transfers to provinces and territories for health care and social services will reach a record high of almost $65 billion in 2014-15, an increase of over 50% since 2006. Instead, we have focused on controlling the size and cost of government. Overall, since 2010, our actions are saving taxpayers roughly $19 billion every year. That is economic leadership and a testament to my predecessor the late Jim Flaherty.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G-7.

However, to achieve Canada's full economic potential, we have to ensure that Canadians have the skills they need to succeed in today's economy and be first in line for available jobs.

To increase responsiveness of training to labour market needs, the Canada job grant will be implemented this year, placing skills training decisions in the hands of employers. This will be the cornerstone of new labour market agreements with the provinces and territories.

Bill C-31 takes further steps to ensure that federal programs are directed towards meeting labour market requirements. They include strengthening the labour market opinion process to deter employers from breaking the rules with a system of administrative monetary penalties for employers of foreign workers, and supporting the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system.

The government has increased Canada's openness to trade and investment, promoted business competitiveness, and strengthened the financial sector. Today's legislation builds on this foundation by cutting red tape for more than 50,000 employers, by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account at source deductions, and reducing barriers in the international and domestic flow of goods and services.

Natural resource economic development projects are a major source of job creation in all regions of Canada. Our natural resources sector represents 18% of our economy, supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly, and generates some $30 billion per year in government revenues.

Bill C-31 is in line with our government's responsible resource development plan because it supports mining exploration by small companies by extending the 15% tax credit for flow-through share investors for one year and eliminating tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn to the financial sector. It plays a fundamental role in transforming savings into productive investments in the economy. Bill C-31 proposes new initiatives that will build on Canada's financial sector advantage.

First, our government is at the forefront of the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, and implementing measures that safeguard the integrity of Canada's financial system and the safety and security of Canadians. That is why Bill C-31 will enhance the ability of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, to disclose to federal partners threats to the security of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, while Canada's financial system has been rated one of the soundest in the world, it has the only capital markets regulatory system in the world that does not have a single national securities regulator. Critics of the current system believe that it is overly complex, inefficient, and a barrier to foreign investment in Canada, and they are right.

That is why, last September, our government and the governments of British Columbia and Ontario, agreed to establish a cooperative capital markets regulatory system. The cooperative system will better protect investors to enhance enforcement, support more efficient capital markets, and more effectively manage systemic risk. Our government invites all provinces and territories to participate in the implementation of the cooperative system.

Bill C-31 includes a measure to make payments to participating jurisdictions that will lose net revenues as a result of the transition to the cooperative system.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, our legislation builds on previous actions by our government to support families and communities, and improve the quality of life for hard-working Canadians. Specifically, Bill C-31 proposes to increase the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families.

The bill would also introduce a search and rescue volunteers tax credit, for search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service in a year.

It proposes to exempt acupuncturists and naturopath doctors' professional services from the GST/HST.

It would also expand the current GST/HST exemption for training that is especially designed to help individuals cope with a disorder or disability.

And finally, it would enhance access to employment insurance sickness benefits for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children and compassionate care benefits.

In summary, the economic action plan is working. It's creating jobs, keeping the economy growing, and returning to balanced budgets. By staying the course, and sticking to our proven economic action plan, Canada remains on track for a more prosperous future.

Now I invite questions from the committee. Government officials have also joined us today to answer any questions you may have about this bill. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order this meeting number 32 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, we are studying Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

We have two panels here this afternoon. We are very pleased to have the Hon. Joe Oliver, Minister of Finance, in his first appearance at this committee.

Welcome, Minister, to the finance committee. We are very pleased to have you.

We are also pleased to have two officials from the Department of Finance who are well known to all of us, Mr. Brian Ernewein, the general director of the tax legislation division of the tax policy branch, and the ADM for the financial sector policy branch, Mr. Jeremy Rudin.

Welcome back to the committee, gentlemen.

Minister, welcome to the committee. You have an opening statement and then we will have questions from all members of the committee.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, noting that it's the month of May, we served notice of motion and I'd like to move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study, as suggested by the Standing Committee on Finance in their motion adopted on April 29, 2014, of the subject matter of clauses 212 to 233 and clause 375 of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures; and that the meeting on Tuesday, May 13, 2014, be dedicated to the study.

Should I read it in French as well?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to our witnesses.

This is Bill C-31, Canada's economic action plan. I think you outlined the benefits and how our economy will grow as a consequence of businesses being able to focus more on marketing and sales, and not having to re-qualify for all the trademarks with these different countries involved in the treaties. Thank you for clarifying why it's part of Canada's economic action plan.

Going through this, I know we did study Bill C-8, and I believe, Mr. Halucha, you were here. Would you refresh our memories on the difference between a certification mark and a trademark?

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

Sorry, I'm so limited in time, I have to interrupt you.

I'm concerned about the declaration of use provision. As my colleague across the way has said, the legal community has raised this as a concern. Why make this change if it's not essential to these treaties? Our understanding is that experts agree that trademark use is one of the basic principles of the Trade-marks Act, and that rights ensue from the use of a trademark.

We have a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on this, the Masterpiece ruling.

If Bill C-31 becomes law, in your view, could it become a constitutional challenge by the provinces?

[Paul Halucha, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you very much.

In January, the government tabled in Parliament five international treaties that were developed by the World Intellectual Property Office: the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, the Nice Agreement, the Hague Agreement, and the Patent Law Treaty. The changes to the Trade-marks Act that are proposed in division 25 of part 6 of Bill C-31 will allow Canada to implement the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, and the Nice Agreement.

By joining these treaties, Canadian businesses will have access to a trademark regime that is aligned with best practices, that reduces costs and red tape, and that attracts foreign investment to Canada.

Let me briefly describe each of the treaties.

The Madrid Protocol aims to simplify the international filing of trademarks.

Ninety-one countries have joined the Madrid Protocol.

The Singapore Treaty simplifies and standardizes formalities and administrative procedures of government trademark offices.

Thirty-five countries are parties to the Singapore Treaty.

The Nice Agreement governs a standardized classification system for trademarks that is used by 150 IP offices to categorize goods and services to make it easier to search and compare trademarks.

The government decided to implement these treaties for several reasons. The changes are a part of a series of changes to modernize Canada's international IP, intellectual property, regime in order to adapt to the reality of globalization and keep a competitive environment for Canadians. These treaties will benefit both businesses and consumers. They will help Canadian companies compete globally and protect their valuable intellectual property in Canada and abroad, and they will reduce the cost and complexity of IP administration.

For example, the International Trademark Association calculated 62% savings in total fees for a business wishing to register a trademark in the U.S. and 10 other countries, through the Madrid Protocol, when compared to costs for filing in each country individually. Maintaining and renewing an international portfolio of trademarks will also be much simpler and more cost-effective for businesses, as it will be done at the same time through a single application.

From a global perspective, the vast majority of Canada's trading partners have already joined Madrid and Singapore. The world is moving towards these treaties, and in general, harmonizing around best practices. For our trademark system, this means eliminating administrative activities that are unique to Canada, especially those that increase red tape for Canadian businesses but not for foreign businesses applying in Canada.

Over the past 10 years, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has held three consultations regarding Singapore and Madrid. Two formal consultations took place in 2005 and 2010, and in the fall of 2013, targeted consultations were undertaken with Canadian IP experts. The results of these consultations were mixed. While the vast majority supported Canada's accession to Madrid and Singapore, views differed in the legal IP community with regard to the various options for implementation.

Canada's trademark system has stayed relatively unchanged since the 1950s. In this context, we appreciate that the proposed changes in Bill C-31 will require adjustments in the current practices of the legal IP community. Some have expressed concerns with regard to these changes.

Industry Canada and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office are committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure an effective implementation of these treaties and the best possible outcome for the Canadian economy.

In addition, division 26 of part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act in order to do away with the power to appoint a Registrar of Trade-marks. The proposed changes mean that the Governor in Council would appoint the same person to serve as both the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade-marks. Since 1967, these two positions have, for the most part, been filled by the same person. These changes will not affect activities or costs.

I will end my remarks here.

Madame Carreau and I would welcome questions from the honourable members of the committee.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Like my colleague, Peggy Nash, I feel that this process isn't overly legitimate. Given that Bill C-31 is an omnibus bill, any of the amendments we propose won't even be voted on in committee because the Standing Committee on Finance will pass the entire bill. There's a real lack of transparency and democracy there.

That said, I do have some questions for you.

You and my colleague discussed the fact that these changes will allow the CRTC to impose monetary penalties on companies that don't adhere to wholesale roaming rates. Which provisions would allow the CRTC to impose such penalties? Are there currently any measures that are imposed on companies that break the rules?

Tabling of Treaty

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to supplement my comments on a point of order in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on Monday, April 28, respecting Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. You will recall this was an issue of the elements of the legislation dealing with what is called the FATCA treaty with the United States that has to do with taxpayers with an American association and its implementation. His concerns were the government's treaty tabling policy.

The hon. House leader of the official opposition had indicated he would reply that afternoon so I did defer making this supplementary submission until I was in a position to respond to his as well if necessary. However, given that no NDP position has been set out, I did want to put these comments on the record now in the event that the Chair is soon ready to rule.

First, on the argument I put to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the jurisdiction of the Chair, I wish to offer a few citations. This is on the notion that the treaty tabling policy is not a matter of the Standing Orders of the House or the procedures and practices of the House, but rather it is a government policy relating to the government and a department's activities themselves. As such, I suggested that it was beyond the reach of the Speaker or the House. There are several citations that support that principle.

Mr. Speaker Bosley, on May 15, 1985, ruling on a question of privilege said at page 4769 of the Debates:

...I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

Our current Speaker ruled, on February 7, 2013, at page 13869 of the Debates:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes...

Both of these quotations were favourably cited in the ruling of March 3, 2014, in this Parliament, at page 3427 of the Debates.

On September 28, 2011, that ruling on a question of privilege raised by a colleague of the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, at page 1577 of the Debates, the following can be found:

I know the member for Malpeque does not expect the Chair to monitor all internal processes undertaken by the government as part of its preparatory work in advance of proposing legislative measures to the House.

On March 18, 1981, at page 8374 of the Debates, Madam Speaker Sauvé said, in relation to a question of privilege on the awarding of grants by the Liberal government of the day:

In the words of the hon. member, the awarding of certain grants has been politicized. This has to refer to rules and conduct matters, which are entirely in the hands of the government and for which it stands accountable.

That of course means not Parliament or the House, but rather the government itself.

Of course, there is a long history of hon. members raising procedural objections about a government's actions and seeking to encourage the Chair to expand its jurisdiction. One of the more eyebrow-raising cases was on October 26, 1981, when Madam Speaker Sauvé ruled, at page 12162 of the Debates, that:

The fact that someone is not answering the telephone...certainly does not constitute a question of privilege.

This situation is analogous to the rulings which I just cited in that you, Mr. Speaker, are being called upon to consider a government policy related to how the executive chooses to exercise the Crown's privileges. The question goes wide of the procedural role of the Chair.

Page 24 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which was published in November 2009, almost two full years after the policy on tabling treaties in parliament was announced, states:

The discretionary prerogatives are invoked rarely and only in the most exceptional circumstances. The overwhelming majority of the Governor General's powers are invariably exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Footnote 124, associated with that passage, opens with “This includes the ratification of treaties...”.

A role for the House is not asserted in that text.

That may be explained by turning to the Library of Parliament background paper, which I believe was quoted by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, which also states, at page 3, that:

Passing treaties through the House of Commons remains a courtesy on the part of the executive, which retains full authority to decide whether to ratify the treaty after the parliamentary review.

In fact, of what the hon. gentleman quoted to the House, there was one sentence in the middle of the passage which he somehow omitted. It is important, so I will add it here:

Very little authority is explicitly laid out in the law or the Constitution — much relies on royal prerogative, tradition and policy.

I would suggest that the Standing Orders could easily be added to the first half of that sentence.

This parenthetical note is attached to paragraph 6.6(a) of the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament:

The Executive under the constitutional treaty-making power exercised by the Federal Crown under the Royal Prerogative remains responsible for undertaking any international obligations of Canada.

My second area of argument relates to my comments about the ability of, and the experience of, the House of Commons to consider this proposed international agreement. I have some details to add.

Clause 99 provides for the enactment of the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act. Clauses 100 and 101 make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act.

Schedule 3 of Bill C-31 contains the text of the Agreement between the Government and Canada and the Government of the United States of America to Improve International Tax Compliance through Enhanced Exchange of Information Under the Convention between Canada and the United States of America with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital.

On April 8, the House adopted, by a vote of 149 to 125, Bill C-31 at second reading and, thereby, concurred in the principle of the bill.

What is more is that the House, also that night defeated the reasoned amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley at the second reading stage of Bill C-31. Paragraph (d) of the amendment related to the subject matter at hand.

Moreover, this was a matter previously before the House during this year's budget process. Let me quote from pages 358 and 359 of the budget plan, that is, the publication entitled “The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunity”, which was tabled on February 11:

In 2010, the U.S. enacted provisions known as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).... FATCA has raised a number of concerns in Canada—among both U.S. citizens living in Canada and Canadian financial institutions. Without an intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the U.S., Canadian financial institutions and U.S. persons holding financial accounts in Canada would be required to comply with FATCA regardless, starting July 1, 2014 as per the FATCA legislation enacted by the U.S. unilaterally.

In response to these concerns, the Government of Canada successfully negotiated an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. which contains significant exemptions and other relief. Under the approach in the Canada-U.S. agreement, which was signed on February 5, 2014, Canadian financial institutions will report to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) information in respect of U.S. persons that will be transmitted by the CRA to the IRS under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty and be subject to its confidentiality safeguards....

This new reporting regime will come into effect starting in July 2014, with Canada and the U.S. beginning to receive enhanced tax information from each other in 2015.

On February 26, the House adopted Ways and Means Motion No. 6 which read, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government”.

In concluding on this line of argument, this matter has not only been before Parliament, the House has actually voted on the issue reflected in this treaty three times, and that of course serves to fulfill, as I said, the principle that the House should have an opportunity to pass judgment on a treaty this House has now already passed judgment through a vote on that treaty three times.

With respect to my third area of argument, let me make some points respecting the actual terms of the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament.

Paragraph 1 of article 10 of the agreement with the United States provides that:

This Agreement shall enter into force on the date of Canada’s written notification to the United States that Canada has completed its necessary internal procedures for entry into force of this Agreement.

Meanwhile, paragraph 6.3(b) of the Policy states that, “If an exception [to the Policy] is granted”, and you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I indicated there was such an exception here, “the Minister or Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification”.

I emphasize those words, “following the ratification”.

Indeed, no order-in-council authorizing the agreement's ratification has issued, therefore Canada has not yet given that notification to the American administration. Accordingly, we are not yet at the point in time which could be said to be following the ratification, to borrow the phrase from the Policy on Tabling Treaties.

This ratification and notification have not yet occurred because necessary implementing measures remain to be adopted by Parliament.

As that Library of Parliament background paper explains, Canada operates under the so-called dualist model of treaty implementation. “Accordingly, Canada cannot ratify an international treaty until measures are in place to ensure that the terms of the treaty are enforceable in Canada law”.

Indeed, parliamentary support of this measure is essential in this case. Section 3 of the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act set out within clause 99 of Bill C-31 would provide that, “The Agreement is approved and has the force of law in Canada...”.

To conclude my submissions today, my argument hinges on three points: first, the grievance of the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Chair; second, not only does the House have an opportunity to consider the proposed international agreement, but it has already voted not once, not twice but three times on its principle, thus achieving the objective behind the treaty tabling policy; and third, and finally, there has not been in any event a breach of the policy of tabling treaties in Parliament that has received an exemption and it has been treated appropriately under the policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

I just wanted to pose some very basic questions here. I'm getting a fair amount of correspondence on this, as you can imagine. When I'm phoning people back I'm asking if they are talking about FATCA or the IGA. Many people actually believe FATCA is Canadian legislation that is somehow included in Bill C-31. So when I explain the difference in that FATCA is U.S. legislation that takes effect whether the Canadian government acts or not and the IGA is in fact a response to that....

You stated very clearly before this committee that we didn't have the choice of doing nothing. But just for argument's sake suppose the Canadian government did not negotiate the IGA and suppose for argument's sake the Canadian financial institutions chose not to comply with FATCA. If they just said they were not going to comply with this U.S. legislation what would be the repercussions to those institutions and thus to Canadians?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Did I understand you to say just now that you think that this law, this part of Bill C-31, would not be subject to the Privacy Act, which is a quasi-constitutional law? Are you saying that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the witnesses for being here.

The intergovernmental agreement related to FATCA without doubt is one of the most complicated provisions of Bill C-31, and we, as the official opposition, have taken the position that it deserves a great deal more study than it is going to get through this process. Thus we have suggested it be taken out and given the study that's required.

In terms of timelines—I'm coming to a question—the context is this. It's been less than three months since February 5 and the agreement being signed, and here we are today. I'd ask you to correct me. The public was given 30 days to comment, and now this is part of this omnibus budget. It seems to me there has been undue haste given the enormous consequences of it.

My question to the officials is this. In your judgment, have you had adequate time to understand the intended and unintended consequences of such a dramatic piece of legislation?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 31 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are the study of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

We have with us, I believe, half the public service in Ottawa here in the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting back to order. I would ask those who are not involved to please quickly move along so we can get our committee business done on time.

As some committee members may be aware, the Standing Committee on Finance has invited our committee to study the subject matter of certain clauses of Bill C-31.

It's my understanding that Mr. Armstrong has a motion for this. Typically with committee business, we go in camera. I'm not certain that we need to on this, but perhaps I'll leave it to the discretion of the committee. If someone wants to put us in camera, we can do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order. Colleagues, I would ask you to find your seats, please.

Before we go to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we will be dealing with the first report from the finance subcommittee, and you should all have a copy of the report in front of you. It deals with how the committee is going to proceed with Bill C-31, and also with our youth employment study dates, main estimates, and pre-budget consultations. You should also have a calendar in front of you. I am very hopeful that we can deal with this expeditiously.

Mr. Cullen will be first to speak to this.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this has to do with whether a treaty has been properly tabled. Its implementation plan is Bill C-31. I will continue where I left off.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you may wonder whether an intergovernmental agreement such as the one I have talked about counts as a treaty. While I know it is not the Speaker's place to adjudicate on points of law such as this, I will quote to you briefly from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the matter of treaties, wherein the House of Commons reports:

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties...defines a treaty as:

“an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation”

Only a minority of such agreements have “treaty” in their title. Other common names include “convention”, “protocol” and “agreement”.

That is the case here. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is also the case for Canada. This agreement is indeed a treaty, and is even housed in the “treaty” section of the Department of Finance's website.

With a treaty before us, our attention turns to the Government of Canada's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”. I turn the attention of the House to part 6.2 of that policy, which states in part (b):

For treaties that require implementing legislation before the Government can proceed to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession...the Government will:

Observe a waiting period of at least twenty-one sitting days before the introduction of the necessary implementing legislation in Parliament...

I have made a search of the Journals and I am unable to find any notice of this treaty being tabled before this body prior to 21 days before the introduction of Bill C-31. This leads me to believe that the government may have sought to use the exception to this part of the tabling policy, but that stipulates:

If an exception is granted, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will inform the House of Commons that Canada has agreed to be bound by the instrument at the earliest opportunity following the ratification.

That is from 6.3, part (b), of the government's “Policy on Tabling of Treaties in Parliament”.

In this regard, I am unable to locate a statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding this instrument. While I am well aware of press statements released in February from the former finance minister and current Minister of National Revenue regarding the signing of this agreement, it appears Parliament was never informed of this agreement, nor apprised of its contents. As such, I believe these portions of the bill are neither properly before this body or before the finance committee as they do not adhere to what has become the practice of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention the Journals of Monday, January 27, 2014, wherein during the tabling of documents, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs laid upon the table no less than five international instruments, many of which deal with trademarks and are now being implemented in Bill C-31. This, I believe, reflects what has become the practice, that treaties are tabled for a period of at least 21 days prior to the government seeking implementing legislation.

It is important to note why 21 days has become the so-called magic number. Here, I cite from the United Kingdom's select committee on procedure's second report from 2000. It says:

The Ponsonby Rule is a convention whereby almost all treaties which do not come into force on signature are laid before Parliament for 21 days before they are ratified. It was first stated by, and derives its name from, Mr Arthur Ponsonby, former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In a debate in the House in 1924 Mr Ponsonby affirmed that—

“It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament every treaty, when signed, for a period of 21 days, after which the treaty will be ratified...In the case of important treaties, the Government will, of course, take an opportunity of submitting them to the House for discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party, time will be found for the discussion of the treaty in question.”

I cite this passage because the government's policy reflects British parliamentary practice and I believe this has become the practice of Canada's House of Commons as well. Indeed, our own Library of Parliament has noted:

The way in which Canada negotiates, signs, ratifies and implements international treaties is a constantly evolving process....Today the House of Commons has been granted a louder voice prior to official ratification. This enhanced role for Parliament is an important one...

I believe, if we search the annals of this place, we would find the practice of treaties being tabled well in advance of votes thereupon. Certainly there have been exceptions and the policy itself foresees such situations, yet the House being informed is still a prerequisite to debate. I believe the time has come for clarity from the Chair on whether this policy has indeed risen to the point of custom such that a violation, as appears to have occurred in this case, creates a legislative defect that must be cured prior to its passage.

Arguably, as a matter of principle, the government should explain why it has not respected its own policy in regard to the tabling of treaties before Parliament. As a matter of policy, we should not debate matters that parliamentarians have not been given adequate time to review and study. But, as a matter of practice, the House has established and operated on this custom of tabling for five years as formally enshrined and much longer than that if one looks at historical practice whereby governments have routinely informed Parliament of international agreements signed and ratified.

While I and the Liberal Party of Canada have strong and profound disagreements with FATCA and its implementation, particularly as it infringes on privacy rights and the charter, forces the Canada Revenue Agency to do the IRS' dirty work, and infringes upon our sovereignty, I will save that for a debate for another day. My concern giving rise to this point is that proper procedure has not been followed and the customs of the House have been infringed upon, thus creating a procedural irregularity to be remedied.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, the proper remedy, if you agree with this point, would be to remove those clauses from Bill C-31 that implement this treaty until such time has passed after either the treaty in question is tabled or the Minister of Foreign Affairs informs the House that an exception to the tabling requirement has been sought and the reasoning for this exception. As the matter is before committee, I believe it would be in your power to interpret the committee's mandate relative to the bill as encompassing only those matters that were properly before the House upon its introduction, thereby precluding consideration by the committee of a treaty of which the House was never informed until its accompanying implementing legislation was introduced.

I understand and acknowledge that parliamentary practice has evolved in the realm of treaties and is indeed still evolving. I believe, however, that we have now established a new custom and practice with respect to the tabling of such instruments and that it would be appropriate for the Chair to give expression to the legitimate expectations of members of this place that they be informed of treaties and their contents prior to debate on implementation, as well as to accord Parliament its proper place in the debate on international instruments such as included in Bill C-31.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relative to Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

To contextualize my point of order, the bill includes in it the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act, legislation implementing Canadian legislation under U.S. legislation known as FATCA.

I am not rising to debate the merits of FATCA, as that would not be a proper use of a point of order. Instead, I rise to seek your ruling as to whether this is properly before the House and now properly before the finance committee, given that Bill C-31 seeks to implement a treaty that has not yet been tabled for the requisite amount of time.

This violates Canada's policy on tabling of treaties now become custom of Parliament. While relatively new, the expectation of conformity with this policy reflects an evolution from the Chair. Indeed, this notion is reflected in the first standing order, which reads:

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.

To elaborate further on the particular context for this point, Bill C-31 has, in part 5, implementing legislation for the “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada to improve international tax compliance through enhanced exchange of information under the convention between the United States of America and Canada with respect to taxes on income and on capital”.

Forgive the length of the title; I did not write it.

The text of this agreement is included—

Opposition Motion—Time allocation and closure

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to the motion brought forward by my opposition colleagues.

I note that my colleagues from the Liberal Party were not inclined to take up any of the suggestions made by the government House leader last Thursday. I would also welcome the opportunity to debate how his party would propose to eliminate the budget deficit, a commitment our government made to the Canadian people, which we will deliver on next year.

Today we are debating the motion from the Liberal Party, dealing with the long-standing provisions in the standing orders related to the curtailment of debate. In particular, the motion seeks to amend the standing orders so that one could not use the procedural mechanisms of either closure or time allocation in relation to any bill that seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act or the Parliament of Canada Act.

This limiting of the motion to these two acts obviously comes as no surprise, given that the opposition parties are opposed to our government's fair elections act, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. While the focus of my remarks today will be on Standing Orders 57 and 78 and their histories, evolution, and appropriateness, I would also like to take a minute to make a few observations on this particular aspect of the motion.

I would contend that if it were not for their opposition to the fair elections act, we would not be debating this motion at all today. Previous governments of different partisan stripes have long used these procedural mechanisms to curtail debate when they were in government. Of particular note, there is good reason why my Liberal colleagues did not include in their motion, amendments to the standing orders to change how closure or time allocation is used.

Their real opposition is with a particular bill before Parliament, and I expect most of their comments today will be directed toward that bill, as opposed to the Standing Orders. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to state my support for the fair elections act, and I will quote the Minister of State for Democratic Reform as to why I believe the bill should be passed:

...the fair elections bill would ensure that everyday Canadians are the players in the game, that special interests are pushed to the sidelines of the game, and that rule-breakers are pushed out of the game altogether.

He went on to say:

It would close big-money loopholes, impose new penalties on political impostors who make rogue calls, and empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

As I said, what I would like to focus my remarks on today is the history and evolution of Standing Orders 57 and 78. By highlighting their evolution, I think it will become clear to those following this debate, possibly even to the members opposite, why these procedural mechanisms that curtail debate are necessary and appropriate.

Often in this place, the terms “closure” and “time allocation” are incorrectly switched and misused, especially by the opposition. To be clear, Standing Order 57 provides the government with a procedural mechanism to force a decision by the House on any matter currently under debate. This is referred to as “closure”. Whereas, Standing Order 78 sets out the procedural mechanism for restricting the length of debate on bills through “guillotine motions”; referred to as “time allocation”. The standing order actually has three subsections that set out different kinds of restrictions which apply to the allocation of time, depending on the degree of acceptance among the representatives of all parties.

Before I provide an overview of the evolution of these two standing orders, I would like to quote three sources: the current government House leader; a past government House leader; and Beauchesne’s, which is one of our procedural bibles. Each of these statements address the necessity and appropriateness of using such procedural mechanisms. To begin, on page 162 of Beauchesne’s it reads:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

A compelling argument as to the necessity of time allocation motions was made by the former Liberal government House leader when speaking to the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of the House of Commons, the last time the rules regarding time allocation and closure were amended.

On October 4, 2001, as per page 5946 of the Debates, he stated:

Time allocation is necessary, of course, when debating legislation, so that the government can put through its legislative program. The opposition parties are, I am sure, aware of that necessity but they object when the government makes use of it.

I will leave it to the House to decide who has stated this principle more eloquently and effectively, but in keeping with the words of a former Liberal government House leader, our very own government House leader has also tried to convey this principle to our colleagues in opposition. As recently as April 3, 2014, he stated the following with respect to time allocation and Bill C-31:

Of course, time allocation is not used by this government to shut down debate, because here we are debating, which we will be doing tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. It is used as a scheduling device so that all members of this House can have certainty and confidence about when the debate will occur, and more importantly, about when the vote will occur and when the decision will ultimately be made. That is very important.

I find it very interesting that this same practice that was used many times by the Liberals when they were in office is now being criticized by that same party. Canadians are not fooled, however. They expect this from the “do as I say, not as I do” Liberal Party.

I would now like to provide an overview of the history and evolution of these two procedural mechanisms, as it is important to note how they came to be established as rules in our Standing Orders and how they have evolved over time.

While neither closure nor time allocation existed as procedural mechanisms at the time of Confederation, it did not take long before it was recognized that complete freedom of debate was impossible and that some restraint would have to be exercised, or some accommodation reached, for the House to conduct its business within a reasonable timeframe.

In the years following the turn of the century, the inability of the House to come to a vote on a question was not infrequent, leading often to long, protracted debates.

This led to the House in 1913 adopting amendments to its rules to add a mechanism to end debate called “closure”—effectively our current Standing Order 57. Other rules then followed that also addressed the issue of lengthy debates, including limiting the length of the speeches of members in 1927 and, in 1955, further limits were imposed on certain debates.

Closure was applied 11 times from 1913 to 1932, but then was not used again until 1956, when the pipeline debate took place. That spring, during the acrimonious debate on the bill, entitled, “An act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation”, closure was invoked at each stage of the legislative process. It was the only mechanism, at the time, that the government could use to advance this legislation.

With respect to legislation, the use of closure was deemed to be somewhat inflexible and inadequate as a tool for conducting the business of the House. Discussions began with a view to looking at ways in which the time of the House could be better managed with respect to the consideration of bills. It was felt, as highlighted by the pipeline debate, that the closure mechanism was not effective in advancing legislation, since the process of giving notice, moving the motion, and voting on it had to be repeated at every stage of a given bill.

In the 1960s, as the business of the House became more complex, the House agreed to establish a number of special committees charged with considering the procedures of the House and, in particular, to make suggestions to expedite public business. It was recognized that the complexity of legislation was increasing and that procedural mechanisms were needed to ensure that business would be dispatched within a reasonable amount of time.

Agreeing upon a mechanism was not easy. In the 10th report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House in 1964, it was acknowledged that it was difficult to reach an all-party agreement on the proposal to deal with the fundamental question of the allocation of time, and so no recommendation was made at that time.

Following the report, early in the next session, the government moved a resolution that included a time allocation mechanism. It called for the creation of a business committee that would propose an allocation of time for the specific item of business referred to it. If unanimous agreement could not be reached by the committee, consisting of a member from each party, a minister could then give notice during routine proceedings that at the next sitting of the House, he or she would move a motion allocating the time for the item of business or the stage.

The government's resolution was debated for 12 days and amended to provide, in the instance where unanimous agreement could not be reached, for a minimum of two sitting days at the second reading stage, two sitting days at the committee stage, and one sitting day at the third reading stage.

Eventually this proposal was hived off from the resolution and studied by a special committee. The committee proposed a further amendment that would allow the Speaker to extend the sitting on the final day of a time allocation order applying to third reading of a bill. On June 11, 1965, the proposal was adopted as provisional Standing Order 15(a).

In the following Parliament, the House decided not to extend the provisional Standing Order 15(a). Instead, the House referred the matter of time allocation to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.

On June 20, 1969, the House adopted the third report of the committee, which provided for three options under which a time allocation order could be made—effectively the basis for our current Standing Order 78.

The procedure mechanisms for closure and for time allocation have remained, by and large, unchanged since they were established in 1913 and 1969 respectively. There have been a few minor changes, which I will briefly outline

With respect to closure, the mechanism has been modified on only three occasions. In each case, the change related to the time for putting the question. In 1913, the time for putting all questions necessary to dispose of the closure motion was fixed for 2 a.m.

Subsequently, the time was moved back one hour to 1 a.m. in 1955, in order to conform with the change made to the ordinary time of adjournment. The time was then moved back to 11 p.m. in April 1991, and finally to 8 p.m. in October 2001.

Similarly, there have been only a few amendments to the time allocation Standing Order. In June 1987, amendments were adopted to provide that time allocation motions after only oral notice would be moved under government orders rather than under motions during routine proceedings, and that debate on items of business under consideration at the time the motion was moved would be deemed adjourned.

Then in 1991, the House agreed to remove the two-hour debate on the time allocation motion moved pursuant to then Standing Order 78(2) and 78(3). The motion was to be decided forthwith. In addition, the text of the Standing Order was amended to provide that if the time allocation motion were moved and adopted at the beginning of government orders and the bill under question was then called and debated for the remainder of that sitting, that would count as one sitting day for the purpose of the Standing Order.

As is the case with many Standing Orders, practice and Speaker's rulings have also played a role in defining how the procedural mechanism of time allocation is to be used. The following are a sampling of some of the key rulings since the implementation of such a Standing Order in 1969.

In December 1978, Speaker Jerome ruled that a time allocation motion could be moved covering both report and third reading stages, even though third reading had not yet begun. Speaker Sauvé confirmed in 1983 that notice of intention to move a time allocation motion could be given at any time.

Speaker Fraser ruled that an oral notice of a time allocation motion need only be a notice of intention and not notice of the actual text of the motion.

Finally, in 2001 a new Standing Order was adopted, flowing from a recommendation in the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of Procedures of the House of Commons that I referenced earlier. Standing Order 67(1) was adopted, providing for a 30-minute question and answer period when a closure motion or a time allocation motion, without the agreement of any of the opposition parties, were moved on a bill. During this 30-minute period, questions would be directed to the minister sponsoring the item of business under debate, or to the minister acting on his or her behalf.

From the historical overview I have just provided, I think that it is telling that these procedural mechanisms have not only been longstanding, but that they have also remained largely unchanged since they were implemented.

I would venture to say, therefore, that the reason for this is that they fulfill an important purpose, that is to provide the government of the day with a tool to ensure that legislation can be debated and advanced through the House in a timely fashion. This is a tool that all governments have used to date.

Without such a tool being available to the government of the day, the opposition would be able to indefinitely delay each and every government bill. That would be undemocratic and would not recognize the mandate given to the government by the Canadian people.

In closing, I need only go back to the second session of the 37th Parliament to highlight an example of the use of time allocation on a bill that would violate the conditions set out in the motion that we are debating today. It was the previous government, and the very same government House leader I quoted earlier, that moved a time allocation motion for Bill C-24, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act (political financing). Therefore, I question not only the purpose of today's motion, as it is clear that the procedural mechanisms of closure and time allocation serve an important role in this place, but also the sincerity of the party opposite, as those members know full well that without this mechanism, governments would be unable to pass virtually any bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be splitting my time today with the opposition House leader, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He has done an incredible job of standing up to the government in the short time he has been in the position, holding them to account and pushing back on what has been a continual and constant abuse of Parliament and our democratic and fundamental principles which we all share as Canadians. I believe that Conservatives share them as well, when they are able to unleash themselves for that split second and realize what their jobs are meant to be here.

We see a motion today that we welcome from the Liberal Party, although we find it passing strange, on two fronts. We welcome the opportunity to talk about free and fair debate in Canada's Parliament, to talk about the abuses that the Conservatives have unleashed more than 55 times on Canada's Parliament.

There are two considerations and concerns that we have with what the Liberals have put forward. I am sure my hon. colleague the opposition House leader will elaborate on these, so I will pass over them briefly. The first issue is that the motion as it is presented today is too limited. It only seeks to curtail the government's power to use time allocation and the extraordinary power of shutting down debate in too narrow a way. We would seek to perhaps expand it, and my friend from Burnaby—New Westminster will elaborate on that.

The second piece is that this may be a new-found love for accountability and transparency from the Liberal Party. As we have seen, when it held the same position as the Conservatives currently do, it too used this same extraordinary power.

Canadians can tolerate a lot from their political representatives, and we know that we ask them to do that. They tolerate the various assortment of scandals and unfortunate choices, and the bad choices, made by the current government. However, they will not tolerate hypocrisy. They do not appreciate hypocrisy from any party, in this case, the Liberals, who used time allocation on certain bills that it should never have been used on.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was you, in 2011, who moved a motion to limit the powers of shutting down debate by the government, which was rejected. It was the NDP who also sought most recently to give increased powers to the Speaker. That was to discern between when the government was using time allocation as it was designed, for when a debate has gone extensively beyond what would be considered a normal parameter for discussion, and limiting it to that instance rather than what we see from the government.

As my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster said, it was on a massive omnibus bill, or ominous bill as some people call them now. They are Trojan Horse bills. We have seen Bills C-38 and C-45, and the most recent budget implementation act, Bill C-31, that are incredibly expansive in their nature. They are hundreds of pages long, and in this case affects more than 40 Canadian laws. It would change 40 Canadian laws in this one case.

The extent of these massive bills would be enough that most people would consider a full and extensive debate to be proper. However, after a short 25 minutes, the Conservatives said that is enough. They said that we need to shut down the debate on this most recent ominous bill; we need to shut off any conversation about all of these laws that are being affected.

When we look through the debates of the past when the Liberals used the same tactics that the Conservatives are using, it is passing strange that it was the Conservatives, who were then in opposition, who had so many problems with that abuse of power.

Let me read one quote. This is one of my favourites. It is good. It is someone being prescient and intelligent, and doing their job as a parliamentarian. Let me quote the following from a debate on November 26, 1996, which took place right here:

In my view, the procedure of using time allocation for electoral law, doing it quickly and without the consent of the other political parties, is the kind of dangerous application of electoral practices that we are more likely to find in third world countries.

Who would say something like that? Who would say that the abuse of power that the Liberal government of the day was using to shut down debate on changing our electoral laws was representative of something “that we are more likely to find in third world countries”? It was the current Prime Minister who said that. It is true.

The current Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, was faced with a Liberal majority that was unilaterally changing electoral laws—not nearly as extensively as the Conservatives are now doing, by the way—and sought to shut down debate in the House of Commons, having achieved no consensus or agreement from the other opposition parties. It was the current Prime Minister who said that this was an abuse of power; this was wrong.

Lo and behold, we now have Bill C-23, the unfair elections act, which the Conservatives have designed in its very DNA to be unfair, to be undemocratic, and to allow an advantage to Conservative candidates in the next election rather than winning fairly. They have put that into their election bill with no agreement from any other political party.

Then, to add insult to that abuse, to that injury, they have shut down debate prematurely and rushed it to committee. They are now in the Senate doing the same thing—the unaccountable, unelected Senate that this same Prime Minister appointed. The hypocrisies and irony in this instance are so rich that they approach the level of appalling.

To my Liberal friends, I hope this new found love of democratic principles is sincere and will be sustained, regardless of which side of the House they are sitting on. New Democrats have a long and proud record of standing up against the abuses of time allocation, of shutting down debate, of allowing members to freely express themselves on behalf of constituents. That is what we are here for. It is not to advance one political party or the other. The very structure of the House of Commons is simple, yet beautiful in its nature: to hold the government of the day to account.

As I said to my Conservative colleague across the way, that is a responsibility, not only of the opposition parties but of those who sit in the so-called government backbenches. That is their job. Unchecked power eventually becomes corrupted, as we saw from the Conservatives as soon as they gained their majority.

It was a very slight majority. If we look at the design and the build of the seats in the House of Commons, it is what we call the rump, the little section of extra flow over the Conservative seats in the corner that we see during voting time. It is called the rump, by all parties; I do not mean to pass any judgment on the quality of those members. However, it is that tiny group over there who represent the majority that the government has, having achieved just 38% of the vote in the last election. When we break it down, it was only 25% of all eligible voters in the country, and they ended up with 100% of the power.

What do the Conservatives do with that power? Do they act responsibly? Heavens, no. They introduce these massive omnibus bills and then slap on time allocation, shutting down debate on legislation that is so incredibly complex that nobody on the government benches actually understands what they are voting for. That is a shame.

This motion is about a democratic principle that is essential for Parliament to work properly for Canadians. I fully understand that Canadians are quite cynical about the current state of our politics, and for good reason. It is only natural, what with this corrupt, anti-democratic, and by all accounts very weak government. What is more, this government is short on ideas. The budget implementation bill is short on tools for rebuilding our economy.

There is a shortfall of some 300,000 jobs in the industrial sector and for young Canadians who are still trying to find work. They are coping with an unemployment rate that is twice that of the rest of Canada. What are we seeing in the government? We are seeing an extremely corrupt system, a shortage of ideas, and a problem, namely that of disliking democracy.

What is that terrible expression that I have seen in a comic strip somewhere: “that the beatings will continue until morale improves”. The Conservatives heap abuse upon abuse on Parliament and ask why it is that the opposition parties are so resistant to their mandate and to their practices?

Well, with what we have seen, time and time again, whether it is the unfair elections act, these massive omnibus bills, the way it approaches trade negotiations with other countries, or the general approach that the government has to democracy, I look back, almost fondly, to those days of the Reform Party. It seemed to at least have stood for something. I did not agree with it, but it seemed to have stood for something. Now we see what these guys have become. Power seems to have corrupted them and left them without those principles. It is a shame.

We will be supporting the motion. I look forward to the continued debate.

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

I was hoping to obtain an answer because I did not get one from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Switching over to something that is international in scope, the Canada-United States enhanced tax information exchange agreement implementation act, which we tend to call FATCA, is in the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, at this point.

I would like to ask a question. Of course, it deals with the fact that we are going to be helping the United States, specifically the Internal Revenue Service,with information so that they can collect taxes from close to one million dual nationals in this country, I believe, who happen to be Canadian and American. This will very clearly involve Canada spending quite a bit of money to accomplish this, whether it's in the financial institutions themselves or through the CRA.

I would like to ask you, Minister Baird, why it is that Canada is accepting to do this at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. What is in it for Canada to help in this particular case—and possibly there may even be privacy issues—to help the United States Internal Revenue Service collect tax from Canadians with dual citizenship?

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for bringing us back to the egregious loss of democracy in this place. I said earlier today, speaking to Bill C-31, that it is like Bruce Cockburn's song, where he says, “But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse”. Every year, we seem to accept less and less democracy.

Back in 2009 when my last book came out, the late journalist Jim Travers was commenting on my book release on CBC. In answer to Michael Enright, who asked if there really were a crisis in Canadian democracy, Travers answered that it was worse than that, that you could visit Ottawa but what you would see was a democracy theme park. All the building were there, but Parliament was no longer respected.

Does my hon. colleague not feel that we need to reverse these trends before we really lose democracy altogether?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, our government's economic action plan for 2014. I understand that the member for Burlington will be speaking after me, which I think is wonderful, because what I lack in eloquence and possibly content I am sure he will more than make up for.

There are a number of measures in Bill C-31 that would be of benefit to my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla and elsewhere in Canada.

One measure I am particularly proud of is further amendments to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act. I know the member for Kootenay—Columbia spoke to this measure earlier. I am glad to have his support, as well as that of many other members of this place, for that amendment through my private member's bill.

This amendment in the budget implementation bill actually builds on the Free My Grapes movement, which was very important not just to my riding but to all Canadian wine-producing regions. It was passed unanimously by all members of the House, opening up new Canadian markets for Canadian craft brewers and artisan distillers. It will help both producers and growers.

We must not overlook that alcohol, in many cases, is a value-added agricultural product. For microbreweries in my riding, of which there are several, this is very exciting news. I am told that Saskatchewan and Ontario are also home to some very well-regarded craft breweries. However, let us not overlook our growing number of artisan distillers. These industries collectively support farms, provide direct and indirect jobs, and in many cases raise significant revenues that support important government services.

Bill C-31 also proposes a tax credit for search and rescue volunteers who perform 200 hours or more of volunteer service. Last fall I joined with a local group of volunteers in a search and rescue effort to try to locate a missing father. Sadly, we were not successful in our efforts. However, it was a heartening experience that so many citizens came together to help a family find closure. I also know from my activities, as do many members who often get an opportunity to speak with our constituents, that the people who participate in these activities often spend incredible amounts of time in training and then retraining, so it is important for the government to support this measure. We know these services are of incredible value to many of our communities across Canada. I am grateful that these individuals are being recognized in the bill.

Another measure in Bill C-31 that is important to my riding is the extension of a 15% mineral exploration tax credit, which was touched upon by the Conservative member who spoke previously.

There are mines in my riding that operate outside of Merritt and in Logan Lake. Mining remains a major employer and provides very well-paying jobs in my riding. In Okanagan Falls and in Penticton, there are employers that manufacture specialty mining equipment. Recognizing the importance of mining and supporting the mineral exploration tax credit is important to my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla and also to other resource communities across Canada.

There are many other reasons that I support Bill C-31. I would like to join the member for Vancouver Island North, who spoke so eloquently on the funding in budget 2014 that supports Lindsey's law. That is the creation of a national DNA-based missing persons index. I would also like to commend the member for Vancouver Island North for his work illustrating the need for such a DNA-based missing persons index from his work here in Ottawa.

On that same note, I would also like to recognize our Minister of Finance, who listens to the concerns of Canadians as represented by members of Parliament.

Here is another example of how our government listens to the concerns of Canadians in Bill C-31: the changes in how the GST-HST credit would be provided to qualifying Canadians. Those Canadians who qualify for the GST-HST grant but who neglect to apply would no longer be penalized for the oversight. Bill C-31 would ensure that eligible Canadians would automatically receive the GST-HST credit without having to apply.

That is a very good case of where this government recognizes that red tape should not prevent someone who is eligible for benefits to receive them. I think this will be warmly received in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla.

I would like to commend the Minister of National Revenue for also supporting these changes that will benefit many lower income Canadians.

Before I close, I would like to give an example of why our economic action plans are important to Canadians. Back in 2011, I spoke in this House in full support of Bill C-13, which was our government's economic action plan for 2011.

One of the reasons I spoke in support of Bill C-13 was the fact that provisions in the bill would help the value-added wood sector. In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, we are very fortunate to have many value-added wood producers. In my 2011 budget speech, I referenced North America's first large-scale, state-of-the-art, cross-laminated timber manufacturing production facility. This new plant created many vitally needed, well-paying jobs in Okanagan Falls, and measures in our economic action plan supported this innovation and investment to make this plant a reality.

As we know, the opposition voted against the government's economic action plan in 2011, just as it voted against all our economic action plans since.

Why do I mention this? Imagine my surprise when the Leader of the Opposition visited my beautiful riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla back in February of this year, and while in my riding, the Leader of the Opposition visited this very same value-added wood producer in Okanagan Falls. What did the he say after touring this facility?

This factory is a great example of something that is succeeding, and that's great to see.

It is rare that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, but on this point, I certainly do. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition described this innovative, value-added wood producer as a way we could create good jobs here in Canada, and I certainly agree.

However, we also have to recognize that the Leader of the Opposition, like his party, voted against our economic action plan in 2011. Yet when he actually witnessed the result of our economic plan in action, first hand, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? I will repeat, “This factory is a great example of something that is succeeding, and that's great to see”.

Our government's economic action plan, as the Leader of the Opposition himself observed, creates “good...jobs here in Canada”. That is one of the many reasons I will be supporting Bill C-31. I hope the members opposite will join our government in supporting the economic action plan that was presented in budget 2014 and that will be implemented through this act, so we can continue creating more good jobs right here in this great country of Canada, and help support Canadians in the many areas of day-to-day life.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to questions.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, Bill C-31 is yet another omnibus bill. It is 350 pages long and promotes a culture of secrecy and lack of transparency. My colleague also mentioned that there was no new funding for any sector really.

There is no job creation for young people, no investment in agencies that work with young people, such as cadets, which provide many social and engaging activities.

For example, Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps 2425, Air Cadet League of Canada 729 Squadron, Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 329 and Cadet Corps 2698 Sieur de Beaujeu are not getting more funding. What is more, the Little League Canadian Championships being held in my riding this summer did not receive any funding from the federal government, even though these activities provide young people with an opportunity to get some exercise and to develop their potential in a number of aspects in their lives. The federal government is doing absolutely nothing to help them.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-31, a budget implementation act. As always seems to be the case, the government, using its majority for purposes that are less than democratic, has limited debate on this bill. For the fifth time, the Conservative government has done its best to evade parliamentary scrutiny of what it puts forward as an economic agenda through time allocation.

I am lucky enough to get my thoughts on the floor today just before debate closes. My thoughts on this bill are not kind ones, and of course, the conduct of the government and its approach to the business of the House does not incline any of us to be particularly charitable. Some have described the budget and Bill C-31 as substantially irrelevant documents. That is not so. Parts therein are quite stunning. I am not sure whether they are stunning in their audacity or stunning in their timidity, but they are stunning nevertheless.

What Canadian could have imagined the surrender of sovereignty and betrayal of citizenship that is bound up in the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FATCA, as it is known, buried deep among 500 clauses in over 350 pages? As I just found out from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, it is on page 99 of a 350-page document.

What characterizes this bill as a whole is incoherence. One might argue that it is the nature of omnibus bills. They are certainly fundamentally undemocratic beasts, but I think there is something else going on in addition.

This bill betrays a government bereft of any understanding of this country in its complicated entirety in this century, much less in this year, 2014. It is eight years into power, and the government still does not see the urban fact of this country, the fact that over 80% of Canadians live in urban communities, from downtowns to suburbs and the places in between. It still governs like this is not true of Canada.

It does not understand the relationship of Canada's cities to the rural and resource economies that surround them and the opportunities that flow from that relationship. It still governs as if these are separate and unrelated economies, separate and unrelated environments, separate and unrelated societies. It still governs, in fact, as though urban economies, environments, and communities do not exist, much less have their own peculiarities and needs and present their own great opportunities for this country.

It has not grasped the relationship between our cities and the rest of the world to the global economy. It still governs as though the federal government is our only interface between Canada and the global economy, failing to grasp that what defines the global economy is a network of urban economies, a network into which our cities from coast to coast to coast are connected, and increasingly so.

This is a budget and a budget implementation act that contains no plan for Canada, through its cities, to succeed in a global economy.

Let me talk about what my city of Toronto needs to succeed, at a minimum. Toronto grows by 100,000 people every year. We add to the population of that city—and by “city”, I am speaking about the city region, not the municipality per se—a city the size of Calgary or Ottawa every decade. According to the Conference Board of Canada, an economic growth rate of 2.5% annually is required just to keep up with that pace of population growth, and that growth rate must also be distributed evenly, but it is not. Says the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

The 21st century city-region economy is creating a new kind of urban social structure. It consists on one side of well paid highly qualified professional and technical workers, and on the other, an increasingly precarious and growing proportion of low-wage service-oriented workers.

Recent studies by the United Way and McMaster University, the Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity, the Martin Prosperity Institute, and the Metcalf Foundation, all of which I have referenced in the House before, point to the growth of precarious employment in Toronto's labour market and confirm the emergence of this polarized labour market and consequent social structure in Toronto.

Even closer to my home and to my riding of Beaches—East York, a recent study entitled “Shadow Economies: Economic Survival Strategies of Immigrant Communities in Toronto” captured the extent of the shadow economy. Half of the respondents in that survey reported getting paid less than minimum wage. Over one-third of respondents did not get vacation pay, statutory holiday pay, or paid holidays of any kind.

We are witnessing a city once admired for its mixed-income neighbourhoods dividing into a city of low-income neighbourhoods and high-income neighbourhoods. In 1970, two-thirds of Toronto's cities were middle-income neighbourhoods. As of 2005, 29% were middle income. Extrapolating that trend out to 2025, it is the story of a sharply polarizing city where less than 10% of Toronto's neighbourhoods will be middle income just over a decade from now.

Long before we get there—in fact, now—we now have a critical housing challenge that needs to be addressed. In those low-income neighbourhoods where the shadow economies thrive, such as some in my riding:

Inadequate housing and the risk of homelessness are almost universal among families with children living in high-rise rental apartments....

says a March 2014 study by Paradis, Wilson, and Logan for the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto.

Almost 90 percent face major housing problems that may place them at risk of homelessness. ... One family in three is facing severe or critical risk of homelessness.

says the study.

According to the Toronto Region Board of Trade:

The state of good repair bill for the city's housing units is $750 million and growing by $100 million a year. Meanwhile, the city's accumulated state of good repair backlog in 2012 was $1.7 billion.

There is an enormous challenge here that the government is shrinking from, or is blind to, as it continues down the path of extricating the federal government from affordable housing in this country.

The same holds true of public transit. I asked the minister of infrastructure just yesterday why the government is refusing to invest in public transit. The answer, and I quote from Hansard, was that “our government respects the jurisdiction of provinces, and transit is under provincial jurisdiction”. That is the response of the government to the key economic challenge of Canada's global cities: it is not our responsibility.

Study after study points to the economic costs of underinvestment in transit in Toronto and the consequent stifling gridlock. The Toronto Region Board of Trade says:

...overstretched transportation networks are the most serious barrier to economic growth in the Toronto region, costing our regional economy $6 billion per year.

The C.D. Howe Institute pegs the current economic costs at closer to $11 billion.

Either way, the economic costs of underinvestment in transit are enormous. They compromise the competitive position of Toronto, and they are expected to go up. They are a stinging indictment of the government's blindness to the needs of cities and to the opportunity to grow our urban economies, an opportunity waiting there for a government alive to the urban fact of this country and the reality of a global and increasingly globalizing economy.

It is very simple: the success of our cities is vital to our national interest. Canada needs a national agenda that is alive to our urban reality, to how cities work, to their needs, their vulnerabilities, and their potential. Getting our cities right opens up the possibility that what we hope for—for ourselves, for our families, and for Canada—can be made real.

The only thing that is clear about Bill C-31 is that the government does not get that.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to Bill C-31, the budget implementation act. My opposition comes on two fronts, content and process. The budget bill is not just about the budget; if it were, how simple and straightforward our opposition would be.

The bill is what is known as an omnibus bill. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. It is massive. It is more than 350 pages. It contains almost 500 clauses. It amends dozens of bills and includes a slew of measures that were not even mentioned in the former finance minister's budget speech. The bill touches on tax measures, veterans, railway safety, hazardous materials, temporary foreign workers, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, a new bridge for the St. Lawrence, new Canadians, and access to old age security and guaranteed income supplement. It goes on and on.

Oh yes, it also mentions the budget. The bill is all over the map. It is a monster bill that undermines Parliament because it denies members of Parliament like me with the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. That is because it is so big, so far reaching and all-encompassing.

I cannot shake the feeling of déjà vu, as if I have stood in this very place before and made the very same point. That is because I have. I stood in this place in early December and called out the government for introducing an omnibus bill, the fourth omnibus budget implementation bill. That omnibus bill, back in December, amended 70 laws or regulations in a single bill. Ramming that much legislation into one bill is an easy way to get one past the electorate. It is also an easy way to make a mistake. It is irresponsible. It is bad governance. It is poor management. It is a slap in the face to democracy. We debate legislation in this chamber for a reason. It is to make legislation the best that it can be. We cannot do that with an omnibus bill. We cannot do that with the Conservative government.

Another point is that one day soon in the House, a Conservative member of Parliament will take to his or her feet and criticize Her Majesty's loyal opposition for voting against a particular piece of legislation. However, there is a good chance that legislation was rammed into an omnibus bill, which undoubtedly has some positives guaranteed.

For example, there is a measure within this bill that reverses the Conservative government's previous attempt to tax hospital parking, to tax the poor. That is gone. That is undeniably a good thing. However, the bill also includes horrible legislation that rips into the very fabric of Canada, and we will vote against it. Therefore, when a Conservative MP or minister accuses us of voting against a particular measure in a piece of legislation, there is a good chance that it was in an omnibus bill. There is no way that we can vote for those because they are horrible.

Let me quote columnist Andrew Coyne from the National Post. He had this to say, in 2012, about omnibus legislation, about transparency and accountability. The quote from two years ago is just as relevant today. He said:

Not only does this bill make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill.... It makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet. But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

Yes, it is quite alarming, but it is also old hat for the Conservative government. It is its go-to trick, its old reliable.

I will tackle some of the meat of this budget implementation act.

First, in terms of the economy, this is a do-nothing budget. It basically bides time until 2015, an election year, when the government purse will reopen and the Conservatives will attempt to buy the electorate with their own money. They will try to swing the election in their favour with the changes in the unfair election act and then use taxpayers' own money to sweeten the deal.

I am the official critic for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has been a very busy file, with more Conservative patronage than we can shake a stick at.

Where can one start to simplify the issues about patronage?

To simplify and to borrow a description from The Guardian about a story in the Halifax Chronicle Herald: “...hiring rules at ACOA have been twisted into pretzels to accommodate Conservative Party loyalists”.

Awful-tasting pretzels. Patronage at ACOA. And it has been blatant and it has been steady. Patronage at ACOA walks like a duck. It looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It even tastes like a duck. But the Conservatives, who use science more as a political art that science, say that the duck that has been feeding out of the Conservatives' hand right in front of us is a figment of our imagination. Maybe the duck is invisible to Conservatives, the same way that climate change is invisible to Conservatives, or the unemployed, or veterans.

While patronage has run rampant at ACOA, what would the budget implementation act do about it?

Let us see. Instead of increasing accountability and addressing patronage, the Conservatives are gutting it. The act would eliminate the need for the president of ACOA to table a report to Parliament every five years showing the impact of the agency's work on regional disparities. In other words, there will be no more report card. ACOA's board of directors would also be out the door. In theory, the board of directors could have blocked ACOA patronage. Only it did not do that.

I asked the federal Auditor General last year to investigate the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, a branch of ACOA, after it gave a $4.8-million grant to build a controversial marina. The Auditor General agreed to investigate.

What did the Conservatives do in advance of that report from the Auditor General? They folded the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation into ACOA. How convenient.

So, to tackle the blatant, out-of-control patronage, the current government actually gives more power to itself.

The budget should have been about making life more affordable and reducing household debt. The budget should have been about making credit rates reasonable. It should have been about capping ATM fees, cracking down on abusive practices of payday lenders, and providing services that Canadians rely upon.

Instead, the budget is about sidestepping democracy with yet another omnibus bill, the Conservatives' fifth attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny.

I will end with a series of two questions posed by the current Prime Minister in 1995 when the Liberals pushed through an omnibus bill:

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns? We can agree with some measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

That is a good question.

So what is the answer?

The answer is that we cannot represent our constituents in dealing with such massive omnibus legislation.

What is the solution?

The solution is to show this arrogant, entitled, out-of-touch Conservative government, a government that has forgotten right from wrong, a government that is trying desperately to cling to power by changing the rules in its favour, the door.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak today regarding budget 2015 and this new budget implementation bill because I think their significance is so easily understated.

In this budget, our former finance minister and our current Minister of Finance, with the support of a highly principled Prime Minister, a dedicated caucus, and a hard-working civil service, have brought Canada within a hair's breath of a very significant goal. That goal, a balanced budget, will be achieved next year.

This has been accomplished with many tough decisions by our government, such as saying no to many requests for funding and ending programs that were not necessary. It includes a three-year wage freeze for members of Parliament, a change that will demand that civil servants pay half the cost of their own pension plan, and a demand that MPs, who serve an average of less than six years, also pay half their own pension plan moving forward in 2015. That means an additional $1,733 will be taken off the paycheque of each MP every month at that time, so we cut our own benefits too.

My point is that balancing a budget requires sacrifice and principled leadership. It is very difficult to do. It is no fun. That is why most countries in southern Europe could not do it year after year for decades until their debts overwhelmed them. Every member of this House knows what happened there.

Economists who have never been in government say that balanced budgets are not that important. They themselves are a very well-paid group who can afford more taxes, but what about ordinary Canadians? What about the people who spend most or all of what they earn on daily life, because life is just expensive? They are trying to pay a mortgage or save for a house or a family vacation or save for post-secondary education for their children. What about them?

I do not think most economists, who work for banks that earn tens of millions of dollars on interest from loans to governments or for universities or corporations where they have generous pension plans, feel it so profoundly if their taxes go up year after year. It will not affect their lifestyle very much. For everyone else who is taxed out, three or four levels of government are taking too much, and no one believes most governments spend all that money wisely.

Balancing a budget means that the government is spending the same as it takes in. It is not creating more and more debt that working people will pay their entire lives, plus interest. Balancing the budget also means that the federal government can start paying back the $619 billion it has borrowed in the taxpayer's name.

Bill C-31 is the track to this reality. It means that families can truly plan their own future with less fear that some future government will get its hands on more of their paycheque, before they even get it, for something that no one really needs.

Balanced budgets mean we are not mortgaging our children's future or saddling them with debt that they will pay for over their entire lives. Balanced budgets mean we pay our own way.

Balanced budgets mean investors worldwide want to invest in infrastructure in Canada because they know that they will get their money back with a return.

In February the Liberal leader, who has no economic policy to speak of, implied on a party convention video that the Government of Canada does not have enough debt and should take on more. That should get the attention of every Canadian, especially our young people, who will pay back any new debts created by a Liberal government, if elected, for the rest of their lives, and who will have a diminished quality of life because their paycheques are smaller because of high taxes.

The Liberal leader, who, as everyone knows, has always had the benefit of an inherited trust fund, is trying to convince the middle class that he is their new best friend. All he talks about these days is the middle class. It is as though he is trying to join it. He wants to help us. All of a sudden, ordinary working people are his priority.

On the other hand, we have a track record. Our government helped ordinary middle-class people and low-income people by reducing the GST by 2%, by enhancing the working tax credit, and by providing the universal child care benefit of $1,200 a year for each child under six years of age.

We have also taken one million low-income people off the federal tax rolls and provided a whole raft of tax credits to help low-income people who work to keep more of their own money. Conservatives care about low-income people and the middle class and are acting to make their lives easier. Most Conservatives are in fact low-income and middle-class people.

In a video prepared for the Liberal convention, the Liberal leader said, “while the middle class is tapped out, the federal government has room to invest”. He also said that the government of Canada needs to step up. He supported a party resolution at the Liberal Convention that the Liberals should spend 1% of GDP a year, which would be $18 billion that must be borrowed on infrastructure. Therefore, in four years, that would be $72 billion plus interest that our children and grandchildren would have to pay back, for their entire lives.

The Liberal leader is preparing to convince Canadians, as his father did, a former prime minister, that debts do not matter. Someone else will pay, not them. We have lived through this before, in the 1970s, under that former prime minister. Since Pierre Trudeau resigned, subsequent governments have achieved operational surpluses of $634 billion. Yet, during that time, Canadians have paid over $1 trillion in interest, all due to the debt that Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals left us with.

I have a rhetorical question. Who said this:

We were caught in a trap of our own making – a vicious circle in which our chronic deficits contributed to economic lethargy, which in turn contributed to even higher deficits, and then to greater malaise.

That was the former Liberal finance minister and prime minister, Paul Martin, the last Liberal finance minister to balance Canada's federal budget, years ago. He was right, and the Liberal leader today wants to do it all over again: promote the illusion that borrowed money does not have to be paid back, at least not by them.

In 2015, we will begin paying down debt again. We will reduce the interest we pay out and get more for our money. Canada will increasingly decide its own fate and never be beholding to banks and foreign leaders to direct our nation. We will never be ordered to cut back pensions, health care, or education funding by banks because we are near bankruptcy, like most of southern Europe has been. This is our solemn commitment to the people of Canada.

This budget is the step just before the top, the last step. We will get out of the borrowing paradigm. We will not turn around and head back down. Canada will control its own destiny, and this bill would take us one step closer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-31.

In my previous remarks on the federal budget, I focused on the $117 million that was allocated to AECL to maintain operations at its Chalk River laboratories and prepare for the transition to a government-owned contractor-operated governance model.

Today, I intend to focus on the many other benefits of economic action plan 2014, as well as contrasting the difference between sound, Conservative, economic policy and the rash, disastrous policies being proposed by the opposition parties and their friends in the left-wing media.

The purpose of this legislation is to implement provisions of the federal budget of February 11, 2014, which in addition to the measures announced in our federal budget, amends existing legislation in order to carry out our road to balance, creating jobs and opportunities in Canada.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the member for Whitby—Oshawa for his many years of service to Canadians as the federal minister of finance. Canada is recognized globally for our sound fiscal management. All Canadians owe a debt of gratitude for his fine work.

At the same time, I congratulate our new Minister of Finance, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Having worked with our finance minister in his previous role as minister of natural resources, I know Canadians can continue to have confidence in the sound economic policies of our Conservative government.

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.

The wacky ideas of the loony left would quickly bankrupt our nation. Look how quickly the Liberal Party of Ontario turned the province that used to be the economic engine of Canada into a have-not province, reduced to begging Ottawa to pay for its bad decisions, like ORNGE, eHealth, and the billion-dollar gas plant scandal. By its own admission, it will be the year 2035 before there might be any improvements if things do not change in Toronto, like a change in leadership.

Yes, it does matter who is in control of the nation's finances. This act proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014, which commits to a return to balanced budgets in 2015.

Let me remind the House that we are balancing the budget without raising taxes. Raising taxes is what is demanded by the Liberals and the NDP. Their so-called pollution tax is just another name for a carbon tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. A tax is just a way for socialists to spend our money in a way we would never do voluntarily.

We have moved to a position where the federal budget will be balanced by reducing spending, which is what Canadians have told us needs to be done. Only a socialist thinks taxpayers should pay more. The average Canadian family pays $3,400 less in taxes, thanks to this Conservative government.

The key elements in economic action plan 2014 include measures to help connect Canadians with available jobs and foster job creation, support families and communities, and invest in infrastructure, trade, and responsible resource development.

Let me be clear. Our economic action plan that was presented to Canadians on February 11 contains the provisions in this legislation that we have before us.

Budgets in modern, industrialized western nations are complicated documents. That the other parties do not understand the complexities of a modern economy only demonstrates that they are unfit to govern.

Canadians expect more than opposition for the sake of opposition. Unlike the opposition in Ottawa that opposes just to oppose before they even read the legislation, I encourage all Canadians to read what we have proposed. I am confident Canadians will understand and like what they see.

Canadians understand what it means to have a steady hand on the tiller of the ship of state. It means having a job and being able to afford to buy the products from the countries we sell to. That is called trade, and it is something our Prime Minister takes very seriously, because we know trade brings prosperity.

Highlights of the economic action plan act no. 1 include connecting Canadians with available jobs and fostering job creation by investing $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, providing $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, and providing apprentices registered in Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training.

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

Canadians recognize that people, not bureaucracy, create employment. When it comes to financing a G7 economy, it is not a matter of budgets balancing themselves, which is what Canadians hear from the trust fund child who relies on his name and not his ability to pursue power for the sake of power. His reliance on the former advisers of the disgraced Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, is dangerous to the financial health of all Canadians. Their policy of forcing communities to accept industrial wind turbines that enrich the pockets of wealthy Liberal Party insiders like Mike Crawley has created a new term in Ontario: energy poverty.

Mr. Crawley went from being the president of the Ontario Liberal Party to being the president of the federal Liberal Party. He now sits, along with Gerald Butts, who co-authored the so-called Green Energy Act of Ontario that is causing electricity prices to skyrocket, as one of the Liberal Party's most senior advisers.

Mr. Butts is another example of replacing economic common sense with some wacky left-wing ideology. He was the principal adviser to the provincial leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario in Toronto. These Liberals use Hollywood accounting. Ontario electricity consumers paid over $1 billion to American border states last year for them to take unusable electricity from industrial wind turbines. The money to pay for that foolishness is taken out of the pockets of seniors and others on fixed incomes, who are now faced with monthly electricity bills that are greater than their incomes.

Worst of all, Mr. Crawley received a $475 million 20-year contract from the Liberal Party of Ontario, paid with taxpayer dollars, to build those wind turbines. They are wind turbines that nobody wants and that generate power we cannot even use the majority of the time because of when the wind blows.

That is Liberal economic policy.

We can be thankful there is a Conservative government in Ottawa and a firm, responsible hand on the finances of Canada. We use common sense in supporting families and communities by encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market through capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates, thus preventing 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; introducing a search and rescue volunteers tax credit for search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service per year; increasing the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families; exempting acupuncturists' and naturopathic doctors' professional services from the goods and services or harmonized sales tax; expanding 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 as amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan; and enhancing access to employment insurance sickness benefits for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children compassionate care benefits.

We are investing in infrastructure, trade, and responsible resource development by reducing barriers to the international and domestic flow of goods and services.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The NDP and I would like to know one thing. Bill C-31 does not renew the job creation tax credit for small business. The credit no longer exists. What answers does my colleague have for owners of small businesses in his riding or in his colleagues' ridings?

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

Mr. Speaker, apropos of the environmental theme of my friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound's speech, I want to thank him again for his private member's bill that banned bulk water exports, one of the best pieces of legislation since I have been elected. However, I have to disagree with him about Bill C-31.

This omnibus budget bill is not just large and complex because the economic problems are complex, as he suggests, but actually because it has become all too common. I think it is an affront to Parliament and an affront to democracy.

This administration has chosen to throw in things that have nothing to do with the budget, things such as adding additional judges to Alberta and Quebec. That is something I support, but it does not belong in a budget bill. There are changes to trademark law; changes to the Hazardous Products Act and to the workplace hazardous chemicals regime; and substantial and devastating and anti-constitutional provisions under the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act, known as FATCA.

I would ask him if he would not be willing, within his own caucus on that side, to argue against the use of such monster bills in the future?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-31, the budget implementation act.

This bill will enact various measures that were outlined in the budget that was presented to the House last month. I am very happy that the government is moving forward expeditiously to put these measures in place to benefit all Canadians.

Today I will outline why I feel as though this bill will benefit residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, and indeed Canadians from coast to coast.

Before I begin, I want to take some time to congratulate the former minister of finance, a good friend of mine, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, on a job very well done. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 2006, after spending several years with the Ontario provincial government.

He has tirelessly represented the people of Whitby—Oshawa in his work here in Ottawa. The accolades that he has received internationally, and his recognition as the greatest finance minister in the world, truly demonstrate that he was certainly one of the greatest finance ministers that our country has ever had.

I wish him all the best in his retirement, and, again, commend him on a job well done.

Further to this, I would congratulate the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on his recent appointment as Minister of Finance and wish him all the best as he carries out his duties in this position. I am certain that he will carry out sound economic policies for Canadians in the years to come.

Before getting into the specific measures contained within Bill C-31, I would like to respond to some of the opposition criticism that the bill has received. Bill C-31 has been widely criticized by some of my colleagues across the way as being an omnibus bill. It is often presented that the bill has a wide range of initiatives and will implement new measures in many different areas and many different sectors.

What I think is being misunderstood here is that the problems that are facing our economy are not simple and contained to a specific sector or field. There are a wide range of issues that we are presented with, and we therefore need a comprehensive plan to tackle these issues. That is why Bill C-31 will implement a wide sweeping plan that will ensure increased growth and continue our leading economic prosperity from the recession.

One of these measures that I am very pleased to see implemented is the new building Canada plan. I was pleased to see that recently the government announced that this fund was open for business and municipalities could begin their applications to secure funds for the upcoming construction season. A $53-billion plan for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure will provide stable funding for a 10-year period, the longest in Canadian history.

I, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, have spent some time in municipal politics, and I believe we all understand the importance of stable infrastructure funding. This will ensure that municipalities have the funding they need to carry out projects that will help them to better provide important services to Canadians.

In my riding, the new building Canada plan has received substantial interest. Many municipalities are looking forward to taking advantage of this record level of funding for local projects.

In discussing the upcoming construction season, I think it is important to discuss the importance of government funding in relation to creating summer employment. I am sure that when communities are able to secure funding through the new building Canada plan, many jobs will be created in many different fields.

Our government has always supported job creation and training. This budget continues this record.

Through the Canada job grant, Canadians will get the skills they need to get in-demand jobs. An investment of $40 million, for up to 3,000 internships in high-demand fields, and $15 million, for up to 1,000 internships in small and medium sized businesses, will support further job creation.

Furthermore, pilot projects to expand the use of innovative approaches to training apprentices and the creation of the Canada apprenticeship loan will support training and employment through apprenticeships. The Canada apprenticeship loan will help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades to complete their training by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year.

Therefore, I think it is very safe to say that this budget supports job creation and training and implements measures to address skills shortages and unemployment.

Continuing on with our commitment to improving Canadian infrastructure, this budget contains measures that would specifically address the needs of rural areas. I was very pleased to see that $305 million would be invested to extend and enhance broadband service for up to an additional 280,000 Canadians. In today's high-tech world, with reliance on services provided through the Internet, broadband service is very much needed in rural areas.

This is certainly a welcome announcement in my riding. On a personal basis, the area where I live is one without high speed Internet because of the topography. Hopefully, this initiative would allow companies to address spots like this and others, not just in my riding but across the country.

This budget would also support a strong and stable health care system. This year is significant in that the health accord would shift to the Canada health transfer, which would increase funding from $30.3 billion to $40 billion over the next 10 years.

Further to this, the budget would expand health-related tax relief by removing the GST and HST on more health care products and services to better reflect the health care needs of Canadians. Canadians are proud of their health care system, and this budget would continue to improve this already proven successful system.

My riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is surrounded by the Great Lakes on three sides. The recreational fishing industry is a vital source of economic activity and tourism for several communities. This budget would make a significant amount of funding available that would support growth in these communities through the recreational fishing industry.

It should be noted that the recreational fishing industry provides about $8 billion in economic activity in this country and has become extremely important to many people in my riding.

The first way in which this budget would improve the recreational fishing industry is through support for small craft harbours. The budget would invest an additional $40 million to ensure that harbour facilities meet the needs of local fishermen.

Furthermore, I was very pleased to see that the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program was extended, through a $15-million investment. That program was originally put in place about a year ago. There was a lot of effort from a number of MPs from this side of the House. In particular, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, in Manitoba, put a lot of work into that. It is something that is very important to his riding, my riding, and many other ridings in the country.

Several groups in my riding have already received funding through this program, and the projects they intend to carry out will go a long way in establishing a secure recreational fishery. I am looking forward to seeing other sportsmen's associations and groups receiving funding through this program to support local fisheries. These people are true stewards of the environment, and they are committed to a healthy ecosystem. This funding would go a long way to creating a healthy environment and a strong recreational fishery.

In relation to getting out and enjoying nature, I was also very pleased to see that a $10-million investment would be made to improve and expand snowmobile and recreational trails. These trail systems provide a great deal of economic activity and are a great way for Canadians to see the countryside. The Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, the National Trails Coalition, and other groups do a tremendous amount of work to maintain a very successful recreational trail system in Canada.

I can tell the House that with this program and the winter and we have had this year, we saw snowmobilers in my area coming in, renting motel rooms, and buying gas and meals. The tourism effect was great, and it went right into April this year.

With that, I am going to leave it, and I look forward to any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have here another season, another Conservative budget, another mammoth bill, another omnibus bill, another undemocratic bill, another Trojan horse bill. It is another season in Parliament where the Conservatives have introduced another brick of a bill.

Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a prosperous economy? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for an economy of solidarity? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a democratic economy? No. Will this brick of a bill build the foundation for a green economy and strengthen environmental protections? No. Will this brick of a bill build an economy of innovation and creativity? No.

The content of Bill C-31 undermines all that Canadians are and all that they can accomplish. This budget undermines everything Canadians are striving for, namely, a fairer, greener and more prosperous society where no one is left behind.

When I meet people from my riding of LaSalle—Émard, I am meeting people who work hard. I travel with them on the bus and on the metro. They often have unstable jobs and are struggling to make ends meet. They pay all sorts of fees, and this government's planned tax cuts are irrelevant to them because everything else costs more.

When I am in my riding, I meet with seniors. They are also concerned because their rent is going up while their pension stays the same because of this government's blind stubbornness. Seniors are concerned because they too are having trouble making ends meet. I meet families who are working extremely hard to make sure that their children have a bright future but who are struggling with debt and instability. They are concerned because they too are struggling to make ends meet.

Canadians are bearing the burden of the Conservatives' successive irresponsible budget measures, and Bill C-31 will only add to that burden. I would like to quote an article from The Economist, which reads:

...Canada’s finance minister...has repeatedly warned of the threat household debt poses to the economy.

Yet [the previous] budget did little to encourage business investment or exports to take the place of consumers in supporting growth. Rather, his focus was on eliminating the federal budget deficit—currently at 1.4% of GDP, low compared with most G7 economies—before the next general election in 2015. His plan, which relies on spending restraint and unusually high revenue growth, is seen by many as wishful thinking.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its Alternative Federal Budget 2014: Striking a Better Balance, warns:

...the growth that households contributed to the Canadian economy in the past year was entirely financed through household debt. Clearly this situation is not sustainable....

The real concern for Canada lies ahead, when mortgage rates do inevitably increase from their present historic lows. At that time, highly leveraged households, along with their consequent support for economy growth, will be seriously constrained.

In my riding, I see businesses closing and good jobs being lost. I see SMEs having difficulty covering their operating expenses or investing in growth and job creation. I see small businesses closing or struggling to survive.

Since the Conservatives came to power, the gap between the rich and the poor has grown faster than in other OECD countries.

We are also seeing the gap between large and small businesses growing. The Conservatives' policies for creating stable, well-paying jobs for all Canadians have quite simply failed.

In its Alternative Federal Budget 2014, the authors state:

The current federal government’s policy of spending public revenues on corporate tax breaks, intended to stimulate re-investment in the Canadian economy, has failed. Rather than creating jobs and spending money on Canadian-made infrastructure, corporations have hoarded their government-subsidized profits to the tune of $572 billion, raised top CEO wages to 171 times that of the average Canadian worker, and shifted their workforce into increasingly precarious jobs.

That is what comes of irresponsible austerity budgets and policies, these bricks that do nothing to build the foundation of a strong, solid, and prosperous Canadian economy.

I would also like to talk about a rather worrisome measure in the budget whose ramifications could have harmful consequences for Canadians. I am talking about the accord on the infamous Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, better known as FATCA, the American tax law on foreign accounts. A number of people have said that this accord might be inconsistent with Canadian privacy laws and that enforcing this law could be costly. Those costs would be borne by the financial institutions and by the Canada Revenue Agency. We can expect those costs to be passed on to consumers and taxpayers.

Our country needs leadership and a clear vision. The NDP has a number of proposals to build a lasting, supportive, prosperous economy for the future.

The NDP is proposing that the government make strategic investments in the Canadian economy, in innovative and productive industries, sectors where Canada has already proven itself. I want to speak specifically about sectors like the aerospace industry, a sector that is ignored in this budget but that is creating well-paying jobs in a value-added export industry.

If the government was willing to do so, it could also invest in the green technology industry, another sector that this government has ignored and neglected. Need I remind the House that protecting the environment is not inconsistent with responsible economic development? An NDP government would make strategic investments in the co-operative sector for a sustainable, democratic and 100% Canadian economy.

What I would like to see in this bill is a new partnership with the provinces and cities, instead of this government's paternalistic and controlling vision, especially when it comes to infrastructure. As a result, we would have vibrant cities and communities that would have the means to build safe and healthy places to live. We would have an environmental policy that would make Canada a leader in green technologies, energy conservation, electrification of transportation and waste reclamation. We would have a digital strategy in which revenue from spectrum auctions would be invested in infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet in all regions of Canada.

What I would like to see in this budget is a government that provides services that Canadians can count on.

These are proposals that would build the foundation of a solid economic structure, a sustainable, mutually supportive and prosperous economy focused on the future.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand and speak to yet another 360-plus page omnibus budget bill. Yet again, as has been the case with the Conservative government, this bill is replete with law and policy reforms unrelated to or only minimally related to finance. This bill is more notable for what it excludes than what it offers to Canadians, but I will speak about that a little bit later.

Once again, it incorporates a myriad of legislative reforms belonging more appropriately, in a true, open, transparent, and democratic system, under separate stand-alone bills for policy initiatives with adequate opportunity for scrutiny and debate, not just by duly elected members of Parliament but also by Canadians who might be impacted these measures, and with referral to the appropriate committee for study.

It is regrettable that the Conservative government continues to table the type of budget implementation bills it does. There are some supportable measures in this bill, but the government just cannot resist putting in poison pills that my constituents absolutely cannot support.

However, I would credit the proposed action on a number of matters, which many have called for. One includes extending to 10 years the carry-forward period for specified donations of ecologically sensitive lands. That is a commendable measure.

Expanding the category of persons who may claim medical expenses to those suffering severely from diabetes is very important. In particular, our aboriginal communities are suffering immeasurably from this disease. It would be nice if the government also put in place measures so that they could afford healthy foods and that would help to address the symptoms and cause of diabetes.

Finally, the government is responding to a call by the Alberta attorney general and me to increase the number of appointments to the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta. I am delighted that it has finally responded to that request, which has been outstanding for many years.

I am pleased that the Conservatives would extend at least a modicum or limited category of veterans' benefits, although they are still begrudging veterans the benefits they deserve from the period of 2006-13. It would have been nice if the government had moved forward and stopped the clawback and instead reimbursed and rewarded our veterans for the time served.

In addition, interest-free loans for apprenticeship training are most likely welcomed. Regrettably, absolutely nothing in this budget would trigger action by employers to offer more apprenticeships. It is nice that there would be money to borrow to participate in an apprenticeship, but we still have this longstanding failure by the corporations in this country, especially the major corporations, to make apprenticeships available.

Sadly, again, while the government persists in providing some measures that we have either long called for or would be happy to support on behalf of our constituents, there are many more matters of legislative concern in this bill.

For example, let us look at FATCA. This implements the Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA. Grave concerns have been expressed by many of my constituents about these measures. This is a bill that absolutely should have come independently to this place for open debate and to allow citizens with dual Canadian and U.S. citizenship to come forward and testify to the issues, and for legal experts to testify to the matter and provide advice and counsel to the government on how it might be implemented in a fairer and more advantageous way for Canadian citizens.

Regrettably, the government has thrown it in the middle of a budget bill and there will not be that opportunity.

Secondly, let us look at administrative tribunals. We know that the government has serious problems with parliamentary officers, whom it is trying to stifle. This measure is also of grave concern. Instead of providing administrative services to the many federal tribunals, the government is proposing to consolidate them all in one office. The senior administrator would be appointed by the government.

This raises serious concerns, because these are quasi-judicial bodies that are supposed to be completely independent of government. One merely needs to consider the actions taken by the government against our quasi-judicial tribunals.

Time after time, the government has refused to reveal information to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This raises the question: is this some kind of mechanism whereby the Conservatives will be able to control and try to constrain the wide array of quasi-judicial tribunals in this country? It is obviously a matter that legal experts would like to come in to discuss separately, but that is not going to happen because it is contained within a budget bill.

Third is railway safety. This one is absolutely stunning. Day after day, issues are raised in this place about the abject failure of the government to adequately govern railway safety. This is a serious issue for my constituency. We have rail tanker cars coming into the very busiest part of my riding. In fact, they are going to continue to come through, literally feet from condominiums.

What is the government doing? It just defies reason. It is passing, in a budget bill, a measure that is going to rescind a mandatory duty to notify the public of measures on rail safety, and it is rescinding the opportunity for the public to comment on rail safety measures. It defies logic.

In the case where these measures are actually environmentally related, where the measures might be put in place to protect the environment, by rescinding this, the government is actually violating the North American Agreement on Environmental Co-operation. In signing onto that agreement, Canada had undertaken to provide advance notice and opportunity to comment on any proposed law by government that might impact the environment.

No such notice was given of this law change coming forward. It is removing the opportunity for Canadian communities to have a say in rail safety. It defies logic that this would be in a budget bill.

Fourth is temporary foreign workers. The government is lauding the fact it is going to implement monetary penalties by regulation, where there is no opportunity for discussion. This is the government that, until it was pressured, did not even inform Canadians of corporations that are breaking the law on bringing in temporary foreign workers. Only because of pressure did it finally, this weekend, post some of those names. We are talking about major corporations that may be breaking the law regulating temporary foreign workers, and the government is going to issue a monetary penalty. It is not even asserting the powers it has right now, including the power to yank the permits for bringing in temporary foreign workers.

We look forward to the explanation by the government of why this would be in a budget bill. Obviously monetary penalities might be arguable. Normally these are brought forward in an amendment to the relevant statute.

Finally, I would like to speak to what is not in Bill C-31. There are no measures to support the renewal of the small business job creation tax credit, which would definitely help small startups offering energy efficient retrofits, or clean energy firms. There were a number of such entities, all excited to get going in my city and my riding. Youth were interested in going around and meeting seniors in their homes, giving them an affordable audit and then referring them to people who could energy retrofit their homes.

It is not there. The government is not interested in helping people reduce their energy use and save money.

There is absolutely no renewal of the ecoENERGY home retrofit program, which was one of the all-time popular programs, over-subscribed because it was so popular. The government decided to get rid of it.

There is a total absence of any measures, fiscal or other, to address Canada's growing greenhouse gas emissions, despite the fact that 81% of Canadians believe there is solid evidence of climate change and 84% want Canada to show leadership. Of course, I guess the problem is that the government is supported by the 30% who do not believe in climate change.

I look forward, in response to questions, to sharing more information, including the fact there are zero measures to get major corporations to invest money in alternative energy in Canada.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride today to rise here in my place and lend my voice to support Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the federal budget that was brought down on February 11, 2014, here in this House.

I represent the great riding of York Centre. York Centre is a unique riding. We have 15 different ethnocultural groups that represent at least 5% of the population. People come from all over the world to the riding of York Centre, and they come for a variety of reasons. They are escaping persecution. They are escaping racism. Most importantly, they are coming to this great country of Canada to seek opportunity for themselves, but more importantly, for their children.

Recently I read about a poll taken around the world asking people where they would like to live. What was their number one country, given their choice? The number one answer given was “Canada”. We have read in the history books that 2,000 years ago, in the Roman Empire, the greatest thing one could say was “civis Romanus sum”, “I am a citizen of Rome”. Today, thanks to our Prime Minister and to the actions of our government, the proudest thing Canadians can say, no matter where they are, whether in Canada or around the world, is “I am a citizen of Canada”. That is why we have people wanting to come to Canada from every corner of the earth.

Let me just step back a bit. Canadians have no monopoly on brains and ingenuity and creativity. That exists around the world. This is, however, one of the very few countries around the world that offers opportunity, so people come here seeking that opportunity to get a better life for themselves and their children. That is what Canada is about. That is the most Canadian thing.

We are so fortunate under this government. We have had a plan since 2006, unlike the previous Liberal government, which for 13 years balanced the federal budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society: seniors and children. It was actually quite an outrage.

What we have done is increase transfer payments to the provinces. We increased the GIS, at a record level of 25%, just before the last election. We now have the best-performing economy of any G7 country. It is a jobs-driven economy. We have created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in July 2009. We are leading the G7.

In the month of January, we had a budgetary surplus of $2.9 billion and are on course to get a $6.5 billion budgetary surplus by the time our next budget comes down in 2015. We have done this by lowering taxes to record levels. We have lowered the corporate income tax to 15%, which has made Canada a huge investment opportunity and a destination for businesses to create jobs. We have negotiated nine free trade agreements, more than any Canadian government in history. We just closed negotiations on the Canada–Korea free trade agreement. Preceding that was the Canada–European Union free trade agreement. Trade means jobs, and this government knows that.

People in my riding tell me, when I go to door to door, which I do every weekend, that they have never had it better than under this government under the leadership of our current Prime Minister.

Our economy has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 economy, at 36%. The G7 average is 90%. Our second closest competitor is Germany, at just over 50%. We have the highest, strongest income growth of any G7 country, and we have recovered all of the business investment lost during the economic recession. The IMF, the OECD, and the World Economic Forum have said that Canada is the best place to do business. We have the strongest financial system in the world, exceeding Basel III.

We have the strongest fundamentals in place over the next 50 years to grow our economy substantially. That is what business looks for. We have frozen EI premiums. Businesses want stability to create jobs. They need to know that, and this government has done that.

All the credit rating agencies, from Standard & Poor's to Moody's, have reiterated our AAA credit rating. No other G7 country has benefited from such a credit rating as Canada has.

We have brought in a series of budgets since 2006 that are not Conservative budgets or ideologically driven budgets. These are Canadian budgets. These are budgets that are good for the people of Canada. We have job creation. We have an economy that will stimulate jobs and encourage investment, unlike the New Democrats, whose ideology gives them the answers before they even look at the evidence. That is why they do not bother to read bills that come before the House, because their ideology will give them the answer before they even need to read them.

We have lowered taxes on average Canadians. We have lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting a thousand extra dollars in the pockets of Canadians. We believe that Canadians know what to do with their money better than what governments can do with it. We have enhanced the working income tax benefit. Eight million Canadians have opened up tax-free savings accounts. We have reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11% and the general business tax from 21% to 15%, as I indicated earlier. We are increasing the age credit and the pension income credit. We have taken more than one million Canadians off the tax rolls. No other government in Canadian history has ever been able to achieve that.

Our current unemployment rate, with a record number of people who want jobs in Canada because our economy is doing so well, is below 7%. In the heyday of the Liberals, in the mid 1990s, in an economy that was doing extremely well around the world, the unemployment rate never fell below 7%. We, in a fragile economy, must be doing something right, and it is not me who is saying that. It is all the economic institutions around the world who are saying that Canada is the model of economic performance.

When I was in business before I got into politics, I did a lot of travelling. People would come up to me when I would travel. They were very curious about Canada's success story and why it was doing so well relative to all other economies around the world. Now that I have been in government, I can see why. We are the only party that consults. We have had a plan since 2006 based on consultations with the Canadian people. The people told us that their priorities were jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and that has been our focus since 2006.

The only part of government spending we have reduced is spending on the operations of government. We have not reduced transfer payments to either people or governments. We have reduced spending on government operations, and that is saving the taxpayers of Canada money.

The first thing we did when we got into government in 2006, which put us in a good position to weather the economic storm that was coming, was begin to pay down the national debt by $37 billion. That gave us the latitude in later years, when the economic recession hit, to have the manoeuvrability to run a short-term deficit. Because of our government's policies on job creation and lower taxes, we are now going to have a $6.5 billion budgetary surplus, the only G7 country to have a surplus, in 2015.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. Yet again, it is another massive omnibus budget bill of over 350 pages and 500 separate clauses.

I will not be supporting this bill, because it fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class. Moreover, it does little to help Canadian youth find jobs at a time when there is persistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. Today, there are still 264,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the economic downturn.

The bill does little to help middle class parents and grandparents make ends meet and tackle record high levels of personal debt. Today, the average household owes a record $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income.

A few weeks ago, we had two weeks in our constituency offices, and 80% of my meetings were with people who are unemployed and looking for work. These were skilled people, engineers, lawyers, and Ph.D.s. There was one young man who had just graduated in nursing. Unfortunately, he could not afford the $500 for the exam. As a result, he could not work in the field for which he had studied so hard.

I cannot be clearer: people in my community have education, are skilled, and are desperate to work, but they cannot find jobs. Instead of the government putting new programs in place, support services are being cut in my Etobicoke North community. I have gone to the minister several times on this issue, for both settlement programs and job programs.

During those past two constituency weeks, we needed to get weekly food programs for five families. They did not ask for the help, but I realized the need when I reviewed their resumés and saw the last time they had worked and the number of family members they needed to feed.

Four individuals asked for counselling to deal with their depression as a result of not having a job, and one talked of suicide.

I will bring up one more case. A refugee woman, 18 weeks pregnant, bled through the night. She was afraid to go to the hospital because she could not afford the health care. Now she is afraid of getting an ultrasound because she cannot afford to pay for it.

The Conservatives' changes to Canadian society do not happen in a vacuum. They impact real Canadians who are hurting. The government needs to learn to see the hurt and to respond.

Our community is seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a uniform recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country. The reality is that there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

University graduates have come in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. Grandparents have come on behalf of their grandchildren—the first in the family to graduate from university and college—asking why they had fled their country of origin to come to Canada, the land of promise, so their children could have an education, but now that they have an education, they still do not have a job.

The people in my constituency need jobs. I have worked hard to get them jobs. In fact, I obtained funding for a completing the circle program, a $500,000 job program in our community. I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into jobs programs. We follow up with them to make sure their job searches are going in the right direction.

While they search, we help them with food, clothing, and whatever other supports they might need. We should all remember that we have seen a 31% increase in food bank usage since 2008.

At critical times, I have personally bought bedding, food, furniture, and medicine to help hurting Etobicoke North families. We had one lady come looking for help. She was in agony due to an ear infection that had raged for three weeks. She had pus and blood running down her face. The sad reality is that she could not afford antibiotics because she could not find a job.

I have MS patients who cannot take their drugs because they cannot work. How many more stories are there like theirs?

What I was looking for in the budget implementation bill, first and foremost, was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have over 350 pages with 500 separate clauses. Once again, my constituents are saddened by the fact that this is an omnibus bill with multiple sections that deserve full and proper hearings in committee and full parliamentary scrutiny.

Bill C-31 includes numerous measures that do not belong in a budget implementation bill; for example, rules about food safety, hazardous products, rail safety, and even the number of federal judges. The bill continues the Conservatives' battle against openness and transparency by weakening requirements to consult and inform Canadians about safety regulations and user fees. These changes have nothing to do with the implementation bill and are meant only to limit debate on important issues to Canadians. The Conservatives chose this anti-democratic route in order to adopt the bill's measures quickly and to avoid having them reviewed by Parliament.

The Conservatives have repeatedly abused Parliament by ramming through outrageous omnibus bills. For example, a few years ago the government introduced an 880-page omnibus bill, a grab bag of bills the government wanted to pass quickly. In fact, it was half the entire workload of Parliament from the previous year. As a result, the government was severely condemned for turning the legislative process into a farce.

More recently, the government introduced Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill. Through the bill, the government sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, to environmental protection, to immigration, to old age security. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that’s in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

The government's actions reek of hypocrisy. In the 1990s, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

One newspaper previously stated that omnibus bills are:

...political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can’t absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.

In this omnibus budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, parliamentarians are being asked to consider measures including compassionate leave, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, medical expense tax credits, and sickness benefits. We would actually be supportive of these measures as individual measures, but unfortunately these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable, harmful, and regressive measures that we cannot support.

Like the omnibus bills before it, Bill C-31 includes corrections to mistakes in previous budget bills.

For the people of Etobicoke North and for young people across Canada, Bill C-31 offers very little. My constituents and Canadians need better and deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservative member, the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, clearly proved that this portion of Bill C-31 should be studied separately.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands eloquently established and demonstrated that this part of the budget should be studied independently of Bill C-31. She also demonstrated that parliamentarians, regardless of party, are being denied an opportunity to study this part of the bill in detail, even though it will significantly affect Canadians, financial institutions and the Canada Revenue Agency. A Radio-Canada report stated that implementing this would cost CRA $100 million.

Who does my colleague think will have to foot this pricey bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say I am pleased to rise today to speak to yet another omnibus budget bill, C-31.

This is yet another omnibus bill that contains numerous measures from other bills. However, given House procedure, we will not be able to study it adequately.

This is following up on the February 11, 2014 budget. We really need to get used to using the new term for it. It is the “annual thick brochure”. It does not actually contain a budget any more, and I think Canadians ought to know that.

It is labelled “the economic action plan 2014, No. 1”, which means that we can expect another budget omnibus bill. It does not deal with the fact that Canada's debt under this administration has increased by $123 billion. It does not deal with the fact that part of the reason that debt has increased and that cuts are being made to the services that we care about is that we now have the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, approximately half that of the United States.

I want to turn to a myth that is so often repeated in this place, that all of the other parties always did omnibus budget bills. That is not just a myth; it is not true. The previous all-time high omnibus budget bill was in 2005 under the administration of former Prime Minister Paul Martin. In 2005, it topped 120 pages.

The howls from the opposition, now in government, were so loud that that bill had sections stripped out, and another provision that was to amend the Environmental Protection Act to allow regulation of greenhouse gases was removed altogether. That was due to the protest about 120 pages being too much in an omnibus budget bill.

The current administration is the all-time record holder, and not just that, as the Bruce Cockburn song said, “...the trouble with normal is it always gets worse”.

Now we are supposed to expect that we are going to get two omnibus budget bills every year: the first one, 400 pages; the second one, 400 pages. So the cumulative total, the bulk of all the legislation that goes through this place, is in the form of omnibus budget bills, which are so anti-democratic and an abuse of parliamentary process that it must be raised at every turn.

This particular omnibus budget bill, at 362 pages, Bill C-31, has a lot of good things in it. There is no question that removing the GST from parking fees at hospitals and improving the tax treatment of adoptive families are good things. There are quite a few things in here that I would vote for, such as division 5, increasing the number of judges for Alberta and Quebec. These are all good things.

However, what of the things that deserve more study than they are going to get? That list is a very long one indeed. I turn our attention to 40 pages of this brick, pages 91 to 131, changes to the Hazardous Products Act and consequential amendments to other acts. These may all be, as described on the Health Canada website, good ideas, but they deserve study on their own. There are a lot of details we do not know.

This will bring into place the globally harmonized system to deal with workplace hazardous materials. It is very important that we study this properly. Certain sectors of our economy are currently exempt from the WHMIS provisions, including pesticides, consumer products, food, and drugs. A global system will bring these in, but we do not quite know how Canada will treat this and will not find out from the quick study we are allowed of an omnibus budget bill. There is 40 pages of this.

Another 30-plus pages is an entirely new act, the administrative tribunals support service of Canada act. It occurs in division 29 of Bill C-31, and it brings in a single administrator, appointed politically, to take control of a huge number of administrative tribunals: the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canada Industrial Relations Board, Competition Tribunal, Canadian International Trade Tribunal, Social Security Tribunal, and Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. In the time I have, I cannot read out the names of all the tribunals that are suddenly whipped together under one act with one chief administrator. Far too few details are being provided about the purpose of this change. There is no purposes section under this new act; it is left to our imagination. I have to say, given the track record of this administration, given its attitude toward tribunals and officers of Parliament, the things that come to mind are not happy conclusions. This act's division 29 deserves separate treatment and adequate study.

On the changes to trademark, here we had an opportunity to do something to improve Canada's global competitive position by improving intellectual property rights to protect Canadian corporations abroad. The proposed changes to trademark are largely non-controversial, but why are they stuck in an omnibus budget bill? They have nothing to do with the budget.

Pages 207 to 259, over 50 pages of this monster bill, are all about trademark and coming into compliance with agreements from the Singapore and Madrid protocols. Why not have this as a proper study? Why not take the time to assess whether it is a good idea to reduce trademark protection from 15 years to 10 years?

I have been trying to reserve most of my time in this brief opportunity for the most egregious section of Bill C-31, which is forcing through, with a limitation on debate that applies to all of Bill C-31, some potentially devastating changes to Canadians' rights found under something called the FATCA. This Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is thrown into Bill C-31, and I want to refer to the opinions of legal experts.

Some time ago, concerned about the FATCA, I did an access to information request and turned up a letter to Finance Canada from Canada's leading constitutional law expert, Professor Peter Hogg. He wrote to Finance Canada when the department it was in the early stages of working on this, and said that treating Canadians who might have some connection to the United States—not just those who might be born there, such as me, but who is no longer a U.S. citizen, or people who had parents born in the U.S., or once worked or studied there—differently than Canadians with no connection to the U.S. violates section 3 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which we are entitled to equal treatment under the law as Canadian citizens.

However, it gets worse than that. Here I want to quote extensively from advice to Finance Canada from two very knowledgeable tax policy law experts: Professor Allison Christians, the H. Heward Stikeman Chair in the Law of Taxation at McGill University; and Professor Arthur Cockfield from Queens University.

Both professors conclude that right now it appears that the only reason the current Conservative administration feels it has accomplished anything with FATCA is that it has staved off punitive measures against our commercial banks by the United States. That is the Conservatives' sole rationale for a non-reciprocal agreement that will violate the privacy, and potentially the charter rights, of as many as one million Canadians. They have done it to avoid the U.S. bringing sanctions against them.

These knowledgeable experts say that this implementation act would unduly harm the privacy rights and interests of all Canadians, unduly raise compliance costs for all Canadian financial institutions and Canadian taxpayers, and unduly raise legal exposure for Canadian financial institutions due to the ongoing potential liability for mistakenly transferred personal financial information.

Bear in mind that this FATCA that we are being pressed to pass so quickly would require our banking institutions to decide for themselves whether someone appears to have some connection to the United States, and then they will turn over the personal banking information of that person without their knowledge to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. It would also provide potentially sensitive commercial information held by Canadian firms to the United States, which if improperly revealed could harm a firm's competitiveness. It would interfere with the cross-border mobility of Canadian workers to the United States. It would impede Canada's efforts to enforce its own tax laws. It would violate the spirit and potentially the letter of a number of Canadian laws.

The advice from these knowledgeable tax experts is clear and compelling. Since we have as a nation have now signed this IGA with the U.S., we have protected the commercial banking sector from these penalties, and so we have time to get it right. Here is their advice.

We recommend that the government explicitly address what gains have been achieved by Canada in accepting the IGA, if any exist other than the relief of economic sanctions. If relief of economic sanctions is the only impetus for Canada's acquiescence to U.S. demands, we recommend that the Canadian Government challenge the legality of such economic sanctions....

In other words, the U.S. has no right to impose sanctions on Canadian banks. It says it does. We should challenge it in international court. These experts say that we should stop the introduction of FATCA, ensure that it does not violate our charter rights, protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and not rush into this. I urge the House to pull FATCA out of Bill C-31.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

Our government has worked tirelessly to deliver effective change for Canadians and to put Canada back on the road to balanced budgets.

After consultations across the country, we have produced a plan that not only works for Canadians but that will also make sure that Canada is financially sustainable. Our hon. colleague, the former finance minister, tabled a budget just weeks ago. Since then, my office has seen an outpouring of support from constituents who value trade, security, and prudent economic management.

The world has been hit by repeated crises over the past few years. It is becoming harder for governments to maintain the trust of markets. We are no longer allowed to believe that we can escape the costs of financial recklessness and ineptitude. The budget implementation act before us holds many measures that will markedly improve the lives of Canadians.

Our government is working to ensure that Canadians can fill the skills gap to both provide vital services and ensure viable livelihoods. By increasing paid internships for young Canadians, the government will commit $55 million to help recent graduates find work in their fields. By getting graduates to work, Canada can make the most of its skilled labour force and provide opportunities for young Canadians to flourish.

At the same time, the government will ensure that older workers have opportunities to find new employment. As Canadians are living longer, we must face the unexpected challenges posed by longevity beyond one's financial plan. By investing $75 million in training for older workers, our government will make sure that all Canadians can find good, skilled jobs.

Help is not limited to the young and the old. Through the job-matching service, this Conservative government will grease the wheels of commerce and ensure that employers and employees can find their perfect matches.

With Canada's ever-increasing integration, not only into the world economy but between provinces, it is vital for the federal government to play a role in smoothing labour markets across the country. Never before have we seen the kind of mobility we see today, nor have we realized the promise that such mobility creates for families and communities. It is not enough to be looking for a job. We need to support those who are currently training for jobs that will fill much needed positions through the Canada job grant and the Canada apprentice loan. The federal government is investing in high-skill jobs that are currently going unfilled in many parts of the country. By ensuring that Canada has the skilled tradespeople it needs, our government is making sure that the economy can function smoothly. This budget is about embracing the future with skilled jobs, a thriving economy, and a balanced budget.

Through this budget, rural communities will stand to benefit from improved broadband access in rural and remote areas of the country. It is important that Canadians in rural areas, like parts of the British Columbia interior and northern B.C., have an acceptable degree of access to the Internet. Failing to update Canada's digital infrastructure could doom those outside of well-covered areas to technological backwardness and put them at a perpetual disadvantage.

Investments in science and technology, such as the government's $222 million grant to the TRIUMF physics laboratory at the University of British Columbia, promises to pay dividends not just in commercial terms but in academic, intellectual, and technological advances.

British Columbians and Canadians stand to profit immensely from the measures presented in this budget.

The budget implementation act goes further by continuing the good work of the red tape reduction action plan. This budget will make life easier for small and medium-sized business owners.

In too many areas of Canadian life and work, excessive red tape holds us back. The Conservatives have demonstrated a commitment to making Canada work in a way that benefits consumers, workers, and citizens by removing arbitrary and wasteful barriers to businesses.

There are also significant changes to the tax code. The tax code is not a subject that gets many people excited, but by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the Canada Revenue Agency every year, this government will be helping over 50,000 small businesses lower costs imposed by bureaucracy.

Our government is always concerned about the security of Canadians. For any number of reasons, the lives and well-being of Canadians can be in danger, and it is a key role of government to offer solutions. By investing a further $25 million, we are aiming to reduce violence against aboriginal women and girls. This sector of our community is often the target of abuse above and beyond that faced by others,. They deserve a government that comes to their protection.

Our government will invest $11 million to upgrade the earthquake monitoring systems that protect the homes of my constituents in the Lower Mainland and in high-risk areas across the country.

Over one million net new jobs have been created since the recession ended in July 2009. During the crisis and afterward, our government has provided a steady hand at the tiller, ensuring that Canada's policies work toward stability, growth, and prosperity.

Our banking system has been ranked the most stable in the world for the sixth year running by the World Economic Forum. The numbers do not lie. The deficit will be a meagre $2.9 billion this year, with a $6.4 billion surplus coming next year. This is a momentous achievement. When the previous government balanced the books, it did so by raising taxes and slashing transfers to the provinces. Our government has none neither. In fact, we have done the compete opposite. Next year, our government will provide British Columbia with $4.17 billion through the Canada health transfer, an all-time high. Not only that, this is $1.3 billion more than under the previous Liberal government. That is a 49% increase.

As well, we have reduced the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings of nearly $3,400 for a typical family of four in 2014. Without raising taxes on Canadians or simply moving costs to other levels of government, the Conservatives have a credible plan for long-term fiscal success. The opposition has made it clear that it will raise taxes and then increase spending beyond even that. Therefore, I commend our Conservative government for such a thoughtful and solid document.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight today some of the key measures contained in Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. I would like to preface my remarks by congratulating our former minister of finance for setting us firmly on the path to a balanced budget in 2015-16 and commending his successor, our current finance minister, for so quickly and capably stepping into his new shoes.

In economic action plan 2014, our Conservative government renews its commitment to Canadians by focusing on three priorities. Number one is returning to a balanced budget. Number two is promoting jobs and economic growth. Number three is supporting families and communities.

Economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 contains a number of important measures that are designed to foster job creation and economic growth; connect Canadian workers with available jobs; improve infrastructure, trade, and resource development in Canada; and support Canadian families and communities.

Obviously, in the time I have, I cannot hope to touch on all these subjects, no matter how briefly. I will, therefore, confine my remarks to highlighting a few of the key initiatives that underscore our government's commitment to Canadian families and communities.

As members know, the government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to help hard-working Canadians save money wherever they can. In fact, because of the actions taken by the Conservative government, Canadians now pay $3,400 a year less in taxes than they did during the final year of the previous Liberal government.

We introduced the volunteer firefighters' tax credit three years ago in recognition of the important contribution volunteer firefighters make to the security and safety of their fellow citizens and community members. In the same spirit, in economic action plan 2014, we announced a new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. These brave men and women support the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other agencies and are often the first on the scene in the event of a local emergency or natural disaster. Well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped, search and rescue volunteers are an integral part of Canada's emergency response system.

Search and rescue volunteers dedicate their time and energy to ensure the safety and survival of their fellow citizens, often putting their own safety and even their lives at risk. The new tax credit is a sign of our recognition and appreciation for the important role they play and our commitment to improving the safety and security of all Canadians.

Individuals who perform at least 200 hours of service during a year would be able to claim a non-refundable tax credit on their personal income tax and benefit returns, starting in the 2014 tax year. The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit would provide up to $450 in tax savings for the eligible year. The hours volunteered for search and rescue could be combined with volunteer firefighter activities, so volunteers with at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue and firefighting services in a year would be able to choose between claiming the volunteer firefighters' tax credit and the new search and rescue volunteers' tax credit.

In total, more than 100,000 dedicated volunteer firefighters and search and rescue members might benefit from these credits. Our Conservative government is proud to recognize their outstanding commitment and the difference they make to their communities.

The search and rescue volunteers' tax credit is just 1 of more than 20 tax measures contained in Bill C-31. Economic action plan 2014 would build on previous tax relief measures the government has introduced to support Canadian families and improve their quality of life.

For example, we have included measures that would make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. We would increase the maximum amount they may claim for the adoption expense credit to $15,000 for the 2014 tax year. The amount would be indexed to inflation in future years. This is a fantastic new relief for prospective parents who are looking to provide a deserving child with a loving home.

Our Conservative government is also making sure that the tax system takes into account the health needs of Canadians and the change in nature of our health care system.

Through Bill C-31, 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 for the medical expense tax credit to include expenses incurred for service animals specifically trained to assist an individual in managing severe diabetes, as well as costs related to design of individual therapy plans for certain disorders and disabilities.

In the same vein, we have expanded the list of GST-HST-free medical and assistive devices to include prescription eyewear that electronically treats or corrects vision. Most importantly, we would remove the need for individuals to apply for the GST-HST credit. Starting with the 2014 tax year, the Canada Revenue Agency would automatically determine the credit each individual is entitled to receive. This would both simplify the process for taxpayers and improve administrative efficiency. In the case of eligible couples, the GST-HST credit would be paid to the individual whose return is assessed first. This is consistent with CRA's commitment to reduce red tape.

Finally, I would like to discuss our government's plan to correct a historic anomaly. The legislation we are debating today includes a proposal that would correct an irrelevant piece of legislation left over from the 1920s, a relic of the prohibition days. As it stands, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act prohibits Canadians from taking beer or spirits across provincial borders, even for personal use. Through Bill C-31, we would take action to remove this federal barrier, just as we did in 2012 in the case of transporting wine from one province to another for personal use. Indeed, while respecting provincial jurisdiction, our government wants to encourage and promote market competitiveness by eliminating provincial trade barriers when possible.

I wish to conclude today by saying I am proud of our government's record of achievement and our sound fiscal policies. We are on a track to balance the budget in 2015-2016, and at the same time that we are delivering on this commitment, we have cut taxes and removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls since 2006. In short, we have made Canada one of the best places in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Our government will stick to the priorities we have outlined in our economic action plan: supporting jobs and growth, supporting families in communities, balancing the budget, and reducing debt. These are the priorities of all Canadians.

I have barely scratched the surface of Bill C-31 today. I strongly encourage all members of the House to read economic action plan 2014 act no. 1 from cover to cover and give it the support it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am with this bill. After all this time, one might think that we are accustomed to this kind of bill, which is so bad for Canadians, but I am not. Bill C-31 is a very important reminder of that reality.

I rise today to denounce the Conservative government's arbitrary tactics. Last Friday, the government introduced Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The problem is that this bill is another omnibus bill. It is over 360 pages long and includes a wide range of complex measures.

I would also like to remind any Canadians who are watching that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion.

Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark and make changes to many laws without any consultation or parliamentary oversight.

Among the laws affected or created by the many provisions, such as the Old Age Security Act and the Administrative Tribunals Act, there is the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act, regarding a bridge linking Montreal with the south shore.

It should be noted that the Champlain Bridge legislation is well hidden in the 360 pages, and for good reason: we can see right off the bat that the bridge will not be subject to the User Fees Act or the Bridges Act. These two laws that provide consumer protection and safety guarantees will not apply to the Champlain Bridge.

What that means is that safety and inspection provisions of the Bridges Act will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. In other words, it will not have to meet the same safety standards as other bridges. That is very alarming.

Who will be responsible for monitoring the safety of this bridge?

Furthermore, the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act will not require the holding of mandatory consultations on user fees established by a regulating authority. This means that the obligations to notify and consult people, justify the fees and create an independent advisory panel to address complaints will not apply to the Champlain Bridge. That is incredible.

In other words, the government is casually deciding to make taxpayers pay for using the new Champlain Bridge, but is taking away from them the means to have a say in the matter. This is confirmed in section 9, which states:

9. Any owner of a vehicle using the bridge must pay any toll, fee or other charge that is applicable to the vehicle under this Act.

We do not yet know what the toll will be for vehicles, and it might be higher than other tolls because the User Fees Act will not apply.

The law that the government wants to impose is unfair and totally arbitrary. We are going to find ourselves in a situation where people are going to pay to use the new bridge, but would pay nothing if they used the Victoria Bridge, for example. Does the government not see that it is going to shift traffic with these measures?

That is really going to impact mobility in the region.

According to the Agence métropolitaine de transport, 200,000 people travel across this bridge each day. The toll will not only stifle Montreal's economic development, but it will also have an impact on household expenses. Since the Conservatives came to power, they have not stopped imposing taxes on households. They do not let up. The toll the government plans to levy proves once again that it is incapable of listening to Canadians and plans to keep making them pay.

The government talks about the need to get people involved in the bridge construction but has not given us any information about funding for the project. The government likes to boast that it is implementing a public-private partnership contract but has not told us how much it will contribute. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to this project.

The legislation governing the new bridge over the St. Lawrence is merely a reflection of the approach the Conservatives have been using since 2011, an arbitrary and abusive approach that is not in keeping with what the provinces want. To move our country forward, the federal government must work hand in hand with the provinces. On this issue in particular, the government should sit down with elected officials and discuss the progress on the new bridge, since Quebec's situation is special in that it has bridges that fall under federal jurisdiction.

In spite of this, the Conservatives are pretending to listen to what people want and are moving forward without consulting those who are directly involved. Given the urgent need for a new bridge, it is worrisome that the Conservative government is not listening to the Government of Quebec, the mayor of Montreal or the south shore mayors. The federal government should work with provincial and municipal partners, rather than arbitrarily imposing decisions on them.

That is why the NDP and members from the south shore—myself included—will not sit on the sidelines. My constituents and others who are affected by this toll are concerned. We live in a democratic country where the government is elected by the people. Right now, people are saying that they do not want this bill and they do not want this toll. The government needs to listen to them. It needs to listen to reason.

In closing, no other government has ever shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and Canadians. This single bill is over 365 pages long and amends more than 40 laws, making it impossible for MPs to do their jobs properly.

It is obvious that our democracy is suffering. The work being done by parliamentarians in the House of Commons is also suffering. Instead of drafting a mammoth bill that is designed to push hundreds of changes through without in-depth study, the government should be taking care of the needs of Canadians.

There is nothing in this bill to help the 300,000 Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession find work or to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost under this Conservative government.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the House on Bill C-31, the budget implementation act for budget 2014.

Life is a people business, and nowhere is that a truer maxim than in politics. A number of years ago, I decided to stand for election for reasons that most of us did, and that was to make the country a little bit better for everyone.

The last five years have been challenging for our country, even though we have weathered the recent economic storms relatively well since 2008.

Much has been made of the fact that budget 2014 puts the federal budget on a clear path to balance next year, and we in the government are very pleased and proud of that fact. However, I would like to highlight some other measures that Bill C-31 implements.

This budget implementation legislation makes improvements to the lives and economic well-being of Canadians from coast to coast. That, after all, is why we are here. We might disagree with each other on how to improve the lives of Canadians, but we all want to make things better, regardless of where we sit.

For my part, I know that budget 2014 and the measures in it would make a difference in the lives of Canadians, and particularly in the lives of my constituents. I would like to highlight some of these measures in Bill C-31 that would help our families and communities.

We all know that we face an aging population situation and that with aging comes health-related challenges. Budget 2014 expands health-related tax relief under the HST/GST and the income tax system to reflect the health care needs of Canadians. We are committed to ensuring that the tax system is representative of the changing nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians.

In economic action plan 2014, the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit would now include costs associated with service animals specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes. These are diabetes alert dogs.

Additionally, budget 2014 would provide further tax recognition of costs associated with specially designed medical therapies and training. These costs would be addressed by expanding the current HST/GST exemption for training that is specially designed to aid those Canadians coping with a disorder or a disability. Budget 2014 would now exempt services for designing these particular training plans. The amounts paid for the design of an individualized therapy plan would also be considered an eligible expense for income tax purposes under the medical expense tax credit.

The services of acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors would also be exempted from the GST/HST.

Furthermore, eyewear specially designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals with vision impairment that was supplied on the order of a physician or other specified health professional would also be added to the list of GST/HST-free medical and assistive devices.

These changes to the medical expense tax credit would apply to expenses incurred after 2013. While these measures are not large or expansive, they are recognition by our government that the expenses of Canadians are changing, and the tax system needs to change with them.

Another measure for budget 2014 I would like to highlight is the increase in the maximum allowed for the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for Canadians.

There are many Canadians out there who would make phenomenal parents, but for whatever reason, they are not able to have children. Equally, there are many children out there who are put up for adoption and need loving families, parents, and safe homes to go to, since for whatever reason, their biological parents are simply not able to take care of them properly.

I believe that no one would argue with me that we want all Canadian children to be in safe, loving homes with parents who care for them and their well-being. For some Canadians, adoption is the only road to parenthood. As such, I believe that we should help Canadians adopt children, and that is what budget 2014 does.

The adoption process however, can be costly for potential parents. Currently the adoption tax expense credit provides a tax credit of up to a maximum of $11,774 in expenses per child for 2014. To increase tax recognition of adoption-related expenses for things such as adoption agency fees and legal fees, budget 2014 would increase the maximum amount of the credit to $15,000. This change would apply to adoptions finalized after 2013. Normal indexation would apply to the new maximum amount for taxation years after 2014. By increasing the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000, we would be providing further tax relief for Canadian parents who want to adopt and would be recognizing the unique costs that arise from adopting a child.

Budget 2014 would also help parents in another critical area. It would enhance access to sickness benefits for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children and compassionate care benefits. Sometimes, when Canadians get sick, they might be unable to care for family members who are seriously ill or injured.

Our government is committed to ensuring fairness in employment insurance programs, to make sure they continue helping Canadians when they need it most. Budget 2014 would build on previous enhancements to the EI sickness benefits for parental benefit claimants, and would commit $2.4 million over two years and $1.2 million ongoing per year to enhance access to sickness benefits. This would be for claimants who receive parents of critically ill children and compassionate care benefits. These enhancements would allow claimants who are temporarily away from work to take care of a critically ill or injured child or gravely ill family member at significant risk of death to temporarily suspend their claims in order to access sickness benefits should they themselves fall sick or become injured. This is good, common sense change and speaks to the compassion of Canadians for one another.

Last, I would like to speak to another measure from budget 2014 that demonstrates the care Canadians have for one another. Speaking from personal experience, I know that Canadians have a great volunteer spirit, and that spirit is very evident in the great city of Edmonton, which I have the honour to represent in this House. I have been privileged to live in many areas of Canada, and I have never seen a city with the volunteer spirit that Edmontonians demonstrate every day and that results in Edmonton staging many large international events with spectacular results.

Canadians volunteer for many great causes, and the one that many people volunteer for is search and rescue. These Canadians volunteer in this role on the ground, in the air, and on the water.

In budget 2011, our government introduced the volunteer firefighters tax credit to recognize the important role that volunteer firefighters play in many Canadian communities. Search and rescue volunteers are another group of quiet heroes in Canada. They put themselves at risk to serve their communities by volunteering for ground, air, and marine search and rescue groups. They do this in support of the Canadian Coast Guard, police, and other agencies. These volunteers are a very important part of the emergency response system, and they provide a source of well-organized, well-trained, and well-equipped volunteers in the event of a natural disaster or large-scale emergency.

To honour these quiet heroes, budget 2014 announced a 15% non-refundable search and rescue volunteers tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers. This credit would be available to search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of combined eligible search and rescue services and volunteer firefighting services in a given year. They would be able to choose between the volunteer firefighters tax credit and the new tax credit. Those search and rescue volunteers who currently receive honoraria in respect to their duties as emergency service volunteers would also be able to choose between the new tax credit and the existing tax exemption of up to $1,000 for honoraria. This measure would apply for the 2014 tax year and subsequent years, and it is an excellent way to honour the heroes of our local communities.

All these measures I have mentioned would help Canadians and their families. They would make life a bit easier and a bit less expensive, help Canadians become parents, and honour our local heroes. These measures reflect the values of Canadians: compassion, caring for others and those in need, and volunteerism, to name a few. These are values that should be reflected in our federal budgets, and budget 2014 does exactly that. It reflects truly Canadian values.

It has been an honour to address the House on such an important piece of legislation as the budget implementation bill. I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues on both sides of the House, and I truly look forward to casting my vote in favour of Bill C-31.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak out against the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31.

I am against this bill and I am going to try to state the reasons why as quickly as possible in the 10 minutes that I have to speak. Various measures in this bill affect the people of Laval and, today, I am speaking on their behalf.

First, I would like to talk about debt. My colleagues would be very surprised to know how many people write to me every month to share their concerns about our debt. Many people are concerned about the way their money is being spent at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. People know how to count. They expect politicians to spend the money that is available to the different levels of government wisely, and I understand that.

The federal debt went from $582.2 billion in 2011-12 to $627.4 billion in 2013-14 and, according to projections, it will reach $634 billion in 2014-15. What is more, there is no reason to believe that the Conservative government will achieve the surpluses it expects given how much the deficit has grown over the past few years.

I therefore believe that the members on the other side of the House should take the debt issue a bit more seriously and deal with it head-on. According to our numbers and forecasts, this is a very serious situation. Our national debt has increased significantly.

Furthermore, I am still extremely disappointed in the Conservatives' lack of commitment to community organizations and particularly the lack of funding given to these organizations across the country. I cannot mention them all because it would take me much longer than 10 minutes. I could spend a whole day listing them.

As an aside, I would like to talk about the chronic lack of funding for amateur sport. As a result of decisions made regarding the building Canada fund, the federal government was going to help fund an arena for amateur sport in Laval, but at the last minute it decided to back out of the project. We never found out exactly why. That is just one example.

In fact, other amateur sports organizations get very little funding. I am thinking, for example, of Josée Lepage, executive director of the Club de gymnastique Laval Excellence, which continues to work miracles with very few resources. The government is not there to help finance the work needed to maintain the organization's facilities, which costs $35,000. That does not even include the operating budget, which is practically non-existent.

There is another element that affects both the people of Laval and Canadians in all of our ridings. I am talking about funding for cadet corps, which help young people immensely. The young people I met in Alfred—Pellan are involved in community organizations and do volunteer work. For example, they help out at spaghetti suppers and are always there to lend a hand.

In addition, they successfully find ways to raise money for other community organizations, by packing groceries and so on. The people who work in cadet corps are very dedicated, and that includes not only the youth who often become civilian instructors, but also all the officers and civilian instructors.

Because of the current lack of funding for cadet corps services, some people basically use their salary to help pay for activities. I am thinking about Major Felix Macia, from the 2567 Dunkerque cadet corps in Laval, who uses his meagre officer's salary to pay for his cadets' activities.

This budget should have done more to address the challenges facing youth organizations. People can work miracles with very little.

The riding of Alfred-Pellan is an urban but highly agricultural riding on the island of Laval; its economy is largely based on many small and medium-sized businesses. They are a key part of the economy of the eastern part of Laval.

I was very disappointed to see the lack of action for small businesses in this budget and to realize that we will have to wait for the next budget, in the coming year, before small-business owners will see their tax rate drop. They asked for this relief years ago. Ottawa has already granted that privilege to big businesses but refused to do the same for small businesses. Under the Conservative government, the tax rate for big business dropped from 22% to 15% in order to kick-start investment. The government seems to be willing to show some flexibility with small businesses, but we need to wait for the next budget, during an election year, for that to happen. They are simply insulting people who own small and medium-sized businesses.

Where I come from, we are proud of our small and medium businesses. One that comes to mind is the Dolce Pane bakery in Saint-François, which makes cakes with dulce de leche. Just thinking about it makes my mouth water. Another is Ongles Royal at the Centre Duvernay, where amazing, incredibly gentle and polite women work every day. Another is Démen-Ciel, a restaurant in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, where an absolutely charming couple, executive chef Éric Côté and pastry chef-host Sophie Lapointe, devote themselves to serving local products every day. Au Féminin in Vimont is a clothing boutique run by Chantal Côté and her team that sells only clothes made in Quebec. These are extremely dedicated people who have small businesses with five, 10 or 20 employees. If the government wants to help the economy, it has to help our small and medium businesses.

I also wanted to talk about youth unemployment. Even though 1.3 million Canadians are unemployed, this budget contains not a single significant measure to tackle that problem. In January 2014 in Laval, the unemployment rate was 5.7%. In Quebec, it was 7.5%. This problem hits younger Canadians hardest; their unemployment rate is 2.4 times higher. Statistics Canada's comprehensive study of youth unemployment dynamics found that, in 2012, the unemployment rate among youth aged 15 to 24 was 14.3%, while it was just 6% among adults aged 25 to 54 and those over 55.

I am thinking about the young people in Saint-François who are going through a very difficult time and who are even more isolated than the other young people in Laval. They are having a hard time finding work. The young people in Auteuil and Vimont are also struggling to find work even though they are highly educated. Youth employment has never recovered since the 2008 recession. What is more, young people are twice as likely as adults to be laid off . Young workers with low seniority are at greater risk of being laid off by their employer. The sectors that are most affected are construction, manufacturing, retail sales, and hospitality and food services. This budget proposes far too little for young, unemployed Canadians across the country.

I would like to close by talking about arts and culture. In Alfred-Pellan, arts and culture are important to the community. Just look at all the agencies that work in arts and culture in Laval, such as Choeur Chanterelle du Collège Laval, La Chorale le 400, Corporation Rose-Art, Société littéraire de Laval, St-Vincent de Paul Art Gallery, Maison des arts de Laval, Galerie du Ruisseau, le Pépin d'Art, and the list goes on.

As far as culture is concerned, the budget earmarks $105 million in ongoing funding for a number of cultural funds such as the Canada arts presentation fund, the Canada book fund, and the Canada music fund. It should be noted that in all three cases, the allocated funding is not as high as the actual expenditures for those programs for 2012-13.

For its part, the Canada media fund is to end in 2014-15. There is nothing in the budget for now, which is causing some uncertainty and concern among culture stakeholders.

I just want to mention very quickly that the Mayor of Laval, Marc Demers, laments the federal government's disengagement when it comes to social housing. I totally agree with him because there are no measures for social housing. I hope to be able to address this point during questions and comments.

Again, I must say that I am opposed to this omnibus bill. The NDP will keep fighting for a fairer, greener, and more prosperous Canada.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

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

I would like to mention that Bill C-31 is massive. The Conservatives have once again introduced an omnibus bill. What is more, the Conservatives are once again muzzling the other members and refusing to let them talk. The Conservatives have imposed closure. Unfortunately, not all members will have an opportunity to speak to this bill, which contains so many things that it is impossible to cover them all in a 10-minute speech.

I would like my colleague opposite to tell us whether they will introduce any more of these omnibus bills amending legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. Why are the Conservatives systematically refusing to discuss bills and stifling debate in the House?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who did an incredible job of presenting the concerns of the people who live in the suburbs of the south shore, including their concerns about the Champlain Bridge.

Toward the end of his presentation he mentioned the omnibus bill. Once again, Bill C-31 is a mammoth bill, with countless clauses that affect many laws.

Since he did not have enough time to talk about it, I would like to know what the member and the people of Chambly—Borduas think of the fact that we are faced with yet another omnibus bill in this House?

As well, what does he think about the fact that we are being gagged with another time allocation motion, which means that not all the members will have a chance to talk in detail about Bill C-31?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill contains two components that are very important for my riding. This is yet another omnibus, or “omnibrick” bill, as I said to my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher. What is sad is that the two measures I am going to focus on have nothing to do with a budget. I am talking about railway safety and imposing a toll on the Champlain Bridge.

The government knows full well that railway safety is a major concern. It has been said in the House on a number of occasions. It is even more important where I come from because the rail lines travel straight through large urban centres and residential neighbourhoods. The elementary school where my mother teaches, in Otterburn Park, is located near train tracks, and trains pass by carrying the same products that caused the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We are therefore very concerned about this issue, to the point that when my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, the NDP transport critic, came to Mont Saint-Hilaire for a public consultation, more than 100 people showed up. It was a beautiful sunny Sunday, which goes to show how worried people are.

We have hammered away at many points over and over again. One interesting point was raised a number of times. It is not being talked about much, but it comes up in the bill. I am talking about the issue of transparency. One of the changes proposed by Bill C-31 would allow cabinet to make amendments to railway safety regulations without the public's knowledge.

That is extremely troubling because if Canadians wants to pressure their government into making changes and ensuring our safety, they can no longer challenge the government's decisions because they will not even know about them. That is clearly very problematic, especially because it runs counter to the current trend.

Indeed, in the United States, the trend is to investigate the various regulatory issues. We know that the U.S. also wanted to make changes because of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, among others. After all, it was an American company, and thus a somewhat shared jurisdiction. However, the fact that this falls under shared jurisdiction is not an excuse to do nothing. The government has done nothing to date. It is extremely troubling to think that the government wants to make changes without the public knowing about them, particularly since Canadians are already concerned about the government's lack of transparency. These changes are only going to make things worse. What is more, they have nothing to do with the budget.

This shows a lack of respect for Canadians, given that people are concerned. From what we have seen, people are becoming increasingly aware of this issue. The government may say that accidents rarely occur, but when they do, it prompts people to find out more. During the public consultations, I was extremely impressed to learn that people know a lot about this issue and about the various regulations. That is good for our democracy.

As MPs, this really helps us to properly stand up for what our constituents want. However, it also shows that if people are looking for information, it must be available to them. The government's desire to make decisions behind closed doors is insulting to Canadians who are clearly committed to getting informed in order to improve the regulations. We are very concerned about this.

The second point I would like to make is about the toll on the Champlain Bridge. I could never speak about this issue with as much passion as my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher showed this morning. However, I would like to say that all members of ridings in the south shore share his passion. I am not just talking about federal MPs. All elected officials in the region are united on this issue, as are ordinary Canadians and the business community.

Once again, the government is hiding measures in an omnibus bill. That seems to be a consistent trend.

Since the Minister of Infrastructure was once a mayor, he should understand the importance of consulting municipalities and businesses. He should also understand that it is a grave insult to the people when Ottawa fails to consult them and hides measures that eliminate other consultation tools. That is what is going on with Bill C-31. There is no independent consultation about the new Champlain Bridge to make sure that future tolls will be similar to tolls elsewhere in the world and that the government is following best practices.

Unfortunately, the minister's contempt for the people comes as no surprise. We may not be surprised at the lack of consultation or the government's decision to hide measures in omnibus bills, but we are nevertheless disappointed.

That being said, as my colleague pointed out, we will not let this go unnoticed. We have rallied the people. In my riding, there was a luncheon with the new president of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Bassin de Chambly. The new president and the new board have three priorities for the chamber of commerce in the coming year. Their top priority is the Champlain Bridge. A huge number of people in the Chambly basin use this bridge. We are right along highway 10, so it is easy to see why this is such an important issue.

The mayor of Chambly, Denis Lavoie, gave a presentation to the chamber of commerce during the annual mayor's luncheon. He talked about his disappointment and said that he would not let the issue drop. My colleagues and I stand firmly behind them.

In that spirit, on Saturday, May 3, we will be knocking on our constituents' doors on the south shore and in the northern and southern suburbs of Montreal, since I am in the second tier of suburbs, not the immediately adjacent suburb. My riding straddles two regions, but we are still in the south shore region. Some of our constituents commute to Montreal for work, so it is important for me to consult them. Just today some of my constituents said they are worried about this, and their concern is growing every day.

I really liked the expression my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie used. He called it bullying. Some people may find that a little strong, but the word is fair, since the situation in our region is very serious. It would seem as though I am repeating everything my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said, but that is a good sign, because it shows how united we are on this and that our constituents have the same priorities.

The lack of consultation really worries us because it was the mismanagement by consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that got us here in the first place. They did not want to maintain the bridge properly. Now the government is saying that it is a disaster and that measures must be imposed immediately. They even skipped the tendering process. The government used past mismanagement to justify its current mismanagement of this file. We have a problem with that. This situation is unacceptable, and we will continue to oppose it.

This is a positive message, because an NDP government would consult Canadians, whether regarding the Champlain Bridge or on any other matter. We have the courage of our convictions and we would not hide them in an omnibus bill like the one I am honoured to oppose here today.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. First, I would like to thank our shadow minister for finance, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for all his work in preparing us for this bill and defending Canadians within and outside of the House. I am really proud to have him as a colleague, and he serves British Columbia very well.

I have to say that I am opposed to this bill for much of its substance, as well as for the process by which these laws are being passed. I will elaborate at length about my procedural objections to Bill C-31.

Bill C-31 would fail to take adequate action to create jobs or reverse cuts to infrastructure funding, which is apparent from the speeches we have heard. That is why I would like to focus mostly on the process by which these omnibus bills are passed through Parliament.

Bill C-31 would fail to create jobs, it would cut infrastructure funding, and it would also continue the sorry tradition set by previous omnibus budget bills of forcing hundreds of changes through Parliament without proper oversight. This is an all too common Conservative practice, and it is disturbing as it undermines the work we do here in Parliament. The tabling of such a wide-ranging bill in such a short time frame undermines our ability to properly scrutinize the bill and denies MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications.

The bill has over 350 pages, almost 500 clauses, and would amend dozens of bills, including a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget speech. This is the Conservatives' fifth attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny of their economic agenda.

In the remainder of my time, I would like to use an example from a previous omnibus budget, Bill C-38, to show the damage these omnibus budget bills can cause and why it is important that we break these bills apart and debate them piece by piece.

Among other things, Bill C-38 rammed through changes to the National Energy Board Act regarding the approval of new oil pipelines. In addition to shortening the length of time the NEB has to review new projects to just 15 months, whereas previous reviews had no time limits, the NEB is now only a mere advisory body, with the cabinet now having the final say on any project.

Now, the changes that were rammed through the House in Bill C-38 with little consideration or debate are hitting the road in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. Again, we had a large package of bills bundled up in Bill C-38 and passed through with little debate, and now the effects of those bills are impacting my riding in a negative way.

I would like to use the example of Kinder Morgan's proposal to build a new pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby to illustrate why the current omnibus bill should not be rammed through the House.

Last December, the Kinder Morgan company filed an application with the National Energy Board to build a new export-only bitumen based crude oil pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby. This application includes a request for permission for a 150 metre-wide right of way to dig a trench as large as one that would be required for a subway or SkyTrain. The project would bring 400 new oil tankers to Burrard Inlet. The project will likely be built using temporary foreign workers. It will not use Canadian steel, limiting the economic benefits to B.C. However, the benefit to Kinder Morgan is obvious, with the company standing to make as much as $5 million per day if the project is approved.

Before the changes brought in by Bill C-38, any company proposing to build a new pipeline of this size would have filed an application with the National Energy Board. The NEB would have reviewed the application to determine that it were complete, and if complete, the NEB would have issued a hearing order and called for public participation. Any Canadians interested in speaking to the project could have either sent a letter of comment, given a short oral presentation, or applied to be a full intervenor. This was the case for the Enbridge northern gateway project, which, incidentally, is about the same size as Kinder Morgan's proposal.

After the changes in Bill C-38, the process has been completely changed and, I submit, undermined. First, due to a new 15-month time limit, the NEB has had to cut the public almost completely out of this approval process. To do so, the NEB has cancelled scheduled public information meetings; issued a call for participation without as much as a press release; reduced the possible participation routes from letters, oral presentations, or full interventions to just letters or a full intervention; and ruled that if the potential participant fails to register, he or she cannot even send a letter to the National Energy Board. The NEB has also issued a hearing order for this project, even though the company has filed an incomplete application. For example, Kinder Morgan has not even determined the final pipeline route.

This is serious, because if this project is approved, the company would have the right to expropriate homes and land along the proposed route through the NEB Act right of entry clauses, and we could find ourselves in the absurd position that those who might lose their homes would not even be allowed to send a letter of objection to the board. These changes were all brought about because Bill C-38 was rammed through the House without proper debate.

Although the NEB wanted this whole process to proceed without public input in order to meet the conditions prescribed in Bill C-38, 2,200 people still registered to participate in the process. However, last week we learned that all but 400 of these applicants had been kicked out of the process, including many homeowners. That means they will not even be able to make an oral submission or appear before the National Energy Board. Whereas companies were almost universally accepted, including one that filed after the deadline had closed for participation, the vast majority of those now excluded from the process are residents and landowners whose lives could be turned upside down by this project.

Not everyone is upset by how this project is being rammed through my community in British Columbia. The Conservatives are certainly pleased and have referred to these pipelines as “a national dream” and label anyone who asks questions about the logic of these pipelines—they do not even have to be opposed—as “radicals”.

However, the support for this pipeline and a process by which it is being approved does not stop there. In the January 22 edition of Metro News in Calgary, the leader of the Liberal Party said:

I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we are going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

To reiterate, the leader of the Liberal Party said he certainly hopes we would be able to get this pipeline approved. This quote was again confirmed in an article published on February 26 in the Vancouver Observer.

While others in the House may view the Bill C-38 omnibus bill as a dream, my constituents, especially those who might be negatively impacted by this project, see this process and project as a nightmare.

I too am worried. This pipeline is not only slated to run through the communities I represent, but is also slated to run through 15 first nations reserves and 80 territories, and 130 nations have signed a declaration against this pipeline.

My nightmare scenario is that bulldozers show up in B.C. neighbourhoods or reserves, start digging trenches without consent, and then we have conflict. This is a real possibility. Because of the way Bill C-38 was rammed through the House, because of the way the NEB process was undermined and shortened, now the National Energy Board really has had no choice but to limit public participation. This means excluding residents, people who own homes and land and businesses along the route, but also first nations.

Many first nations did not register to appear before the National Energy Board, thus they will be cut out of the process. They will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want the pipeline to go through their community.

This is unacceptable, and I think the changes to the National Energy Board Act and the negative impacts on my community are a direct result of these omnibus bills. They are cobbled together so that the government can force its agenda through and perhaps facilitate these very large projects like energy pipelines.

It is important to realize that now that we are here discussing a new omnibus budget bill, an implementation act, we should take the time to break it apart to make sure that we have an adequate discussion of these different clauses.

Perhaps I have not stressed enough how this project and these changes have affected my community. I have literally had hundreds of constituents call or come into my office to express their concerns, completely oblivious to the fact there will basically be something as large as a subway going through their backyard and that they will not even be able to send a letter to say that they do not want this to happen.

I think it is a disgrace, and I apologize to my constituents. We fought against Bill C-38 as much as we could. We will fight against this current budget implementation act until the government sees fit to make sure that Canadian voices are heard when we are debating this important legislation.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following up on that, it is one thing to have a bill of 50 or 60 pages that are all primarily aimed at budgetary issues because it is a budget bill, but it is impossible to think that anybody can pick up a so-called budget bill of 400 pages or so, analyze the items in it, ask questions, and seek amendments to improve it. That is why it is introduced in the House.

Has the hon. member read all 400 or so pages in this bill? Can he tell me how many pieces of legislation are being changed as a result of Bill C-31?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to stand in this House to talk about how Bill C-31 would positively impact residents of Palliser in Saskatchewan and in all of Canada.

Our government is focused upon building strong communities with prosperous businesses and creating good high-wage jobs for Canadians. We know that this vision is achievable through creating an environment in which for business can flourish.

Just as we promised in the 2011 election and in budgets since then, we are working toward a balanced budget while not raising taxes or cutting transfers to the provinces. This budget bill would provide support where needed while being mindful of the bottom line.

I would like to add that there is $3 billion in the contingency fund to adjust for risk in the event of disaster, as we unfortunately witnessed last year in Lac-Mégantic and with the floods in southern Alberta. Canadians can be confident that we will achieve a balanced budget this year, and we will.

In my address, I will focus largely on initiatives to train the workforce of today and tomorrow. Canada needs to do much better to ensure that training reflects the needs of the labour market.

Members might be wondering what issues are facing our labour markets.

We have regional and sectoral job vacancies coupled with unemployment. We have a number of groups that are being used to fill different potentials, including recent immigrations, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities, and older Canadians. I am very pleased that this budget contains a number of measures to encourage and foster skills training to help these people find meaningful employment while filling job vacancies. Creating highly skilled and well-paying jobs is very much in the national interest.

To emphasize the importance of finding solutions to skills shortages, I will mention that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce lists skills shortage as the number one barrier to Canada's competitiveness. One of the most exciting aspects to foster skills training involves allowing apprentices to qualify for interest-free loans during their four-year training period. The Canadian apprentice loan would build upon substantial support already in place to help apprentices with costs. This loan of up to $4,000 per period of technical training would assist apprentices as they complete their training and would encourage more Canadians to consider a career in the skilled trades.

It is important for apprentices to complete their training to ensure their qualifications are recognized in other parts of the country. At least 26,000 people are expected to apply for and ultimately benefit from this $100 million annual investment.

Robert Blakely, of Canada's building trades union, has indicated his support. He said:

...the way apprentices are being treated has changed and they are now, thanks to measures introduced in the 2014 Budget, treated more like their colleagues in college and those involved in university training.

Another exciting feature entails modifications to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs. This would be partly accomplished through limiting the use of LMO programs in high-employment regions. This $11 million investment over two years, and $3.5 million ongoing, would realign applications to high-demand fields.

We will continue to better meet the demands of the labour market through the newly created expressions of interest system to allow the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to actively target highly skilled immigrants who wish to establish permanent residency in Canada. This program represents an investment of $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing.

So far my words here today have focused on meeting the needs of our workforce, because this is the primary obstacle to growth facing Saskatchewan. Indeed, Saskatchewan's unemployment rate ranks among the lowest in the country, while Regina ranks the lowest among Canadian cities. In fact, as of yesterday, there were more than 15,500 jobs listed at saskjobs.ca.

As a government, we are primarily concentrating on securing the long-term financial security of Canadians. We work toward this vision through creating jobs and economic growth and keeping taxes low to allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money. Our government is known for saving Canadians money through the 160 tax cuts already in place, which save the average family of four approximately $3,400 annually. Also, one million people are now entirely off the tax rolls.

New indications of our ever-expanding list of tax cuts include increasing and indexing the adoption tax credit to $15,000 to make adoptions more affordable. Adoptions can be costly, and this measure would greatly help young growing families.

Helping Canadians save more of their own money extends to ensuring that they get better value for their service in the marketplace. Wholesale domestic roaming rates will be capped to allow the smaller cellphone companies to be better able to compete, which would lead to increased competition and ultimately to lower prices. We can look forward to lower cellphone bills.

These measures build upon existing consumer-friendly items, including reduced tariffs on baby clothing and athletic equipment and clearly displayed airfares without hidden fees.

With the keen judgment and steady hand of our former finance minister, Canada is well positioned to continue leading nations of the world down the path of economic recovery. I know that our new finance minister will continue to steer our economy down the right track, given his discipline, work ethic, knowledge, and depth of experience.

Through Bill C-31, we are continuing to support Canadians of today and tomorrow. All in all, it is a good budget that would encourage economic prosperity not only in the short term but also in the long term. We are investing in our economy today while not mortgaging our future.

I have mentioned just a few points that would greatly improve the situation for issues facing Saskatchewan and, indeed, all of Canada. I hope all members will appreciate the forward thinking demonstrated in Bill C-31 and support it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

20th Anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House for the following motion, that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 299 to 302 related to the temporary foreign worker program be removed from Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-33, an act to implement administrative monetary penalties for the temporary foreign worker program; that Bill-33 be deemed read a first time and be printed, deemed read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed reported back without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed; that Bill C-31 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of the order; that Bill C-31 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the remarks made by my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, and I sympathize with his concerns and his exasperation.

Since he was so critical of both the form and the content of this budget bill, I would like to ask him whether we should be just as concerned about the growing tendency to give ministers more and more power.

For example, Bill C-31, which exempts the Champlain Bridge from some of the key consumer protection and safety requirements in the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act, also happens to give the minister in charge the power to exempt this project from all federal laws.

Are we witnessing a strong tendency to give ministers more and more power so they can act in secret behind closed doors?

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

Mr. Speaker, my role here is to defend the interests of the people of Longueuil and Boucherville. I am rising to speak to this bill as a resident of Longueuil. Members will understand why I am sensitive to the fact that the Minister of Infrastructure's philosophy, that irrefutable “no toll, no bridge” dogma, was reflected in this massive bill from the Conservatives.

The government's goal is obvious. It wants to shut down debate and pass this bill as quickly as possible, and the bill's 350 pages and 500 clauses hide provisions that include relieving the government of its obligation to consult the public. This is an old tactic that the Conservatives learned from the Liberals. In this case, the student has surpassed the teacher.

I cannot believe that the Conservatives are doing this. If they were in the opposition, if they were in our place, they would be outraged to be faced with this kind of omnibus bill. This is Parliament, not a hot dog eating contest.

However, it is not just Parliament that the Conservatives are showing contempt for, but also Canadians. This is about Canadians who want information and who should be kept informed about the laws that will be imposed on them. It is also about journalists, whose job is to keep an eye on and analyze bills, so that people outside the parliamentary precinct can understand what is at stake in these sometimes complex proposals.

The bill's scope is as broad as it is bad. It contains a wide range of amendments and provisions on issues that are way off topic, that clearly have nothing to do with the budget, when, really, it is supposed to be a budget implementation bill. Furthermore, the issues at stake here are extremely important. It is not a question of simply adding a decimal or removing a semicolon. This is about things like hazardous materials and temporary foreign workers. Basically, the Conservatives are trying to push their agenda through without allowing the public to really scrutinize it.

The people of the south shore can draw some very serious conclusions from the huge bill called Bill C-31. They can see that the Conservatives want to impose tolls, from Ottawa, without any consideration for them, their opinions or those of their elected representatives. They also see, with great consternation, the very troubling changes being made to railway safety regulations. Putting forward this kind of nonsense when the entire population of Boucherville is worried makes absolutely no sense.

My role here is to stand up for the people of Longueuil, the south shore and the greater Montreal area. It is also to be here, with my colleagues, to suggest new solutions for the problems that affect the south shore. A very large gathering of business people, community groups and elected representatives from the south shore got together to do some brainstorming and come up with solutions to challenges related to public transit, particularly regarding how to fund it.

My NDP colleagues from the south shore and I submitted a brief on public transit ahead of the metropolitan land use and development plan, because the federal government has also overlooked the issue of funding for public transit. The government needs to stop neglecting this issue and start doing something substantive about it. It is essential not just for the economic reasons underlying reinvestment in public transit, but also because it is an environmental imperative. Our economy will be of little value if the St. Lawrence basin is engulfed by the rising oceans, something that scientists are projecting will happen.

That is precisely why I got into politics in 2008 with the NDP: for the seriousness of its green agenda. Nonetheless, the environment is not an ideological issue. The state of our planet goes well beyond our jurisdictions and our electoral timetable.

This requires consultation, something the government is completely inept at. Never has that been any clearer than with the outrageous abuse that the government has the nerve to call the “new bridge over the St. Lawrence”, a bridge that will be built on the ruins of the Champlain Bridge that thousands of people continue to use every day to get to work or to transport goods.

Imposing a toll in such an underhanded and hasty manner, in a bill like this, is a unilateral and belligerent move. It is an admission of failure, an admission that the federal government is incapable of or simply disinterested in consulting and listening to the public and working with Quebec and the municipalities. The Government of Quebec represents 8 million people, mayors of cities that, together, constitute the second-largest metropolitan region in Canada.

The federal government is making it perfectly clear that it is completely incapable of engaging in dialogue. It is the government's way or no way. The new Champlain Bridge will have a central place in our lives, but the federal government wants to impose its way of doing things. When it comes to bridges in an urban region, it seems clear to me that the government has to be able to talk with others. Going it alone, creating a piecemeal transit strategy applicable to a single bridge, is unacceptable. Nowhere else in the world is that done.

Deciding in Ottawa on the transit strategy for a bridge between Montreal and the south shore and telling people to like it or lump it does not work. That is obvious to everyone back home.

In Quebec, generally speaking, only brand new infrastructure, such as the highway 30 or highway 25 bridges, is subject to tolls. This is clearly not a new bridge linking these shores.

This bridge is not going to be built because having a second bridge between Brossard and Montreal would make for good feng shui. It is going to be built because the current Champlain Bridge is falling apart from one month to the next and needs to be replaced.

This charade of calling it a new bridge—as though it is a gift from Ottawa or as though it is out of its spirit of generosity that the federal government maintains existing infrastructure and ensures that they are marginally safe—is just as bad as talking about holding a contest to choose a new name while the current bridge is crumbling before our very eyes. That, too, is ridiculous.

I imagine that this sado-monarchist government will not hesitate to give the bridge an epithet that will reinforce that image. How about the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge, with 1,812 beams arranged in the shape of the Union Jack? That would definitely put a smile on the faces of the agitators opposite.

It is just too bad, but that is not how this is going to play out. It will not happen that way because we will stand firm and hold the government accountable. The government routinely implies that asking for functional, safe infrastructure is like asking for a favour, particularly when the infrastructure is very important for the country's economy and is a part of everyday life for thousands of Canadians.

The government's “no toll, no bridge” position does not cut it. La Presse city columnist François Cardinal spoke this Saturday about the mess this could create. He said that if Ottawa makes the Champlain Bridge the only toll bridge on the south shore, there will be a domino effect that will bring traffic on the other bridges in the area to a standstill. In order to understand this issue, the federal government needs to work with elected officials, experts and the south shore community rather than making unilateral, irrevocable decisions in a meeting room in Ottawa.

Elected officials in Montreal and on the south shore have shown great solidarity on this issue and have been crystal clear.

The mayors of 82 municipalities in the Montreal metropolitan area are unanimously opposed to the toll the government plans to levy on the Champlain Bridge. The mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and the mayor of Montreal, Denis Coderre, are both opposed to this plan.

As for me, I continue to strongly oppose this plan and I would like to point out that the people of Longueuil and Boucherville are generally opposed to this plan and are fed up with Ottawa's contempt for them. All of these elected officials will continue to strongly express their opposition to this plan over the next few weeks, and I will be there to support them.

In much the same way as they are neglecting the environment, which has been their trademark and has tarnished Canada's international reputation, the Conservatives have decided to stubbornly stand alone when a consensus has already been reached.

This government's insolence and narrow-minded attitude is not only counterproductive but is also becoming more and more insulting.

The government's position is reminiscent of that of the former finance minister who said no to all his provincial counterparts when it came to public pension programs. The Conservatives refuse to listen and believe that Ottawa knows best, although they apparently came here to change that way of doing things. However, again today, the Minister of Infrastructure is telling all the mayors of the Montreal metropolitan area that they are wrong. Ottawa is going to decide how to manage our transportation. Ottawa is going to disrupt the municipalities' development plans.

What is all this for? It is important to remember that taxpayers already picked up the tab for the existing Champlain Bridge with their tax money. They will not pay twice. It is unacceptable to make people pay again because of mistakes made as a result of Conservative and Liberal mismanagement over the past 50 years.

It is also a bit disturbing to see just how oddly flexible the Conservatives' ideology is when it comes to families in Quebec, particularly since the Conservatives like to boast that they stand up for taxpayers. The people on the south shore are justifiably outraged. A petition is currently being circulated on the initiative of the south shore's chamber of commerce and industry, which is playing a key role in bringing members of the community together in support of this cause.

I would like to share the wording of this petition, which invites business people and individuals to join the movement:

We will not allow the government to impose a toll without consulting us.

Our tax burden is already heavy enough.

Traffic jams are horrendous, and the federal government's plans will make them even worse.

We cannot remain silent about this decision, which may have a significant negative economic impact on individuals and businesses.

No region or sector in Quebec should tolerate being ignored when its development and future are at stake. That is why we encourage you to sign this petition electronically by filling in this short form.

We support a bridge, but not at just any price! The greater south shore deserves to be consulted about its future!

I signed the petition, as did the mayor of Longueuil, Caroline St-Hilaire, and my south shore colleagues. The people are taking action. On May 3, people will be on the ground to demonstrate against tolls.

What exactly does “No toll, no bridge” mean? Does it mean that if people refuse to be bullied by Ottawa, if municipalities in Quebec refuse to let the Conservative Party interfere with their transportation and development plans, the Champlain Bridge will fall to pieces and stay that way?

The people will not stand for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have looked through Bill C-31 extensively, and a number of things my friend commented on are not in this bill. They are in other bills, such as the victims bill of rights.

This bill does not have anything about keeping communities safer. However it does, I think, have issues of interest to his constituents and anyone with any tangential connection to the United States.

I know that some members today have referred to people who are dual citizens. I can assure members there are many Canadians who are not dual citizens, but the ambit of the FATCA would require Canadian banks to turn over private information about people who have no idea that they could be considered to have any connection whatsoever to the United States, for tax purposes.

This bill, according to many constitutional law experts, would violate the charter. It is unprecedented, in terms of assuming that a foreign power could have access to information about Canadian citizens.

I would ask my hon. friend if he does not think it would be preferable to pull the FATCA sections out of this omnibus bill and subject them to a court review to ensure they are charter compliant?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-31.

Almost three years ago, the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville provided me with the privilege of representing them here in our nation's Parliament. We have heard something very loud and clear. Canadians gave our government a mandate to provide a strong economic environment, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safe. As we are in the second half of our mandate, I am very proud of our Conservative federal government and our commitment to promoting those fundamental values.

Canada has the strongest job creation record among all G7 countries, with more than one million new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. Canada has become an example for other nations and the envy of other nations. This is why our economic action plan 2014 continues to focus on creating more jobs and supporting the local economy in Mississauga and across our great country.

Economic action plan 2014 keeps Canada on track to a balanced budget in 2015. Canadians can be pleased that this budget contains no new taxes on families and businesses while also continuing to ensure that government spending is as efficient and effective as possible. We are continuing to deliver support for small business employers and keeping taxes at a 50-year low for the hard-working families across our great country.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which balanced budgets on the backs of provinces, our Conservative government has continued to grow provincial transfers to record levels. For Ontario, my home province, the federal budget confirms transfers will total $19.2 billion in 2014-15, a 76% increase from the previous Liberal government. These funds were instrumental in building large infrastructure projects, upgrading facilities, and ensuring that regions across the country are receiving the necessary investment in their communities.

Locally in Mississauga, we are seeing job growth and infrastructure investment in our community, thanks to our government's focus on reducing red tape while increasing investment in skills and training. For example, economic action plan 2014 would help our skilled trades apprentices registered in eligible trades, who would be eligible for loans that would be interest free until their training ends.

I would like to thank the hard-working people in our community who run small businesses. As we all know, small businesses are the great engine of our economy. Despite the economic challenges, these business owners are committed to providing jobs and spurring our economy.

I am proud of the federal commitment to economic growth through supporting local infrastructure priorities in Mississauga through programs such as the federal gas tax fund. The City of Mississauga has received almost $126 million of federal funding through the gas tax fund since 2006. I will add that the Region of Peel gas tax fund is nearly $213 million since 2006. Just over $3.8 billion, or almost $4 billion, in federal gas tax funding will flow to Ontario municipalities between the years of 2014 to 2019. This is a long-term, predictable, and environmentally stable source of funding that has helped with major projects, including Mississauga's accessible transit fleet and the transit campus.

The cost of raising a family adds up quickly, and our Conservative government understands these challenges.

It is tax return season, and in the past number of weeks I have hosted income tax clinics in my riding, and there is one coming up next week. This is where people come to have their taxes filed by professionals at no cost to them. Those who participated in our tax clinics know that, thanks to this government, their taxes are lower. The average family of four now saves nearly $3,400 per year in tax savings.

We are not stopping there when it comes to helping families.

This budget would expand on 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.

Economic action plan 2014 would expand the GST-HST exemptions for training that are specifically designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training. It would also expand on the GST-HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors.

We would put in place the allowance of the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive a GST-HST tax credit, which would eliminate the need for individuals to apply for it.

We will continue to protect Canadian families by supporting victims of crime and punishing criminals. I am very proud to say that our Prime Minister was in my community of Mississauga just last Thursday when he introduced Canada's first ever victims bill of rights.

We are also putting Canada first by providing further support to help meet the needs of our veterans. This is important for those who bravely serve our nation, to provide support not only while they wear a uniform but also in their transition to civilian life. The consolidated veterans hiring act would build on previous government commitments as well as new ones outlined in the economic action plan 2014 to help veterans find meaningful employment after their time in uniform is complete.

In recognition of their service to Canada, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and honourably released veterans would be given more access to federal public service job opportunities.

In conclusion, our government's economic action plan 2014 is excellent news for people and families in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and throughout our country.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on his new role. I am confident that he will display excellent leadership by ensuring we stay on track and not waiver from balancing our budget and keep Canada on course for long-term economic prosperity.

We will continue to stimulate our local economies by providing support for small businesses and we will assist Canadians to get the training they need to meet the labour market demands.

We are helping and supporting families by providing a series of tax incentives.

We will always put Canada first, celebrating and defending our country and working to keep Canadians safe in their communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed that the hon. member for Calgary Centre used so much of her speech on Bill C-31 to attack opposition parties politically instead of talking about the substance of an omnibus bill that actually has very little to do with what she also discussed, which was the budget.

She says that budgets make people's eyes glaze over because of all the numbers, figures, and columns. I would like her to answer, if she can, why it is that under this administration the document referred to as a budget actually no longer includes a budget. There is no statement of total assets. There is no statement of revenue. There is no statement of expenses, and there is no bottom line. There is no separate breakout, department by department, as in all previous budgets, under all previous governments, that I have read over the last 30 years.

I wonder why the budget is no longer a budget but rather is a very thick brochure.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. The bill's response to FATCA raises obvious concerns about privacy and sovereignty. There was not the kind of consultations that could have avoided those concerns.

This is an element in Bill C-31 that attempts to shield Canadian banks from U.S. financial penalties. It protects Canadian banking information at the expense of those citizens of Canada who find themselves being targeted by FATCA and who are outraged that they would be required to have their banking information shared with the United States.

I think the overall point that my colleague was making is that this government is very well known for its absence of consultation.

I am very happy to hear that the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification has consulted widely on a complex issue.

That is exactly why it should be in its own bill and not wrapped up in this anti-democratic omnibus budget bill.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-31, having just been part of a debate about major policy changes that were put into the bill.

One of the first points I want to make is that it is an abuse of parliamentary process to take complex areas of public policy and to propose policy change to them by slipping them into a budget bill like this. It is an abuse because the members on this side of the House are not able to find out the details of that section of the bill, and because there are so many new and different policy changes that are not related. This is not an omnibus bill with housekeeping changes, but includes major policy changes, making it impossible in the short amount of time allocated for debate to cover all of the facets of the bill adequately.

It is one more anti-democratic omnibus bill that really undermines Parliament's role to properly discuss and give input, and then have a proper opportunity at committee to look at a substantive and complex public policy issue. This is because there are literally 500 separate clauses, more than 40 different pieces of legislation involved, and 359 pages in the bill. Omnibus bills are a hallmark of the Conservative government's disdain for Parliament and its function and the hallmark of its disdain for the Canadian public and its stakeholders, who deserve better.

There are some implications of the bill overall that I would like to touch on and then some specific measures that I will be discussing.

First, the bill overall misses the mark for Canadians. It is essentially designed to provide some speaking points in the next election that would be advantageous to one party, the Conservative Party. It fails to address the major concerns of Canadians. It fails to address the fact that our economy is just limping along, and the measures that the government has taken have been so driven toward partisan advantage and not to the benefit of Canadians that it has failed really to put our economy back on track.

I am from the riding of Vancouver Quadra, and in Vancouver the business community is surprised and disappointed by the dismal level of capital investment for B.C. projected for the coming year. This budget is not helping British Columbia. I will quote the Business Council of B.C. executive vice-president, Jock Finlayson, in his March blog post:

We were surprised at the weak overall investment outlook for British Columbia. Total capital spending in the province...is set to come in essentially flat this year, compared to 2013....

His remarks were based on a Statistics Canada report in February.

This budget fails to address the high unemployment rate for young people, far higher than it was when the government took office. It fails to address the fact that middle-class Canadians are staggering under record high debt loads compared with their incomes, which creates a great deal of concern about their ability to put their kids through school and just manage their day-to-day finances, and of course it createdes concerns about retirement security, which is not being addressed in any substantive way by the government, contrary to what the provinces have been asking it to do.

Last, one aspect of the budget that we Liberals are extremely concerned about is that it is essentially cutting almost 90% of the new infrastructure spending over the next two years. This is very important funding for the communities, for jobs, and for the economy.

Vancouver Quadra has the Broadway Corridor, the second largest economic zone in greater Vancouver. According to a KPMG report, the development of that economy and investment in high tech, health sciences, and all of the businesses and activities along the Broadway Corridor are being impeded by poor connectivity, including poor transportation. We need rapid transit along that corridor. It would benefit our economy, but is the kind of project that would be pushed far into the future by this budget because of its cuts to the government's current infrastructure spending.

The Conservatives' new building Canada fund had $1.63 billion for this year, which has just passed, but goes down to $210 million for the year we are now in. That is a massive reduction. However, it will be only $200 million in the following year, and it will be years before it is back at the level it was at last year. This undermines for years to come the plans and economic prospects that depend on infrastructure. This is an aspect of the bill that is taking partisan advantage over the economic realities and investments required by Canadians today.

Second, I would like to talk about the part of the bill where the Department of National Defence loses $3.1 billion. This is a claw-back of funding that had been announced before, and it is on top of a lot of other claw-backs. There will be over $7 billion clawed back from DND's budget.

The Department of National Defence is a very important to the economy of Canada. Not only does Canada need an effective, prepared, and respected military, but it also needs a military that is ready to serve the sovereignty and defence requirements of our country, as may be outlined by the leadership of the country. The National Defence budget is a huge economic driver of jobs, contracts, exports, equipment, and technological innovation.

The Conservative government raised expectation with its Canada first defence strategy funding promises, which I now call the Conservative's failed defence strategy because of how those promises have been broken. In fact, to date approximately $30 billion has been clawed back or cut from the level of funding promised by the Conservatives' failed defence strategy, according to defence analyst Dave Perry.

This has led to equipment delays, making equipment far more costly down the line when it does arrive, and it has meant that our men and women in uniform are using obsolete equipment that poses safety risks. It has also meant that there has not been proper funding for the kind of support that wounded soldiers desperately need.

I was shocked to find through an access to information request that the director of mental health for the Canadian Forces, Colonel Scott McLeod, a year ago begged to be able to hire uniformed registered psychologists in the armed forces because they were so desperately needed. He said that “...there is strong indication that the addition of a uniformed clinical psychology capability would greatly enhance the mental health care of CAF members...”. He said these positions were crucial to the effectiveness of care for ill and injured soldiers.

However, the minister ignored that request. To date, not a single uniformed clinical psychologist has been hired by the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the care is not adequate. It has been reported by the ombudsman and soldiers themselves for a number of years, and it is having tragic consequences. So why are there these cuts and the government making these kinds of uncompassionate decisions that are landing on soldiers who have risked their lives for our country? It is completely unacceptable.

In part of 1 of the bill there is a tax credit for search and rescue. We support the tax credit, but we wonder why it is not refundable so that those who are doing search and rescue—which is a very important service to their community—and who are not in a position to pay taxes will get no benefit from this tax credit.

Veterans put their lives on the line. In part 6, division 1, there is nothing in the budget to suggest that the government will withdraw its opposition to the Equitas court case. A number of wounded solders are having to go to court to get the support they need, such as increased lump sum payments for injuries, and a proper pension, which veterans have always been provided with in the past in Canada. They deserve better, and they deserve to be cared for. That is part of the sacred compact that the current government is fighting to undermine through its lawyer in the Equitas lawsuit.

I would like to talk about other elements, FATCA. Vancouver Quadra residents are very concerned about the impact of this—

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that they find this so amusing. My constituents are not amused.

The Conservatives expanded drug company monopoly rights. They moved to allow direct-to-consumer advertising, which would add $6.3 billion to our drug bills, even though Canadian consumers already pay some of the world's highest prices.

While the government has pandered to the large corporations, it has failed to renew the small business job creation tax credit, first proposed by the NDP in 2011, for the hiring of people by small businesses. New Democrats know that small and medium businesses fuel communities and help those communities to thrive. We believe that continuing to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium businesses would benefit Canadians.

While Bill C-31 would provide for the compensation for deductions from veterans' pay between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012, it is silent on the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012. We have already seen two ministers promise action and then fail to deliver on this issue.

With Veterans Affairs Canada, the Conservatives cut $225 million out of the budget. There is no concern for modern-day veterans. There is no concern for the young men and women who went on peacekeeping missions. There is none.

At the veterans affairs committee, we heard testimony from organizations that provide vital services to our Canadian veterans and their families. Those organizations, like the last post fund, had their budgets cut in 1995 to reduce government deficits. Those cuts have never been redressed, let alone seen an indexation for inflation, the kind we have seen over 20 years.

I should point out that this is not only the Conservative government's failure. It started with the Liberals, the same Liberals who voted in the past to support Conservative omnibus budget bills.

Those bills in the past included weakening environmental assessment in Canada. Bill C-31 would do nothing to correct that. We have a responsibility to leave clean water and breathable air to future generations in Canada, and we need to start now. We have heard that dire warning over and over.

I have received overwhelming support from the constituents of London—Fanshawe and the surrounding area to return the Thames River to inclusion in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians understand the value of environmental protection to the quality of life and a healthy economy. Why do the Conservatives not get that?

I see nothing in the budget, nor Bill C-31, to address Canada's staggering infrastructure deficit. New Democrats proposed a reversal of the $5.8 billion that the Conservatives cut from local infrastructure. We should be working with the provinces. We should be working with Canadians. We should be working to preserve rail travel and ensure that cargo transport on trains is sustainable, affordable, and safe. There is nothing in this budget that speaks to any of those needs.

In conclusion, I would like to end with my opening observation. Let the Conservatives rail that New Democrats did not support this budget or previous budgets. How could we possibly do that when these budgets harm Canadian families, veterans, and seniors?

We need something much better. Canadians deserve something much better.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that during every question period for the last eight years Conservative members have risen in the House to rail against the NDP for not supporting their budgets. Well, I would like to let the members opposite know that there will be no change in their speaking notes today. In fact, in question period today it was the same old tired lines from the government.

I will not be supporting Bill C-31. Here are the reasons why. I hope my colleagues across the way listen, because they should be ashamed as they listen to these reasons. Given the government's record on time allocation, of course, the bill contains amendments to more than 60 acts without the time to study those changes. It continues in Bill C-31. Once again, we see the despicable Conservative tradition of forcing legislation through without adequate parliamentary debate or public consultation.

New Democrats believe that healthy debate and consultation lead to better legislation for Canadians, yet we have another omnibus bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study and little oversight. In fact, the Conservatives moved time allocation on the bill after just 25 minutes of debate. Canadians deserve better.

In addition, the bill fails to make life more affordable for Canadian families, who are still recovering from the effects of the recession. We have 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession, on this government's watch. The effects of this are painfully evident in ridings across the country, including my riding of London—Fanshawe. There is absolutely nothing in the budget, or Bill C-31, that would assist in getting the hard-working constituents of London—Fanshawe back to work, or to help replace the 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs lost on this Prime Minister's watch.

There is nothing in the budget or the bill that addresses the reasonable and affordable proposals of the NDP to strengthen the Canada pension plan. There is nothing to provide relief on heating bills, nothing for the millions of Canadians without access to a family doctor, and nothing to address the fact that we still have seniors in our country living in poverty. There are 250,000 of them.

New Democrats are focused on helping our most vulnerable seniors with an affordable increase to the guaranteed income supplement. While the government has made incremental measures in the past, they amount to much less than half of what is needed to pull every Canadian senior out of poverty. It is an amount that is far less than the billions in tax breaks the government has given to banks and big polluters.

Let us look at the history of this government. It is a government that has hiked payroll taxes, while working families struggled with the worst recession in decades. At the same time it was dishing out $21 billion in tax giveaways to Canada's richest companies. It stood by as good jobs with good wages and pensions, like those at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, disappeared as a result of foreign corporate takeovers.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides explicit and transparent criteria for the testing of net benefit to Canada in the Investment Canada Act, which place emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investments on communities, jobs, pensions, families, and new capital investments.

New Democrats propose working with the provinces to build a long-term skills training strategy to fill the skilled job shortages and to bring provinces, employers, labour, and educational organizations together to improve existing labour market development agreements. While we are at it, New Democrats would like to see the government sit down with the provinces on issues vital to Canadians, like the Canada pension plan and the Canada health accord, so we can arrive at the creative, affordable, and sustainable solutions we know are possible.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides the services Canadians rely on. Reverse the devastating decision to cut provincial health care transfers by $36 billion; that would be a good start. The government has put universal health care on death watch. Reverse changes to El that include damaging new rules that would require Canadian workers to accept as much as a 70% pay reduction or risk losing benefits. Set fair and effective contribution rates for employment insurance, and protect the money in the fund.

Unfortunately, the government is not interested in serving Canadians. It has fallen down on the issues that matter most to us. It has refused to repay seniors their missing pension earnings, despite admitting that CPP and OAS pensioners were shortchanged by $1 billion due to an accounting error.

What happened to the promise of a comprehensive patient wait times guarantee? It disappeared after a handful of pilot projects that left most patients out in the cold.

The government cancelled agreements with provinces to fund affordable child care spaces. It was child care that would have given some relief to working families. The Conservatives misled Canadians with the $100 universal child care benefit by subjecting it to unfair clawbacks and taxes, so that families who needed assistance with child care the most got the least.

This is the government that squandered $20 billion on giveaways for oil companies, big banks, cellphone giants, and other corporations, without any requirements that they stop ripping off Canadians—

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and his excellent presentation. He did a fine job explaining the NDP's concerns over the new budget implementation bill currently before us. I often see him rise in the House and stand up for the interests of his constituents. I want to commend him on his excellent work.

I am proud to join my voice to those of my colleagues to firmly oppose this new omnibus bill. This should come as no surprise from the Conservatives. They do not seem to know how to work any other way. This is the fifth time we are dealing with a such a massive bill and this underhanded approach to avoiding parliamentary oversight. The fact is, everyone here was elected for the same reason. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to stand up for their interests. When we look at the actions of this government and the bills it introduces, we see that it seems to be taking into account only the small percentage of Canadians who voted the Conservatives into power. Unfortunately, our system is designed in such a way that we have a Conservative majority government, but that does not mean that the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. I would say that the majority of Canadians are rather disgusted with the abuse of trust and abuse of power committed by the government. The Conservatives are supposed to be working for Canadians in the best interest of the country. However, that is not what we are seeing.

The Conservatives try to hide their regressive agenda from Canadians on a regular basis. Today, we barely heard one speech, and it was a Conservative speech that was far from objective. After 25 minutes, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose and introduced another time allocation motion. Once again, he could not even get through one half hour of debate. He managed to listen to one of my official position colleagues for barely five minutes and then he said that that was enough, that he knew very well that we would just blame them and shine a spotlight on all the problems with Bill C-31. For that reason, we are once again facing closure, which quite frankly is an abuse of the House. I no longer know how many time allocation motions have been imposed, but I can guarantee you that it is a considerable number.

As I was saying, Bill C-31 is another omnibus bill. It is a massive document with more than 350 pages and over 500 clauses that will amend dozens of laws. Furthermore, the bill would impose a number of measures that were not included in the budget.

Canadians must start learning the cues. The Conservatives use the same arguments with each new budget because it is the same principle every time. They tell us that there is nothing new in there, that everything was in the budget, and so on. They really take Canadians for fools. No one in this country believes them. I do not know who they are trying to convince, perhaps themselves, by repeating the same arguments that are not very convincing. However, quite honestly, no one trusts them.

Canadians also understand that it is impossible for MPs to do a proper job in the short period of time allocated by the Conservatives. I mentioned the size and content of this bill. We have just a few hours to debate it, raise issues and ask the government questions. We rarely get answers but, as MPs, it is part of our job to ask questions and try to get answers. After that, the procedure in committee is rather complicated. Even there, there is very little the members can do.

In any case, it is a known fact that the government does not listen. The opposition could propose an excellent amendment that would remedy problems with this document. Obviously, there are some mistakes in the 350 pages that were hastily thrown together on anything and everything. It takes the government some time. The government will think about it for several months. Time and time again, the opposition will raise the various problems inherent in the government's bills.

Eventually, someone will say—perhaps in a whisper—that the opposition was right and there is a problem with the bill. The Conservatives are a prime example of this. When they decided to charge GST and HST on the parking revenue of hospitals, the NDP objected. It did not make sense to take that money at the expense of people who are already vulnerable, who are going through difficult times and whose loved ones are suffering in the hospital. The Conservatives told themselves that there was no better way to fill the government coffers and deepen human misery than to take money from the pockets of people who are visiting their loved ones in the hospital.

A few months later, the Conservatives realized that the NDP was right and decided to backpedal. However, it took time. Had they listened to us from the outset, had they been more open-minded and had they not been so uncompromising and demagogic, we would not be where we are today. I would not be wasting my time pointing these things out.

Although Canadians were aware of the problem caused by this government, the government did nothing for months until it could no longer stand the pressure. These are the types of situations created by omnibus bills, massive documents filled with regressive propaganda. I urge all Canadians to flip through this bill. They are in for some nasty surprises. The Conservatives are cutting short debate so that Canadians find out as little as possible about what is in the bill. The Conservatives are preparing for the election in 2015 and they are seeing their poll support plummet across the country.

It is not just in Quebec that Canadians are starting to push the Conservatives aside and realize that they are not a viable option for ensuring the well-being of our country and equal opportunity for all Canadians. Canada is welcoming fewer and fewer people in need and refugees because of this government's incomprehensible decisions. We are losing our identity bit by bit, an identity that people abroad appreciated and respected, because of measures that the government is hiding in various omnibus bills. That is unfortunate.

I would like to have the opportunity to consult with Conservative members to see if they know what they are voting on. I am certain that the vast majority of them have absolutely no idea what is in Bill C-31. It is more than 350 pages long, so I doubt that they have read the entire thing. It is easy for them because the Prime Minister's Office feeds them lines and then they regurgitate them in public. They have done a great job so far.

We in the NDP are insisting on our right to debate in the House and raise our constituents' concerns. We want to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. The Conservatives are becoming increasingly complacent and do not seem to be taking that aspect of our work seriously anymore. I think it is abusive.

Earlier this week, we moved a motion that clearly criticized the Conservatives' systematic abuse of public funds, specifically in relation to the use of Challenger jets. That is another ethical problem that proves that the Conservatives do not care about the real interests of Canadians.

This budget does not contain a single measure to create new jobs. What is worse, it eliminates the small business hiring tax credit that was proposed by the NDP. In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are a lot of small businesses. Once again, the government is eliminating a good idea that was proposed by the NDP. It is very easy for the Conservatives to say that we vote against all of their measures. Offering a small gift here and there in an inherently insulting document does not mean that the opposition will vote for the bill. It is outrageous. If I were the Conservatives, I would be embarrassed to use that type of argument to try and discredit the opposition.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The House resumed from April 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague from Huron—Bruce for sharing his time with me and for his very informative and well-researched speech. It was very good.

I am honoured to add my voice in support of today's debate on Bill C-31, which proposes to legislate key elements of economic action plan 2014.

Economic action plan 2014 would play a key role in strengthening Canada's economy now and in the future, with positive measures that would advance economic progress and prosperity. Today I would like to highlight some of the act's key measures that target the financial sector.

Canadians should be proud of our financial services sector. It plays a fundamental role, transforming savings into productive investment in the economy; facilitating the efficient management of risk; and providing the payment infrastructure necessary for the exchange of goods, services,and financial assets.

Canada's financial system is widely considered one of the most resilient and best-regulated in the world. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has recognized our banking system as the soundest in the world. Moreover, five Canadian financial institutions were among the top 20 in Bloomberg's most recent list of the world's strongest financial institutions, which is more than any other country.

Since the start of the global financial crisis, the government has implemented a number of measures to maintain Canada's financial sector advantage. These measures are designed to reinforce the stability of the sector and to encourage competition. Today's legislation proposes new initiatives that would build on Canada's financial sector advantage.

We have Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime. This measure, as I have just said, concerns strengthening Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime. Our government is committed to a strong and comprehensive regime that is at the forefront of the global fight against money laundering and terrorist financing and that safeguards the integrity of Canada's financial system and the safety and security of Canadians. Canada's regime remains strong and effective and is consistent with international standards. However, it is important to continually improve Canada's regime to address emerging risks, including virtual currencies, such as Bitcoin, to strengthen Canada's international leadership in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

Following an extensive multi-year review process, our government is proposing various updates, including enhancing the ability of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to disclose to federal partners threats to the security of Canada, consistent with the government's response to the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182. This measure would help keep Canadians safe and would strengthen our financial institutions against white-collar crime.

Next, let us talk about the co-operative capital markets regulator. While Canada's financial system has been rated one of the soundest in the world, we have a capital markets regulatory system that can and must be improved. At a time when talented people and sought-after capital are flowing across borders as never before, competition in financial markets today is fierce. If we want Canadians to succeed in the global marketplace, we need to continually improve our system. Critics of the current system believe that it is overly complex, inefficient, and a barrier to foreign investment in Canada, and they are right. That is why, last September, our government and the Governments of British Columbia and Ontario agreed to establish a co-operative capital markets regulator. In fact, Terry Campbell, president of the Canadian Bankers Association, applauded today's move by the Governments of Canada, British Columbia, and Ontario to establish a co-operative capital markets regulator, which would offer improved investor protection and greater efficiencies in capital markets in participating provinces.

He further stated that:

We appreciate the federal government's perseverance and leadership on this important economic issue as Canada's current fragmented system puts us out of step with other countries around the world. Today's announcement by these three governments is a significant first step and we encourage other provinces to participate in the proposed system.

Today's legislation includes authority for payments to eligible provinces and territories for costs related to the transition to the co-operative capital markets regulatory system. The co-operative regulator will better protect investors, enhance Canada's financial services sector, support more efficient capital markets, and more effectively manage systemic risk in national capital markets.

Along with British Columbia and Ontario, our government continues to invite all other provinces and territories to participate in the implementation of the co-operative system.

In recent budgets, the government has introduced a number of measures to strengthen Canada's regulatory regime for over-the-counter derivatives consistent with its G20 commitments. Canada's major banks, the largest participants in this market, are subject to effective prudential supervision by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on their over-the-counter derivatives transactions. Major jurisdictions are deciding whether to let foreign banks transact over-the-counter derivatives in their markets based on Canadian rules or their own rules.

Bill C-31 would amend the Bank Act to create an explicit regulation-making power for banks regarding over-the-counter derivatives. This would facilitate the integration and consolidation of over-the-counter derivatives regulations with the co-operative capital markets regulator when it becomes operational. It would also make it easier for foreign regulators to assess the Canadian regulatory framework in their equivalency determinations, which would benefit Canadian banks when transacting with foreign counterparties.

Our government has taken significant steps to make our financial system more stable, reduce systemic risks, and ensure we have the flexibility and power to support financial institutions during a crisis.

For example, in budget 2008, our government modernized the authorities of the Bank of Canada to support the stability of the financial system. The bank used these enhanced powers to redistribute liquidity to financial institutions, a key element in preserving the flow of credit to Canadians and businesses during the so-called “credit crunch”.

Bill C-31 builds on initiatives such as this by proposing amendments to permit the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Lastly, I want to briefly highlight how our government is making Canada an even better place to create and expand a business. For example, promoting the exploration of Canada's rich mineral resources by junior mining companies offers important benefits in terms of job creation and economic development right across the country, including rural and northern communities.

Economic action plan 2014 is building on the responsible resource development plan launched in economic action plan 2012 with new and renewed measures to support further investments in Canada's natural resource sectors. For example, the 15% mineral exploration tax credit helps junior mineral exploration companies raise capital by providing an incentive to investors in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration.

The Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia noted that it is pleased to see the return of the mineral exploration tax credit in the budget: “Many of our members are having difficulty raising capital in these financially challenging times, and the renewal is much appreciated”.

To conclude, our government will remain focused on what matters to Canadians: jobs and economic growth. Ensuring Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I will use my time today to express my general disagreement with yet another omnibus bill, now the trademark of the Conservatives, unfortunately. I will talk specifically about some provisions in the bill that are particularly worrisome and disappointing to the people in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

First of all, I would like to loudly and clearly denounce much of the content of the bill and the process used by the Conservatives to make radical legislative changes at lightning speed. Not only does the budget implementation bill contain no real job creation measures, but Parliament cannot do its job, given that the Conservatives introduce omnibus bills and use gag orders to excess.

How can Canadians expect us to do our jobs thoroughly and be able to measure up to their expectations if the government is constantly cutting off the debates we are supposed to have here in the House? Why has the Conservative government imposed gag orders 60 times since the beginning of this Parliament, if not to muzzle parliamentarians and Canadians, in addition to setting the sad record of having the highest number of gag orders in Canadian history? How can we look our constituents in the eye when they know that it is impossible to thoroughly examine the changes that the government is imposing because it is burying them in bills that are more than 350 pages long and amend over 500 sections and dozens of acts?

Once again, the bill is about to drastically change the face of Canadian legislation, and it deserves to be studied carefully by parliamentarians, together with civil society and experts who must be consulted. This is something the government seems to ignore every time it introduces a new bill. In addition to omnibus bills, the second trademark of the Conservatives seems to be imposing unilateral decisions, without consulting anyone other than perhaps Kijiji when the time comes to justify their misguided economic policies.

That said, in recent weeks, I have spent a lot of time in my riding taking the pulse of the constituents and finding out what their real concerns are. The first of their real concerns is that the government continues to impose radical austerity measures, simply because the Conservatives want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers and the provinces just in time for the next election. My constituents know very well that all the cuts and the austerity measures are basically all about electioneering and do nothing to improve our standard of living in the long run.

The constituents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles are also concerned about employment, health and the economy. In my constituency, many small businesses are struggling to grow, be profitable and contribute to the economy of our community. However, the government is not renewing the hiring tax credit for small business that the NDP first proposed in 2011. Moreover, the Conservatives still have no strategy to propose that will help the 1.3 million Canadians who are currently without jobs.

The government can blow its own horn about being a champion of economic policies, but the figures are clear. We have 6.3 unemployed Canadians for each available job; in the Atlantic provinces, that figure rises to 10 for each available job.

My constituents want good, full-time jobs with salaries that can provide a decent standard of living. However, from what I hear in the street, they are having more and more difficulty making ends meet. They often have to turn to credit so that they can make it to the end of the month, because their salaries are stagnant, their costs are going up, and they are not able to provide themselves with a cushion in case of unforeseen expenses.

The debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed by almost 10% since 1999. During that time, credit card and car loan debt has doubled, and debt held in lines of credit has quadrupled. The government just twiddles its thumbs, though. Why has it not adopted the measures proposed by the NDP, designed to make life more affordable and to reduce household debt by means of solid regulations that will put a stop to the abusive practices of banks, money lenders and credit card companies?

The budget implementation bill also unfortunately highlights the fact that the Conservatives have grasped nothing and have learned no lessons from the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic last summer. Whole families were shattered forever and the community had to endure one of the worst railway disasters that Canada has ever seen.

Instead of enhancing rail safety measures, the government is now allowing many rail safety regulations to be changed or repealed without public notice. This might involve engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance or performance.

Worse yet, cabinet decisions on changing safety standards for the transportation of dangerous goods will be kept secret from now on. This might involve the classification of dangerous goods, inspector skills and training, or rules on importing and exporting such goods.

From now on, with these changes, the public will not be informed when the Conservatives water down safety measures, and experts will not be able to provide their opinion to the department before the changes come into effect.

This change is rather ironic considering that at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a member, we are currently studying ways of improving access to government data in order to promote economic development. In my opinion, this is a rather underhanded way of applying a double standard on data sharing. From what I understand, the government wants more transparency when that suits its agenda, but it is tightening its grip on information that should be available to the public. After all, it is their safety we are talking about.

Still with the dangerous goods registry, this bill makes substantial amendments to the Hazardous Products Act, in order to harmonize it with American laws and apply only some of the new international standards in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. I think consumers and workers have the right to know what is in the products that they use every day. I cannot imagine why the government is refusing to apply the strictest international standards.

All these changes are in Bill C-31, and they do not meet the needs of the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. My constituents are also exasperated with other measures being introduced by this government, such as the electoral “deform”, which is grossly undermining our democracy, the senseless cuts to Canada Post, and the Conservatives' inaction on important issues such as the Quebec Bridge, the environment, and the tax havens where well-off Canadians are hiding their money.

Let us not forget the $36 billion in cuts to health, which will have a huge impact on the quality of the services provided to individuals and our seniors.

All these things combined are causing the public to become disillusioned with our role as parliamentarians and with our institutions. Unfortunately, this is creating cynicism that only the Conservatives can take pride in fuelling.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to repeat what the NDP thinks makes sense in terms of public policy and, at the same time, what should be in a budget when Canada is facing the kind of economic, environmental and social challenges we are facing today. Unfortunately, our recommendations fell on deaf ears during the budget consultations.

In the NDP, we believe that the government needs to invest in innovation, economic development and high-quality jobs for the middle class. It needs to work with the private sector to help Canadian businesses grow, create jobs and increase their exports. It should continue to use the current job creation credit for SMEs.

Canada should also work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle unemployment and recurring structural underemployment among young people and strengthen sectors where labour shortages are anticipated.

In terms of energy, Canada would benefit from doing a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production. The government would also do well to reintroduce the eco-energy retrofit--homes program, which was very popular and helped homeowners save money while protecting the environment.

With respect to workers at the end of their career, the retirement age needs to be brought back to 65. People who have worked hard all their lives need to be given access to old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement so that they can have a decent retirement.

Once again, is the government going to listen to Canadians and agree to what they are asking for? I wonder. In the meantime, I can only fiercely oppose this bill, which offers nothing that will help the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles prosper and improve their situation.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today in support of Bill C-31.

We Canadians are tremendously privileged to live in a country with such an abundance of natural resources. So much so, in fact, that the harnessing of those resources has had a direct link to our nation's prosperity.

Canada's manufacturing sector will be the focus of my speech today in support of economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. It is but one example of a sector that has benefited tremendously from our land's abundance of natural resources. Manufacturing in Canada began with the production of simple items in small volumes. This was due primarily to our geographic diversity and to the absence of large consumer markets. Confederation in 1867 dramatically changed this sporadic consumer landscape, stimulating growth not only in Canada's manufacturing sector, but indeed in Canada's entire economy.

Following Confederation came the Canadian Pacific Railway, which led to new settlements and further increased our nation's population, skills, and capital. In 1871, a group dedicated to promoting the growth of manufacturing in Canada came together to establish the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association. Eight years later, Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy introduced high tariffs on imported manufactured items in order to protect Canada's manufacturing sector. This policy was instrumental not only to the development of Canada's manufacturing sector but also in creating a unified nation, independent of the United States.

The horrors of World War I brought about drastic diversification to manufacturing in Canada, as developments in the steel, shipbuilding, and pulp and paper industries reached unfathomable heights. By 1920, manufacturing directly employed about 17% of Canada's total labour force.

World War II brought about even more expansion and diversification to Canada's manufacturing sector, including to the automotive, aircraft, armaments, shipbuilding, and steel industries. By the mid-40s, more than a quarter of Canada's labour force was directly employed in the manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing also contributed significantly to the economic well-being and prosperity of all Canadians in the 20th century, accounting for a high of 24% and a low of 15% of Canada's GDP between 1945 and 1999.

The 21st century, unfortunately, has not been so kind to Canada's—and indeed the global—manufacturing sector. In fact, between 2004 and 2008, about one in seven manufacturing jobs disappeared across Canada, with similar declines experienced in the majority of OECD member countries. Contributing factors included production moving to countries such as China, an aging population, tariff reduction and, of course, the 2008 financial crisis.

Despite this downward trend, manufacturing is still a major contributor to the Canadian economy, accounting for almost 11% of Canada's GDP and employing over 1.7 million Canadians, with more than 95% of them being full-time, high-quality, well-paying jobs.

While manufacturing is centred on the production of goods, most Canadians do not realize that most high-value growth opportunities lie in the area of services, in such activities as research, engineering, design, marketing, and logistics. As such, manufacturing is an important source of innovation and global competitiveness for Canada, accounting for almost half of total business R & D expenditures. Incidentally, advanced manufacturing and strong knowledge-intensive industrial clusters continue to drive innovation and productivity across Canada.

The manufacturing sector employs a healthy mix of highly skilled Canadians in engineering, design, skilled trades, and research positions. In fact, the sector employed more than 58,000 R & D personnel in 2011, or 41% of all research personnel in Canada. Incidentally, the new Canada job grant will better align training and labour market needs by encouraging greater employer participation in skills training decisions and ensuring that training is better aligned with job opportunities, particularly in sectors facing skills mismatches and labour shortages, in sectors like manufacturing.

Along with the Canada job grant, our government has introduced a number of measures to continue strengthening the competitiveness of our manufacturing sector. These include reducing the corporate income tax rate to 15% from 22%, extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for two years, eliminating tariffs on machinery, simplifying and streamlining the SR&ED tax incentive program, and doubling the IRAP program to an additional $110 million per year.

Economic action plan 2014 outlines a number of new measures that would do even more to assist this vital sector. These include building on the work of the red tape reduction commission by reducing the tax compliance and regulatory burden for small and medium-sized businesses; providing an additional $500 million over two years to the automotive innovation fund to support significant new strategic research and development projects and long-term investments in the Canadian automotive sector; moving forward with the new Windsor-Detroit international crossing; investing in federal bridges in Montreal to support the movement of goods, to create construction jobs, and to strengthen the manufacturing sector; creating the new Canada first research excellence fund, with $1.5 billion in funding over the next decade, available to all post-secondary institutions striving to excel globally in research areas that create long-term economic advantages for Canada; and finally, creating the Canada apprentice loan by expanding the Canada student loans program to help registered apprentices in Red Seal trades.

The manufacturing sector is responsible for 64% of total Canadian merchandise exports and is the number one sector for foreign direct investment in Canada. It accounted for 29% of total FDI in 2012. That is why our government is committed to opening new markets through our ambitious trade agenda. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, agreed to in principle on October 18, 2013, and the free trade agreement with South Korea, which concluded negotiations on March 11 of this year, are but two of the most recent examples.

Combined, these agreements open markets to hundreds of millions of consumers globally and are expected to boost Canada's economy by $13.7 billion. Put another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding over $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or around 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

Incidentally, since taking office in 2006, our government has signed and entered into force five free trade agreements. These include the free trade agreement between Canada and the countries of the European Free Trade Association: Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. It also includes agreements with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama. In addition, Canada signed an agreement with Honduras on November 5, 2013, but this has yet to enter into force. All of these agreements have included the lowering and elimination of tariffs on various Canadian exports, which significantly benefits Canada's manufacturing sector.

Canada's automotive industry is a key component of Canada's manufacturing sector. It employs about 480,000 Canadians directly and indirectly and represents 10% of manufacturing GDP. Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's world-class automotive sector continues to have the right conditions for growth, not only in sales and jobs but also in cutting-edge technology, research, and development. The automotive innovation fund will create and maintain well-paying, good-quality jobs by supporting private sector investment in the Canadian automotive sector, increasing Canada's competitive advantage in the global marketplace. In total, the renewed fund will provide $750 million over five years, 2013 to 2018, to automotive companies in Canada in support of strategic large-scale research and development projects.

While Canada's manufacturing sector is going through some tough times, it will remain a critical component of Canada's economy. The production, sale, and distribution of finished products will continue to contribute to consumer and labour markets and to secure Canada's position as an economic leader among developed nations.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Don Valley West.

I rise today to show my support for Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1. I am pleased to see our government continue to focus so squarely on the economic challenges facing our citizens, our communities, and our country as a whole.

Bill C-31 will implement key measures of the economic action plan 2014 to help create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, and to return our nation's finances to balanced budgets.

Through the steady leadership of our Prime Minister, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries in recent years, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Here are the facts. Over one million net new jobs have been created in Canada since the end of the recession in July 2009, of which 85% are full-time and nearly 80% in the private sector. Over that period, that has been the strongest job growth in the entire G7 by far. Canadians have also enjoyed the strongest income growth in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have more than fully recovered its business investment lost during the recession.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 in the years ahead.

For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. Moreover, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in the Bloomberg ranking of the most attractive countries for businesses to grow.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Canada is the only G7 country to have a rock solid AAA rating and a stable outlook from all major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. Canada's net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far. It is an impressive track record.

Throughout the year, I am always having discussions and consultations in my riding, the City of Barrie, talking to stakeholders about what they believe is in the best interests of Canada and what we can do to continue to spur economic growth.

I feel that the concerns in Barrie are pretty similar to those we see across the country in small communities. What is important in Barrie is that we focus on ensuring that good jobs are available, that taxes are kept low, and that sensible investments continue to be made to achieve our common goals of long-term growth and prosperity.

There have been many positive investments in communities across Canada in previous budgets. This budget does just that and continues that track record of strategic, smart investments.

I would like to give a few local examples. Federal investments in companies like IBM, with their university partnership, created over 100 jobs in my community; TNR Industrial Doors had a major expansion because of the support of the regional economic development agency; and Wolf Steel, which builds high-efficiency furnaces, doubled in size because of a partnership with the federal government, creating high-tech, high-paying jobs. Furthermore, my favourite local story, Southmedic, was able to move their factory from China back to Barrie. That was certainly a positive sign.

We have learned from these success stories that we must continue to work towards generating more manufacturing jobs in Barrie and across Canada, and that is achievable. Economic action plan 2014 is keeping us on that path to success.

Our Minister of International Trade attended as the keynote guest and spoke about how expanding our trade relationships can create a greater audience for manufacturers to sell their products and create jobs locally. It was a great summit. I know there was a lot of support at the summit for the economic action plan we have built because they recognize that it helps businesses in a meaningful way.

Many of the businesses at this manufacturing summit were small to medium-size businesses. They appreciated the government's commitment to further cut red tape for operations by eliminating the requirement for payroll remittances, and to support made-in-Canada products.

Companies, big and small, were all elated that we were reducing trade barriers within Canada and across the globe for the sale of their products. These stakeholders understand that these measures grow their businesses and allow them to hire more Canadians.

It is not just the manufacturing community that was pleased with our budget, but young people as well.

I am pleased to see that economic action plan 2014 confirmed our government's support for youth employment by investing $40 million for up to 3,000 internships in high-demand fields and $15 million for up to 1,000 internships in small and medium-size businesses. We are once again demonstrating our commitment to help our youth make a successful transition from school to work.

Each year, Barrie welcomes thousands of new students at Georgian College. I know they were very pleased with this budget and what it would do to help students.

Economic action plan also continues to support our seniors with an additional $5 million for the new horizons for seniors program so that more seniors can actively participate in their communities. I have seen firsthand how well this program works. I know about 30 new horizons grants that have occurred in Barrie over the last eight years and they are huge successes.

I think of the Tollendale seniors home where new horizons grants helped to finance a computer lab to connect seniors with relatives all over the world and actually trained seniors at Tollendale on computers. It was an absolute hit. At the IOOF seniors home, there was an art for the ages program. There were people who were struggling with early onset dementia, and having an active lifestyle, including things like painting, actually helps delay the onset. That was another fantastic new horizons investment. To see this program grow, I think, is a wonderful thing for Canadian seniors.

Economic action plan 2014 did something else, since I just touched upon Alzheimer's, that I want to highlight.

The economic action plan included a $15 million commitment to a neurodegeneration consortium on aging. This reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my constituents, Ed Harper, who was actually a member of Parliament from 1993–97.

Just a few months ago, Ed lost his wife, Rosemary, and I attended the funeral. He told me that he was writing a letter to our Prime Minister. He tremendously believed in our Prime Minister and knows what a great job he is doing for the country. However, he wrote a letter to talk about the need for more coordination on Alzheimer's funding and neurodegenerative research.

I know that he was one of the many Canadians who were so pleased to see that $15 million allocated. I think Mr. Ed Harper's comments highlight a feeling that many Canadians have.

There are so many positive initiatives in this budget that it is difficult to touch upon all of them in the short time we have allotted to us. This is a budget that supports our commercial sectors. It supports our workers, seniors, and families across Canada.

I want to stress what I think is most important about this budget, and something that is tremendously appreciated in Barrie, which is that it puts us on an immediate track for balanced budgets. That is very impressive, given the global economic recession that took every country in the world off course. I think it is really a feather in the cap for our former Minister of Finance who did such an incredible job of shepherding the Canadian economy. I know that our new Minister of Finance and his team are going to do an incredible job in laying out the vision that was put forward in Bill C-31.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-31 began this morning. However, because of the scope of the provisions, which cover not only budgetary and fiscal matters, but also justice and immigration, I believe it is clear and appropriate that the bill should be divided at some point, so that it can be carefully studied.

For that reason, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures be amended by removing the following clauses: a) clauses 99 to 101 related to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. intergovernmental agreement on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act; b) clauses 102 to 107 related to compensation for Canadian veterans; c) clauses 110 to 162 related to changes to the Hazardous Products Act;

d) clauses 175 to 192, related to changes to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act and the Enterprise Cape Beton Corporation; e) clauses 206 to 209, related to Nordion and Theratronics, referring to ownership restrictions; f) clauses 212 to 233, related to regulatory changes to motor vehicle safety and rail safety; g) clauses 234 to 237, related to regulatory changes to food safety;

h) clauses 239 to 241 related to the capping of wireless roaming rates; i) clauses 299 to 307 related to changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the temporary foreign workers program; j) clauses 308 to 310 related to the definition of “essential services” under the Public Service Labour Relations Agreement; k) clauses 317 to 370 related to changes to the Trademarks Act and Registrar of Trademarks; l) clauses 371 to 374 related to restrictions of admissibility for immigrants to the guaranteed income supplement; m) clause 375 related to the replacement of the Champlain Bridge; n) clauses 376 to 482 related to the consolidation of staffing for all administrative tribunals in the federal public administration;

that the clauses mentioned in section a) of this motion do compose Bill C-33; that Bill C-33 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Finance; that the clauses mentioned in section b) of this motion do compose Bill C-34; that Bill C-34 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; that the clauses mentioned in section c) of this motion do compose Bill C-35; that Bill C-35 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section d) of this motion do compose Bill C-36; that Bill C-36 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section e) of this motion do compose Bill C-37; that Bill C-37 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section f) of this motion do compose Bill C-38; that Bill C-38 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities;

that the clauses mentioned in section g) of this motion do compose Bill C-39; that Bill C-39 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Health; that the clauses mentioned in section h) of this motion do compose Bill C-40; that Bill C-40 be deemed read the first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section i) of this motion do compose Bill C-41; that Bill C-41 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration;

that the clauses mentioned in section j) of this motion do compose Bill C-42; that Bill C-42 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that the clauses mentioned in section k) of this motion do compose Bill C-43; that Bill C-43 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section l) of this motion do compose Bill C-44; that Bill C-44 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

that the clauses mentioned in section m) of this motion do compose Bill C-45; that Bill C-45 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Community; that the clauses mentioned in section n) of this motion do compose Bill C-46; that Bill C-46 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

and that Bill C-31 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-31 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the House is currently focusing on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity by debating Bill C-31, the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, at second reading.

This debate will continue tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday, with members of Parliament having an opportunity that night to vote on this bill to enact key measures of our low-tax plan for jobs and growth in the Canadian economy.

I am currently setting aside next Wednesday and Friday for debate on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights. This important and much needed piece of legislation would give victims their rightful place in our justice system: at its heart. The Conservative Party has long stood alone in putting the rights and interests of victims ahead of those of criminals.

Also, I would like to note that Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, has been making good progress in committee this week. Should that bill be reported back to the House next week, I will make time for its consideration if we are able to enjoy the same level of co-operation that we saw at second reading last Friday, when it was passed by the House after we heard from a speaker from each party.

Finally, Thursday, April 10, shall be the second allotted day. I understand that we will debate a Liberal motion on that day. Perhaps the hon. member for Papineau will ask the House to debate his definition of middle class. In fact, it appears he could have a vigorous debate on that issue with himself that would fill the entire day. I eagerly await to see if his newest definition of the middle class will still include the CEOs of the big banks. I am confident that his caucus will stand ready to move an amendment to that motion if, during the course of the day, his definition changes yet again.

I noticed today in question period that we heard yet another definition of middle class. It is that one magical person who happens to make the median income in Canada. At least that way the middle class is easily defined and the number of people who are middle class is unlikely to change. It is one person, and that is a number that I know the member for Papineau will be able to grasp. He will be able to remember the number one. It is easier than remembering the thousands of billions number that he is also fond of.

I am also confident that he will not choose as the subject of debate the matter of eliminating the budget deficit. After all, he says the budget will balance itself.

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the minister of state's argument, it is that the Conservatives are just like the former Liberal government, only on steroids. Is that his argument in defence of this action?

This omnibus budget implementation act, which follows a long series of similar bills, is over 350 pages and almost 500 clauses in length, and contains so many changes that have never been brought forward in a budget bill. I just want to highlight two that are of particular concern to so many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, and I am sure members are hearing this across the country.

First of all, with the changes around FATCA, a totally new bill is housed within Bill C-31 that would affect so many people who happen to hold Canadian-American citizenship, and is doing so without answering vital questions around privacy and what it would mean to people's private banking information. We need to have a thorough debate on that.

A second change is to rail safety. My riding is bounded by three railway lines, and people are very concerned about rail safety. When I read in the bill that the government would be able to change and repeal a wide variety of railway safety regulations without even telling the public, I think Canadians deserve a debate on that.

My question for the minister of state is how can he justify suppressing the democratic right to debate such fundamental changes the Conservative government would make?

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

Mr. Speaker, with my hard-working, results-oriented constituents in mind, to facilitate the certainty of being able to come to a decision on this bill, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, not more than three further sitting days after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the third day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. It is not often that I rise during debates on legislation, but I want to share a few thoughts on this particular bill. That is because I believe this bill and our recent budget, which it would implement, are of particular importance to my constituents in York—Simcoe.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, our government has stayed true to our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and has remained determined to see our plan through.

Last Friday, I was proud to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. It constitutes our latest initiative, focusing on our key priorities: creating jobs and economic growth, supporting and protecting families, and returning to balanced budgets in 2015. This bill would implement initiatives to connect my constituents with available jobs, invest in infrastructure, and expand our focus on trade and responsible resource development.

My constituents are pleased to see action connecting them with available jobs and fostering job creation. York—Simcoe is a hard-working riding. People are proud to work with their hands to do real things to see a positive result at the end of a day of hard work. This is a budget for them and for their children.

Apprenticeship training plays an important role in Canada's education system, and is a key provider of the vital skills and knowledge necessary to power and grow the Canadian economy. Recognizing this, economic action plan 2014 no. 1 would provide apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 for a period of technical training. I want to ensure that my young constituents are given real opportunities to find jobs and build careers. Many are doing so, getting jobs in Ontario or courageously striking out and moving west for opportunity. In either case, I want them to be given that chance.

In York—Simcoe, we are experienced with the use of temporary foreign workers. The country's most valuable market gardening in our fertile Holland Marsh muck soils depends heavily on temporary foreign workers from abroad who fill tasks that are impossible to get filled locally, but that has always been done carefully. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen failures in the temporary foreign workers program elsewhere in Canada, where officials have approved foreign workers despite the ready availability of Canadians qualified and willing to do the work. Some of my constituents have been affected by this situation.

It is not acceptable. Our government remains committed to a temporary foreign worker program that operates in the national interest, so included in this bill are measures to ensure that Canadians would be given the first opportunity at available jobs by strengthening the labour market opinion process.

The bill also would continue our commitment to support families like those in York—Simcoe. In last year's Speech from the Throne, we committed to lower prices and greater competition in the telecommunications market. In this bill, we would make significant progress by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates. Further support for families is included through a proposed increase, to $15,000, of the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to help make adoption more affordable for families.

We would also make changes to ensure the tax system reflects the evolving nature of the health care system and the health care needs of Canadians. This includes exempting naturopathic doctors and acupuncturist services from the goods and services tax, or the harmonized sales tax, as it is in Ontario now. In York—Simcoe, my constituents increasingly rely on alternative health care providers, and this measure would help them in real and tangible ways.

The measures set out in economic action plan 2014 have one very important element in common with all of our previous budgets: they will produce results for Canadians and their economy.

In 2009, after the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, our government introduced its first economic action plan. Since then, the economic policies that we have put in place through our economic action plans have been extraordinarily successful. The reality is that Canada is an economic leader among the major developed countries of the G7. While economic uncertainty is still a reality for many developed economies, our economic action plans have enabled Canada to recoup all of the jobs lost during the recession, and more.

Since our first economic action plan, our government has created more than a million net new jobs. That is the strongest job growth performance of all the G7 countries during the recovery. Nearly all of the jobs created since 2009 have been full-time positions, 85% are in the private sector and over two-thirds are in high-paying industries.

As well, Canada's real gross domestic product is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7 again.

Despite all of these accomplishments and despite what is obviously a plan that works for Canadians and their economy, the opposition continues to oppose our important economic initiatives at every opportunity.

Most important to York—Simcoe is the fact that this budget bill has us on track to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget in 2015. That matters to them because they understand that government debt is their debt, and they understand that when the opposition opposes our measures, it is because the opposition wants bigger government, higher spending, higher taxes, more deficits, and deeper debt. This is not what York—Simcoe residents want from Ottawa.

From my time as the Minister of International Trade, I can tell the House that our government's ability to propose concrete measures to complement our already sound framework and to steer them through Parliament in a timely manner makes Canada stand out among developed economies.

In contrast, in many other countries saw political paralysis rein and governments collapse. All the while those other domestic economies cried out for help. People abroad would say to me that they had confidence in Canada's government. Contrasting us with the U.S. and much of Europe, they would say that at least we can get things done in Canada.

Getting things done has been an important hallmark of this government. We have actively worked to facilitate a hard-working, orderly, and productive House of Commons. In York—Simcoe, constituents usually ask me why it takes so long to get things done in Parliament. They tell me that they elected us to make decisions.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and those who elected him to Parliament. He does an exceptional job.

I would like him to comment for us on the tax credit that has not been renewed in the Bill C-31. This is the tax credit the NDP proposed in 2011 that stimulates job creation by helping small business with hiring. As the Conservatives should know, when small businesses in Canada do well, Canada does well.

Can my colleague tell us the consequences for small business if this tax credit is not renewed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-31. This is the fourth budget implementation bill that I have had the opportunity to discuss and debate in my tenure as deputy critic for finance and international trade for the official opposition.

A fairly obvious trend has emerged with these budget bills that I have debated. There is a pattern or a modus operandi, if you will.

I am going to do something that the government rarely does when debating the budget bill: I am going to discuss the budget bill. The last two speakers did not talk about it. In fact, they used the precious time of this House to talk about the budget and initiatives and also to pat themselves on the back, while ignoring the most negative aspects and this government's often poor record on the economy.

I was saying that there is a trend that has emerged with these budget implementation bills. I have noticed that the government routinely adheres to eight criteria when it introduces such bills.

The first concerns size. Budget bills are always mammoth affairs. As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned, the English version of the bill is 350 pages long, and the French version is even longer, at 380 pages.

Not only is the size—380 pages—absolutely incredible, but what the bill covers is absolutely incredible because it talks about a lot of things.

Size is one of the criteria. There are 380 pages in the French version. In the past, some bills have been 700 to 800 pages in length. One budget bill even reached 920 pages, if I am not mistaken. That seems to be one of the government's criteria in its attempt to confuse and expedite a complex process. It wants to get through it as quickly as possible and with as much confusion as possible. However, the government should tread carefully in this process.

The government's second criterion is that a budget implementation bill should create, eliminate or amend at least 10 laws. In this case, more than 50 laws are amended or created with a single bill.

At the end of the process, the House will vote on a series of measures. We can give only a single yes or no, not including the votes that took place at the reading stages or during committee work, which I will touch on later.

The third criterion that the government seems to adhere to in drafting its budget bills is that the bill must include several elements that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal matters. For example, this bill will amend the Judges Act and add four judges to the Quebec Superior Court and an extra one in Alberta. All of that is in a budget bill. Why does the government not want to introduce a bill to amend that act on its own, so that it can be studied independently? That is not the case here.

Using budget bills as a catch-all seems to be one of this government's tactics and a criterion for drafting such bills. People have spoken out against it. Many opposition speeches in the House quoted comments the Prime Minister made when he was in opposition and he strongly criticized the approach that he is now using on a regular basis.

The fourth criterion is that not only must the bill include several elements that have nothing to do with fiscal matters or the budget tabled, it must also create, not amend, laws that have nothing to do with the budget or fiscal issues. For example, the last three divisions of part 6 of the bill create three different laws, including one about the Champlain Bridge and one about the management of administrative tribunals. Those are extremely important elements that should, if we are talking about creating a law, be studied separately from a budget implementation bill.

The government seems to be favouring a fifth criterion. We have seen this a number of times in previous bills, and we are seeing it again here. The government thinks that a budget bill should put and concentrate new powers in the hands of various ministers. Last year, we saw bills that gave unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to the Minister of Finance, and to various ministers, in fact.

This time is no exception. Indeed, in the Hazardous Products Act amended by this bill, derivatives in securities will be amended by giving much more discretion to the ministers in question. Obviously, we can only engage in minimal discussion on the matter, because the bill is 350 pages long, and the government will push it through as quickly as possible. If the government stays on trend, which it usually does, it will start with a time allocation motion that is likely to come some time today or maybe tomorrow.

The government is using a sixth criterion. Actually, criteria 6, 7 and 8 are a lot alike. According to this sixth criterion, at least one legislative amendment should be in a bill like this one to restrict the rights of workers. This was systematic in previous bills and it is this time, too, since changes are being made to the Hazardous Products Act. The bill will amend features relating to occupational health and safety, as in previous bills that also restricted the rights of workers. These bills not only restrict the rights of workers, but they restrict the rights of immigrants as well.

Two specific clauses in this bill will affect them significantly by taking away rights and things that immigrants in Canada have access to. Those clauses will therefore limit access to social programs—or the restrictions may even be related to eligibility issues.

Finally, there is an eighth and final criterion. It seems that this budget bill, like previous budget bills, absolutely must contain at least one measure related to the government's so-called law and order agenda. Why is such a measure being included in a budget bill? The reason is that the government thinks it can get away with including this measure without providing any real reasons for doing so.

The government does not take the role of the House seriously. I do not think that it takes the essential democratic nature of the House seriously. It has never done so and continues to disregard it. As I mentioned, the Conservatives plan to move a time allocation motion. They have done so systematically with every other budget bill and with all of the legislation they introduce. The Conservatives seem to think that debate in the House is a trivial matter. Right now, they have a majority and they can do what they want. They can vote how they want and use their majority to pass the various bills that they, as a government, have deemed to be a priority. What is left for us as the opposition in the House? What remains of the role of the House if the government ignores the specific nature of the House of Commons when debating bills?

The specific role that MPs play, regardless of whether there is a minority or majority government, is to debate the essence of the government's bills and proposals. That is the real value of the House. We do not debate for the fun of it or to fill the pages of Hansard but to determine what the strengths and weaknesses of the government's proposals are. We do not debate bills just so that we, as MPs, can get informed but so that the government can learn about any inherent weaknesses in its bills. It is only natural that there will be problems, since we are all human. The people who propose and draft bills are human. Some factors may have been overlooked or may not have been considered.

It is our role as the official opposition and as MPs on the other side of the House to point these things out to the government, whether it be through debates in the House or through the discussions that take place at meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is where budget implementation bills go to be examined.

The government is bypassing the entire process. At second reading, instead of allowing many members to participate in the debate, the government is limiting the number of speeches to 15 to 20 members, depending on the government's time allocation motion, or the gag order, as it is known in Quebec. The government is doing itself a disservice. With this approach, the government is hurting itself and the good governance of the country.

I still do not understand why it systematically acts in this way. Since it was elected in 2011, the government has imposed some 60 gag orders during the study of various bills. Why? What is the danger? We can debate those bills and find shortcomings, whether at second reading, at report stage or at third reading. This is an opportunity to rectify the situation and to prevent the government from doing itself a disservice.

The latest problems facing the government in its implementation of the provisions of the budget implementation bill are indicative of the weak position in which the government puts itself.

This budget implementation bill contains a major correction to a measure that we had denounced at the time and brought to the government's attention. Why did budget 2013 have to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals? Hospitals were excluded from that measure. In 2013, when the government brought it in, we said that it was a mistake.

The government should not try to tax hospitals, since they play a specific role and parking is a source of revenue for them, but certainly not a source of profit. However, the government turned a deaf ear and decided to impose the GST on the parking revenue of hospitals. Then the Conservatives realized that we were right and they were wrong. Budget 2014 and this bill are reversing that measure. They once again exempt hospitals from GST on their parking revenue.

Not only are the Conservatives backtracking after ignoring the opposition's recommendations, but they are also trying to hide their mistake, claiming that this is a new tax cut. However, this is a tax that they themselves imposed.

Let us be honest and recognize that no party in the House has a monopoly on truth; no party can claim never to have made a mistake. Let us recognize that we should work together to improve bills. We can disagree on the government's agenda for the economy. We have made no secret of that; we talk about it and debate it all the time. However, when it comes to implementing specific measures that affect all Canadians, we should take our role much more seriously.

I would like to give another example of something that happened in budget 2013 and subsequent implementation bills to show that the government does not learn from its mistakes. My colleague mentioned this, and it is worth bringing up again. I am talking about the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on the appointment of Marc Nadon. The government tried to change the rules retroactively in a section of its last budget implementation bill, which we talked about. Over and over in the House and the Standing Committee on Finance, we told them that, first of all, it had nothing to do with the budget and should be studied separately, and second, that they could not change the rules retroactively, that they got themselves in trouble and that they should fix the problem without resorting to the budget or trying to pass retroactive legislation that would have no impact. We were right, and the Supreme Court agreed. We predicted the Supreme Court's reaction.

Are those the only elements? No. Other mistakes have happened because the government forces us to study such huge, complicated bills so quickly. Last year, the government passed a measure to eliminate an exemption for credit unions and caisses populaires.

This involved a lower tax rate for not-for-profit credit unions, which were benefiting from a special tax exemption. Although they were being taxed at 11%, the government wanted to tax them at the overall corporate tax rate, 15%. However, the bill and the wording of the amendment were so botched that in the end, the government did not take certain details into account that would have brought the tax rate for these credit unions and caisses populaires not to 15%, but to 28%. They would have paid 13% more than chartered banks whose primary objective is to make a profit and pay dividends to their investors and shareholders.

That was the result of a process that completely ignores the role of the House and our role as parliamentarians, MPs and representatives of our constituents. We must act in their best interest, always taking into account the common good and all the consequences our actions can have for laws and regulations.

I will take the few minutes I have left to talk about a final point that, I think, demonstrates this government's blatant disregard for the process. We often hear about a democratic process. The government should adopt a process of good governance specifically with respect to budget bills. I would like to talk about how these issues are dealt with in committee.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. When we have to conduct certain important studies, we take our time in order to do them properly. That committee is currently examining the highly problematic issue of youth employment. We will be dedicating 10 committee meetings to it. Last year, we dedicated 12 committee meetings to the issue of tax credits for charitable organizations, to determine whether we could improve the process and enhance Canadians' contributions to charitable organizations.

When a bill of 350, 400 or 500 pages that amends 40, 50 or 60 laws comes to the Standing Committee on Finance, we may have four or five meetings at most, including meetings with the people responsible and with government representatives. Four or five meetings to discuss complex issues, such as FACTA, which could violate the privacy of thousands—if not tens of thousands—of Canadians who could be considered by the U.S. government as American citizens who owe taxes. These people could have their personal file handed over to the U.S. government without their knowledge, and they could end up owing a considerable amount of money, even though they no longer consider themselves to be American, even though they were in the past.

This issue alone should take at least four, five or six meetings. We spent six to eight meetings discussing tax havens, and FACTA, which I just mentioned, was a key part of the debate we had at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, this will be just one of many dozens and dozens of issues we will have to discuss in that committee.

The very first time the government introduced an omnibus bill, we called on the government to separate the bill into parts so that the parts could be discussed in the relevant committees. The government separated the bill, but it sent the parts to the committees—such as the immigration, public safety or justice committees—for one meeting. These committees do not even have the right to propose amendments that could then go back to the Standing Committee on Finance.

This made the whole process a farce, and the budget implementation bill, regardless of what this government says, is also a farce. I urge the government to take these issues seriously, not only for the House, but also for all Canadians, whom we represent. they have the right to a competent and transparent government. The government has always claimed to be that kind of government, so it should demonstrate that right now by separating this budget into different parts to ensure that it can be carefully studied by the committees responsible for these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-31, economic action plan 2014, no. 1.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook.

As the bill's short title would indicate, this piece of legislation would implement some of the measures passed in economic action plan 2014.

I have noted through the years that my opposition colleagues take exception to the term “economic action plan”. They are welcome to. While they are concerned with titles and labels, we on this side of the House are concerned with action on jobs, long-term growth, and continued prosperity for all Canadians. We have focused on reducing taxes for all Canadians; lowering government debt; increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; creating the best educated, most highly skilled, and flexible workforce in the world; and building the modern infrastructure that we need to compete abroad and enjoy living in livable communities at home.

These priorities were outlined in our first mandate in a document I would encourage all MPs to read. All Canadians would benefit from doing so. It is called “Advantage Canada”. It is available on the Department of Finance website. That document was written in better times, before the global recession. While times have changed, our priorities have not.

In the intervening years we have weathered the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression, but we stuck to our priorities, the priorities that Canadians elected us to address. Our commitment to that course has paid dividends for Canada. In every way that Canadians pay taxes, whether sales tax, income tax, or customs and tariffs, this government has lowered them.

We are now poised to return to a surplus fiscal position. I cannot over-emphasize how important it is that we return to this balanced budget and reduce our long-term debt charges.

We have reduced unnecessary regulations. We have made progress in cutting red tape. We have concluded major free trade agreements. We have invested an unprecedented amount in our post-secondary institutions and the skilled trades. Right across this great country, Canadians have seen their local infrastructure renewed, from wastewater facilities to community centres. Locally, this has meant unprecedented investments in Wilfrid Laurier University, my alma mater, as well as the world-renowned University of Waterloo and Canada's top polytechnic institute, Conestoga College.

New computer science and engineering facilities provide students the best environment to learn. Many of these students will become graduates who want to start one of the high-tech businesses for which Waterloo region is so well known. When they do, they can take advantage of the federally supported new Communitech Hub, which offers the latest technologies for their use as experts in building high-tech businesses.

When we talk about high-tech businesses, what we will build is beyond our imagination. Quantum computing and nanotechnology are just two of the bleeding-edge fields now being pursued thanks to significant support from this government. When I say it is beyond our ability to imagine, I clearly remember, when I was a school board trustee back in 1978, that the computer housed in the school board offices was huge. It occupied almost a full room. Today we can compute far more than that on these little devices we hold in our hands, which each one of us in the House is privileged to use. Not only will those kinds of technology advancements from 1978 increase again, but they may also possibly double or triple in quantity.

Community centres from St. Clements to Kitchener have been built or renovated. Highway 8, our connection to Highway 401, has had its capacity increased to handle the increased volume that comes with our region's explosive growth.

We have done all of this during the worst times the world has seen since World War II, while reducing taxes for Canadians, and without cutting support for health care or education like the previous government did.

Canada has outperformed every other G7 country in job creation thanks to this government's commitment to long-term prosperity, as identified in the five priorities I listed earlier. Canadians have also experienced the strongest real per capita growth in the G7.

As chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I am especially proud of the key investments our government has made to protect and preserve our natural habitats. This government has invested over $17 billion in clean transportation initiatives, renewable fuels, clean air, clean energy, energy efficiency, and green infrastructure. This bill would build on that legacy, making it easier and more affordable for Canadians to donate ecologically sensitive lands for preservation.

As I mentioned earlier, this budget would put us within a hair's breadth of a return to surplus. In our party, this is important. The leader of the third party claimed that budgets will simply balance themselves. While Canadians of a certain generation will remember that Pierre Trudeau had a similarly cavalier attitude toward budgets, many more Canadians will remember the painful actions it took to clean up the mess that Trudeau left. The truth is that it took decades for Canada to dig itself out of the hole that Trudeau left. If budgets balance themselves, why is the United States unable to do so; why is the Wynne government in my home province of Ontario unable to balance its books? Deficits and debts out of control, that is Pierre Trudeau's fiscal legacy.

Now, the leader of the third party wants to bring us back to that. We on this side of the House are preparing for a brighter future, not a return to the dark days of deficits and debts spiralling out of control. Not only were they spiralling out of control, but they were also followed by very drastic cuts to health care and education, which many people in this room and many, especially in Ontario, will still remember with a great deal of pain.

On this side of the House, and among a few members on that side—not today but usually—we believe in fiscal discipline. A balanced budget allows us to spend more of the tax dollars that we collect to serve Canadians, and means less for the bankers and bondholders who fund that debt. When the government borrows less, interest rates drop for Canadians who are seeking to borrow for a home or a car, and for provincial governments like my own that seem addicted to spending the money they do not have. That is our vision. Unlike the third party, we will not mortgage our children's and grandchildren's future in a vote-buying exercise.

We focus instead on the fundamentals. This act would make it easier for small businesses to grow and hire by reducing the amount of time and resources they must devote to administrivia, allowing them instead to focus on their business.

This act would make life a little easier for Canadians struggling with health issues, by making the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act more flexible for employees, and allowing compassionate care leave for employees with critically ill children.

As well, this act addresses an issue that has so infuriated Canadians of late. We have seen senators accused of serious irregularities being suspended by their peers. They have no staff, no offices, no responsibility, but they are still accumulating pensionable service. To average Canadians, the middle-class Canadians the third party struggles so hard to define, this does not reflect any reality they have ever experienced.

In my home of Waterloo Region, business people tell me that they cannot access the talent they need. This act would make it easier for Canadians to pursue a skilled trade by offering financial assistance to apprentices. These business people also tell me that the current system of training is broken, focused on filling seats and not on producing results. I was especially pleased when members of the Ontario government finally agreed to participate in the Canada jobs grant program.

We are focused on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. The budget this act would implement will move us further toward those goals. By every measure, under this government Canada's economy has outperformed the world.

I know that the members opposite are screaming from the rooftops that this budget is the end of the world. They have been sticking to that Chicken Little routine every budget since Canadians first gave us the responsibility of governing, but they have been wrong every year and are wrong again. They are again wrong this time, and the evidence is that our approach is working. I ask the members opposite, especially those who have served more than one term, to listen to themselves, review what they predicted about previous budgets, and then review what happened, to see how wrong they have been year after year. I do not have time to go into all of the evidence, but maybe during the questions I will.

Under this government, Canada has led the world. That may be an uncomfortable fact for the opposition members, but it is a fact they cannot deny.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This bill does not do anything for young people and for middle-class families. The youth unemployment rate is higher than it was before the recession. We have lost 255,000 jobs for young people since the recession. This will have a terrible long-term effect on the economy.

According to TD Economics there is a $23 billion cost to the Canadian economy as a result of the scarring effect of young Canadians not getting a good start. This is leading to an unprecedented level of unpaid internships and growth in inequality of opportunity. Bill C-31 would do nothing to address the challenges faced by young Canadians or middle-class families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31. This is the Conservatives' first bill to implement budget 2014. It is again another massive omnibus budget bill. It is 359 pages in length, with almost 500 separate clauses.

This bill includes a host of measures that have nothing to do with a budget bill in an effort to limit debate on important issues. Completely unrelated measures are grouped together in a single bill. The Conservatives chose this route in order to adopt these measures quickly and avoid having them reviewed by Parliament.

The inconsistency, and some would say hypocrisy, that the government is demonstrating is exemplified by the Prime Minister's own words as an opposition MP. I heard my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley refer to this quotation a few minutes ago.

In 1994, the Prime Minister, as an opposition MP, said in this House:

...in the interest of democracy, I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse?

He went on to say:

The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House. ... I would also ask government members...to give serious consideration to this issue of democracy....

The Liberal omnibus legislation that the then opposition member, now Prime Minister, was talking about at that time in 1994 was 21 pages in length and altered 11 pieces of legislation. That is a far cry from the 359-page document that lies before us today.

I cannot for the life of me understand how the Prime Minister, and others who were part of that Reform movement at that time, could live with themselves today when what they are doing goes far deeper against the principles that they articulated at that time.

The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force these policies through. They are ignoring public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are also potentially creating bad public policy, because the committees, wherein greater expertise lies and which ought to be considering and ultimately voting on these pieces of legislation, are being cut out of the discussion. Perhaps there is some level of engagement of committees when it comes to the evaluation of the legislation, but not at the critical points at which we vote at committee to pass these pieces of legislation.

We are being asked to consider measures, for instance, of compassionate leave, sickness benefits, search and rescue volunteers tax credits, expansion of the adoption expense tax credit, and medical expense tax credits. We would actually be quite supportive of many of these measures as individual measures, and it is unfortunate that these positive measures are being lumped together with some very unreasonable and harmful and regressive measures that we cannot support.

The bill also includes new rules around FATCA, the U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. Under the bill, Canadians effectively are going to be doing the dirty work and becoming tax collectors for the IRS. Canada-U.S. dual citizens are going to be punished if they do not provide their U.S. tax number to the CRA.

If these Canadians provide their U.S. tax numbers, the Canadian government will hand over all this information, together with information on the Canadians' bank accounts, to the U.S. This will help the U.S. collect tax on registered Canadian savings accounts, including RDSPs, registered disability savings plans; RESPs, registered education savings plans; and tax free savings accounts.

The other night when we were at the briefing by the Finance Canada public servants, they could not answer a very simple question, and that was whether the contributions made to RDSPs and RESPs by the Canadian government as matching grants would be considered taxable by the Americans. They could not answer that basic question.

It was never the public policy intention of RDSPs and RESPs to subsidize the American treasury. They are for helping Canadian families with members with disabilities and for helping young Canadians get good educations. Yet the Conservatives are incapable of answering that question. They have not stood up for Canadian interests during these negotiations.

The budget bill would also change rules around rail safety, food safety, and hazardous products.

It would centralize control over regional development in my part of the country and ACOA. It would take away the authority of regional boards in ACOA. It would dissolve those boards and move all the decision-making to Ottawa. It would dissolve ECBC without real consultation with communities, again centralizing decision-making in Ottawa on matters on which Atlantic Canadians, frankly, may have greater expertise and understanding.

The bill would also change the number of federal judges. We would think the government would have learned something from the Nadon fiasco. Ultimately, one of the casualties of previous budget implementation bills was the government's credibility when it came to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Members will recall that it was in a previous budget implementation act that the government changed the legislation, the Supreme Court Act, with regard to the appointment of judges to try to facilitate the appointment of Justice Nadon. We know how that ended up. It did not end well. The Supreme Court refused to go along with the government on that.

That is the kind of bad public policy outcome we have when we force all these unrelated measures through the House in an omnibus budget bill of this scale.

I want to talk a little bit about what is not in Bill C-31. There is very little in this piece of legislation to address some of the most serious concerns facing Canadian families today. There is little in the bill that would actually help struggling middle-class families who are having difficulty making ends meet. Conservatives have failed to recognize that large groups within the Canadian economy and society are being left out of this so-called economic recovery.

In my part of Nova Scotia, the Annapolis Valley, Stats Canada, which tracks unemployment and employment and labour figures, gives some very telling data. I represent Hants County, Kings County, and Annapolis County. Hants, Kings, and Annapolis are represented by me and the member for West Nova.

Since the recession, residents in this part of Nova Scotia have seen good-paying, full-time jobs replaced by temporary and part-time work. That data is laid out for us by Stats Canada. We have seen part-time jobs increase by 1,700. In the same period, the region has lost 9,800 full-time jobs. The percentage of residents in the area who are of working age and have a job, which is labour market participation, has plummeted from 61.6% to 54%.

This is what is happening in my part of Nova Scotia. We are seeing it in families. We are seeing it in small businesses.

We are seeing real economic challenges. The government seems out of touch when it talks about this recovery as if it were a monolithic recovery that is affecting and helping people in all regions of the country, because there are groups that are simply being left behind. A lot of families are struggling just to get by.

These Canadians are tired of the uncertainty. They are tired of struggling to find work to try to make ends meet when they have lost full-time jobs and have had to replace them with part-time work. They are facing record levels of personal debt. The average household in Canada now owes a record $1.66 for every $1 of disposable income. Instead of using this budget to help address some of these challenging needs of middle-class families, Conservatives continue to ignore them.

In the previous four Conservative budgets, the Conservatives actually raised taxes on hard-working Canadian families. Budget 2013 actually raised taxes on imported goods, everything from household goods to wigs for cancer patients. Sadly, the Conservatives raised taxes because they needed the money to cover for their waste and mismanagement. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, and millions to advertise a jobs program that did not even exist. Meanwhile, the middle class is struggling under record levels of personal debt, and the Conservatives are raising taxes on it just to support its own profligacy and wasteful spending on advertising.

Canadian youth are struggling. This bill ignores the unemployment and underemployment challenges of young Canadians. Due to Conservative inaction on youth unemployment and underemployment, we risk losing a generation of potential. We will feel the economic consequences of this disinterest in young Canadians for decades.

For young Canadians, there are 265,000 fewer jobs than there were before the downturn. TD Economics has estimated that prolonged high levels of unemployment and underemployment among young Canadians will cost the Canadian economy $23 billion.

For those who like to argue that youth unemployment is always bad following a recession, it is time to look beyond the simple unemployment rate and examine the whole story. For example, the gap between Canada's youth unemployment and adult unemployment has recently reached an all-time high. Our young people are simply being left out of this so-called recovery.

What is more, the unemployment rate does not reflect the fact that some young people are so discouraged that they are not even looking for work any more.

Students are having a harder time finding summer work. Many of them are taking unpaid internships just for work experience. A lack of paid work means that students are graduating from university with high levels of debt. The need today for government intervention and summer jobs, post-recession, is actually greater than it was before the downturn, yet the Canada summer jobs program last summer created half the number of summer jobs it did back in 2005.

The need is greater today, and the government is doing half as much to create jobs for students during the summer.

This is not just affecting young Canadians. It is affecting parents, and in many cases grandparents, who are footing the bills. According to TD Bank, more than half of baby boom parents are providing financial support to adult children who are no longer in school. It is nearly half, and 43% have allowed their adult children to live at home, rent-free, for extended periods of time.

Helping adult children make ends meet is actually leading a lot of middle-class families into greater levels of debt. They are dipping into retirement savings. It is also one of the reasons Canadian parents 55 years of age and older with children are more likely than those without children to refinance their mortgages. Their average household debt is actually twice that of their childless peers. They are more likely to take on higher non-mortgage debt, such as higher credit card debt and lines of credit, which is one of the reasons non-mortgage debt in Canada continues to climb. The average Canadian owes $28,000 in non-mortgage debt today. That is a record high.

There are too many young Canadians looking for work and there are too many middle-class Canadian families struggling under crushing levels of personal debt. The bill would do little to help Canadian youth or middle-class families and offers no real vision for the future.

I would like to speak again about something in this budget implementation act, and these are the measures regarding FATCA. The Conservatives want to actually turn Canadians into American tax collectors through this budget implementation bill. Earlier this year, when the Conservatives signed an intergovernmental agreement with the U.S. to implement FATCA, we had hoped that some of the concerns we had would be addressed.

Canada and the U.S. had previously achieved an agreement to exchange information on suspected tax cheats, but FATCA goes a step further than any other tax-sharing legislation has. It requires Canadian banks to give the CRA the account information of every U.S. citizen living in Canada. The CRA will then give this information to the IRS, and those U.S. persons will have to file taxes in the U.S.

The problem is that there are many U.S. citizens living in Canada, and they do not even know that they are considered Americans for tax purposes. These include any person born in the U.S. or born to an American parent, even if they have not lived in the U.S. since they were toddlers. The Canadian government has agreed to help the IRS find these individuals.

This will also affect Canadians who are not even U.S. citizens but are married to one, because their joint accounts will now be reported to the IRS. This is a remarkable breach of Canadians' privacy by their own government. Not only will the CRA provide the IRS information with tax identification information and the account balances of U.S. persons without their knowledge, it will impose a $100 penalty for each instance of non-compliance. Why are Conservatives prepared to do Uncle Sam's work in this case and potentially penalize Canadians with dual citizenship or their Canadian spouses?

U.S. persons living in Canada would be required to report and pay taxes to the U.S. on their RDSPs and RESPs. These accounts are supposed to help Canadians pay for education or help disabled Canadians avoid poverty. The Canadian government money was not intended to be used to subsidize the U.S. treasury. Why are the Conservatives allowing this to happen, when it so clearly is inconsistent with the objectives of RDSPs and RESPs?

The other night, as I mentioned earlier today, we asked the public servants at the briefing whether Canadian government contributions, the matching grants to RESPs and RDSPs, would be considered taxable by the Americans, by the IRS. They could not answer the question. The idea that we would sign an agreement when we do not know something as basic as this speaks to the way the government has lost influence, power, and authority in negotiating with the Americans.

The FATCA agreement is very important, and it should be a stand-alone piece of legislation. We should be doing a more thorough evaluation of the agreement the government has signed, and it should not be part of a budget implementation bill, an omnibus bill. Constitutional law experts such as Peter Hogg have raised concerns about whether the agreement violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are real issues around this that will be given short shrift through the process by which a budget implementation act, which is such a massive omnibus bill, has been given to Parliament.

There are also provisions in this budget implement act for demutualization. I have heard from insurance providers in Nova Scotia who worry that these changes potentially will hurt rural Canadians. Even the government's own report on demutualization tells us, quote:

Concerns were expressed that demutualization could lead to consolidation, reduce competition, access to services, and weaken ties to rural communities in which most mutual companies are based.

Again, measures on demutualization are something we need to consider more thoroughly.

What is clear is that this tired, out-of-touch Conservative government is devoid of vision and ideas. It is not just anti-democratic; it is totally out of touch with young Canadians and struggling middle-class families. Canadians deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to limit my speech to just 15 minutes because this is a huge bill—it is over 350 pages long. It is hard to cover and explain everything in it. It is complicated and huge and fundamentally anti-democratic. I have plenty of quotes from the Prime Minister and other Conservatives who used to say that omnibus bills like this one were disastrous and tragic for Parliament.

We have learned to call these “ominous” budget bills because, while technically omnibus in nature, what we see in these 350 pages, with over 500 clauses and 40 laws being changed in this one act alone, is the Conservatives continuing down their very anti-democratic path of fundamentally disrespecting Parliament and the institutions. We see it in the unfair elections act, and we also see it in the next omnibus bill, Bill C-31, which contains so many aspects that it is difficult to cover in the short time we have.

Before politics, I was a small business owner. The riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia is both rural and resource sector based. I bring those experiences to bear as the finance critic for the official opposition. Therefore, my orientation toward matters of the economy, financial affairs, and the budget is based on those small and medium-sized businesses, which are at the very heart of our economy, providing more than 70% of all new jobs. At the heart of our economy lies the resource sector. Virtually 80% of the equity traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange relies on the resource sector of Canada, that natural wealth and endowment. Therefore, one wonders, while casting through the hundreds of pages in this omnibus bill, exactly what the government has done to help the resource sector, small and medium businesses, and the overall fragility of the Canadian economy.

Canada right now sits at a crossroads. Four hundred thousand manufacturing jobs have been lost and not replaced since the government took power. Three hundred thousand net jobs have been lost since it took over that have also not been replaced. Personal household debts are at record highs.

The trade deficit hitting $45 billion is now seen as a casual event; a country like Canada having massive trade deficits with our trading partners presents no problems or concerns to the government. We are a trading nation. We are not trading well right now, and the government seems not occupied with that. The Bank of Canada, the IMF, and the former finance minister have decried the half-trillion dollars of dead money sitting in our economy that is not being used by the private sector. It is simply because, when the government hands over its corporate tax cuts, they come with no strings attached. Its ideological drive, that all tax cuts must directly and implicitly lead to job creation, has shown not to be true in this case.

According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 85% of the jobs created last year alone were created in short-term, temporary, part-time jobs. These are not our numbers. These are numbers gathered by the business community in Canada. We have seen the government blow open the temporary foreign worker program. More than 300,000 temporary foreign workers went to work this morning in Canada. That has a dual effect. It replaces Canadian workers who were training to do those jobs. I had a phone call from a young woman this morning. She is fully ticketed. She has gone through all the programs, has taken out student loans, is ready to work in the resource sector, and cannot find work because the contractor working on the gas pipeline operation has hired temporary foreign workers from all over the world. She is frustrated. She is trying to pay the bills, and the government turns a blind eye. We saw it with the HD Mining case in British Columbia. Two hundred workers were needed to work in the mine. The way the company got around the small barriers that the Conservatives put up was to say workers must be fully ticketed to work in a mining operation and fluent in Mandarin. That was a requirement that was somewhat difficult to meet in the Canadian labour force market. The employer said they could not find 200 fluent Mandarin-speaking miners in Canada, so they would need a temporary foreign worker licence permit, which the government happily granted with no conditions attached, until it became public; then there was obvious backlash. Then the Prime Minister went with the ethnic media in Vancouver. We have all sorts of criticisms about the temporary foreign worker program, but just to one section of the media; it has never since repeated those criticisms out loud.

Royal Bank of Canada laid off workers and replaced them with temporary foreign workers. We have seen 300 welders recently laid off in Alberta and replaced with temporary foreign workers. The resource wealth that we are endowed with deserves to be respected.

Let us review the six principles of how to properly develop the oil wealth in Alberta, put forward by that lefty radical, former premier Lougheed. Let us review what this radical had to say.

The first principle is “[act] like an owner”. Is the current government doing that when it comes to resource wealth? Not at all.

Second, he said, is “[get] your fair share”. Particularly when it comes to natural resources, like oil, which cannot be replenished, one only gets to do it once. If they do not collect their fair share, it is a missed opportunity.

The third principle is “Save for a rainy day”. Can members imagine what former premier Lougheed would have said about Conservatives, who have not only accrued the largest debt in Canadian history, but they also have the record for our two largest deficits and adding to our largest national debt ever?

The fourth principle that former Premier Lougheed talked about is “[adding] value” to the resources. What do the Conservatives push? They are pushing raw bitumen pipelines. What do they allow? They allow raw log exports. What they allow for is not adding value to the mineral wealth of this country. We know that is where the greatest gain in jobs can be. For those Conservatives who represent parts of Saskatchewan and British Columbia and Alberta, one has to wonder about all those jobs that have been foregone by their policies. All of those jobs and opportunities are lost, and all those families who could be paying the rent and helping to raise kids on those value-added jobs are lost.

Fifth, former Premier Lougheed also said “Go slow”. Why? Because we see what the boom can do; it always leads to a bust. The former MP for Fort McMurray, Brian Jean, on his way out the door of this place, said that the main problem in the oil patch in northern Alberta is that we are going too fast. We see that those are wise words and correct, if one visits Fort McMurray and talks to the workers and the municipal leaders there. It is a bit of a shame that he only found that conscience when he was leaving Parliament and the Conservative caucus. He did not say it when he was here. I know that many Conservatives also share his views.

The sixth and last thing that former premier Lougheed said was “Practice statecraft”. What do we have from the current government when it comes to developing our economy and natural resource wealth? The Conservatives encourage conflict. They yell and scream at opponents and call them enemies of this state if they do not agree with Conservative ideology. They say that they must be foreign-funded radicals. They get into their “grassy knoll” theories over there in the Conservative Party, saying that this must be the problem.

However, here is the result of all that conflict and tension among Canadians and between first nations and the Government of Canada, which the current government has exacerbated time and again. It leads to uncertainty. Whatever the sector, whether the resource sector or the banking sector, uncertainty is a serious problem. It is impossible to plan if people within companies and industries do not feel they have any certainty. What the Conservatives have ironically and tragically done through their abusive and bullying approach to the conversation in Canada has increased the level of uncertainty and conflict.

Let us look at Bill C-31. Let us deal with what is in it. I can quickly walk through some of the positive measures because there are not many of them.

The government has finally reversed its policy on charging the GST on parking when visiting a hospital. It was something that the Conservatives put in the budget. We told them to take it out, and they listened for once. The Conservatives have also extended some tax credits for families who are seeking adoption. We think this is a very positive thing. They have also introduced another proposal that we put forward to allow for a tax credit for volunteers conducting search and rescue. We think that is very important. It is a small measure, but for those who risk their lives to protect Canadians, we think it is a good measure.

Now, let us get to the bad things that are in Bill C-31.

Let us start with the first one, FATCA. What a great deal it is that is buried in this bill. One would think that something like a major tax treaty with our most significant trading partner would have stand-alone legislation and its own debate. That is not so with the Conservatives; they bury it. When they bury something and they release it, as they did on a Friday afternoon when they released this bill, one can anticipate that there is something they do not want to talk about. We estimate that more than one million Canadians may be affected by this tax treaty. They are Canadians who do not even know they may be implicated by this by being married to an American or former American. They are Canadians who were born to American parents. Canadians who were born here may be implicated by this.

What this deal would do is to tell the banks in Canada to release the private personal banking information of those Canadians to the Canada Revenue Agency, which then ably and quickly would pass it along to the IRS in the United States. Passing the private banking information of more than one million Canadians to the U.S. government somehow does not seem to bother the Conservatives. There were no consultations with the Privacy Commissioner. They told the Privacy Commissioner it was happening, but did not bother to find out if it went against privacy laws in Canada.

We do not know if this is even charter proof. Constitutional lawyers have said that this is a mistreatment of Canadian citizens and it will face a charter challenge. Again, there were no charter questions. The banks have estimated that to collect this information may cost upward of $100 million. Some have already spent tens of millions of dollars; it is hard information to get at. We asked the government how much it would cost it to wade through these millions of documents and pieces of banking information, and the government said it had no estimate, that it does not know what it is going to cost. The banks have said it would cost upward of $100 million per bank.

The federal government signed this treaty and did not bother to find out what it might cost the Canadian taxpayer. In addition, there is no reciprocity. There is no agreement with the U.S. to have some sort of equal treatment of Canadians. Canada is not a tax haven for American money. It has never been described as such. Why institute a tax treaty to go after tax cheats and tax havens that do not exist? Why forego the privacy of so many Canadians?

What fight did the Conservatives actually do? The Minister of Finance wrote an op-ed. He did, and it was strongly worded. He put it into a couple of papers in Washington, and that was it. Compare that with the government having spent millions of dollars toward lobbying the U.S. government on Keystone. It has spent millions on a full-scale frontal attack. The Prime Minister said that if the U.S. does not agree, this is a no-brainer, and we will wait the president out. Was this all that could be done in diplomacy?

We spent millions, and are spending millions of dollars on diplomats running around Washington trying to convince the Americans to create 40,000 jobs in the U.S. to add value to the bitumen coming out of the oil patch in Alberta. Who came up with that number? The Canadian government did, when trying to convince American legislators. Compare that full-on assault in trying to convince people in Washington to do something, to an op-ed, when they were standing up for Canadians' rights. It is a no-brainer. This is bad policy to sell out Canadians at such a cheap level. There is so much more in this bill.

What is not in this bill is the consumer protection that the government so often talks about. The fact that people have to pay to get their bills from companies is not in this legislation; it was in the throne speech. It said it would go after payday lenders because it is extortion. It was talked about in the throne speech, but it is absent in Bill C-31.

On the passenger bill of rights, do members remember that one? The Conservatives had the industry minister talk about the passenger bill of rights. It is not in the bill. There is the small business hiring tax credit, something that New Democrats proposed in 2011 and the government incorporated into two subsequent budgets. According to small and medium-sized businesses, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, it works as an effective tax measure in creating jobs. Unlike the government's broad, blunt attacks on tax, it works, and the government left it out. When asked why, it did not respond and continued.

Last, on temporary foreign workers, there is a piece in the bill that is meant to punish employers who abuse the temporary foreign worker program. The government has a blacklist. It has had a blacklist, for two years, for employers who abuse the system. Who is on the blacklist? There is nobody, not a single employer. The Alberta government has cited over 100 employers who have abused the program, and the government cannot find one.

In summation, I will move the following amendment. However, allow me to say this. In the process that the government is using, this is fundamentally anti-democratic. It fundamentally does not help the Canadian economy, and it is more bad news for the Canadian people. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, because it:

(a) amends more than 60 Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight;

(b) does nothing to create quality, good-paying jobs for Canadians and fails to extend the hiring credit for small business;

(c) fails to reverse devastating cuts to infrastructure and healthcare;

(d) hands over private financial information of hundreds of thousands of Canadians to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service under Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act;

(e) reduces transparency at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency;

(f) imposes tolls on the Champlain Bridge;

(g) jeopardizes the independence of 11 federal administrative tribunals; and

(h) enables the government to weaken regulations affecting rail safety and the transport of dangerous goods without notifying the public.

The House resumed from April 2, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that after a full 25 minutes of debate on a 350-page bill that the government has stuffed full of all sorts of, “gems” is not the right word—there is another word for it that I do not think I am allowed to use here in Parliament—the government has decided that it needs to shut down that debate because it has obviously gone on too long. They think that a full 25 minutes and a few more after that should be enough to study a bill that affects 40 Canadian laws and has over 500 clauses in it, almost none of them designed to help the Canadian economy.

As this is my first speech as finance critic for the official opposition, I want to make mention of and thank the member for Parkdale—High Park, who did such an incredible job on this portfolio for a number of years. She developed strong relationships. She was absolutely dignified, and she brought New Democrats to a strong place when talking about financial measures. She had relationships with, not only the banking community, but the small business and entrepreneurial communities in this country. I owe a great debt for the amount of work that the member for Parkdale—High Park has done.

From the perspective of which I come, representing a rural and remote part of the country in northwestern British Columbia, and being a former small business owner myself, I have great familiarity with the struggles, challenges, and opportunities for those who operate small and medium-sized businesses in this country. Those businesses exist in resource-based economies in the rural parts of this country, and 80% of the Toronto Stock Exchange exists on those resource and extractive economies.

What these businesses are looking for primarily is a government that understands them, that listens to Bay Street a little less, and that more often consults and meets with people on Main Street. They are looking for a government that understands what small and medium-size businesses have to go through to put food on the table. Primarily, they need a strong economy and one that provides them with customers, a viable way to grow and expand their businesses. What we have seen from the government too often, on the Conservative side and previously, has led us to the position our economy is in right now.

There have been 400,000 missing manufacturing jobs since the Conservatives took over. The Conservatives call that excellent. There are 300,000 jobs that have not been replaced since the beginning of the recession. The youth unemployment rate is twice the national average, and Canadians now owe more money, at a personal debt ratio that is greater than any other country in the OECD. We are one of the most indebted nations in the world, and the government says all is fine and rosy.

Its policies are based on a simple principle of rip and ship: take the resources and the wealth that are the endowment of this country and send them out in their most raw form. Do not add value. Do not seek to enhance any of the qualities of those resources. The results are stark. Our trade deficit is at a staggering level. We are operating in a trade deficit position and have done so for a number of years. It is $45 billion, and it does not seem to preoccupy the Conservatives at all.

We have seen finance minister after finance minister, now two of them, misunderstand the telling signs in the economy. The previous finance minister missed the global recession entirely. He thought it was a blip, a bump in the road, and nothing to be concerned with. In the midst of the first months of that recession, the government brought in an austerity budget, countering every other G20 country in the world, saying that Conservatives know best on the economy. The fact is that they do not, and the mounting evidence on economic mismanagement of the Conservatives is piling up.

Now we have the budget implementation act, a bill that is crammed with all sorts of things that, again, I cannot mention with their proper terms. These are things like the temporary foreign worker program. Suddenly the Conservatives are going to get tough on the very program that they have allowed companies to abuse. Two years ago, they said they were going to go after those bad companies and put them on a blacklist.

Do members know how many companies are sitting on that blacklist today? There is zero, not a one. That would lead me to believe that maybe there are no companies abusing the temporary foreign worker program. However, wait, one province alone, the province of Alberta, has found 100 cases of companies abusing the massive loopholes in the temporary foreign worker program that the government created. HD Mining and certain banks have started to export jobs that we did not think could be exported: mining jobs, financial sector jobs. These are jobs that have been the heart of this economy for many years.

With the clock being what it is, I will be finishing my comments tomorrow, but allow me to establish that both on form and on substance, the current Conservative government has failed Canadians once again.

The Conservatives have a missed opportunity with this monster omnibus bill, which is fundamentally anti-democratic, not according to just me but according to the Prime Minister when he used to occupy this place.

New Democrats will oppose Bill C-31 every step of the way.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-31—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage 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 the said stage of the said bill.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity today to lead off debate on Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1. Over the next 20 minutes, I will provide an overview of the bill's overarching objectives and will highlight some of its key initiatives.

Our government continues to focus on what matters to Canadians, and this bill would do nothing to detract from that. Bill C-31 focuses on creating jobs and economic growth while supporting families and communities.

This is our government's 10th budget since 2006. Over that period our country has been confronted by unprecedented economic challenges from beyond our borders. Canada has not only weathered the global economic storm but has exceeded expectations. Let me remind members today that with the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada's economy has seen the best economic performance among all G7 countries and is the only G7 country to have an unwavering AAA rating, with a stable outlook from all the major credit-rating agencies: Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. Nevertheless, in good times and bad, we have never strayed from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and have never wavered from seeing our plan through.

Economic action plan 2014 marks the next chapter in keeping that commitment to Canadians, focusing on three key priorities: returning to budget balance, promoting jobs and economic growth, and supporting families and communities. Before I get into the details of the bill, let me begin by explaining the principles driving these priorities, starting with balancing the budget, the cornerstone of our low-tax plan.

Returning to balanced budgets and basic economic principles of debt reduction means that more tax dollars can be spent improving Canada's economic potential and growth prospects rather than on servicing debt. These long-term benefits explain why our government has not wavered from our goal and has cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds since the great recession. It is also why Canada remains in an enviable fiscal position among all G7 countries, with the lowest net debt to GDP ratio by far.

Our goal is now within sight. Including the measures announced in economic action plan 2014, we expect to realize a surplus of $6.4 billion in 2015-16, including a $3 billion annual adjustment for risk. Let me point out that we are doing all this without cutting major transfers to persons or other levels of government. At the same time as we are reining in spending, let me emphasize that transfers for Canadian priorities like education and health care will continue to increase.

Although balancing the budget is the cornerstone of our prosperity plan, our government also believes that it is vital that we create the conditions for businesses to grow.

The government's focus on improving tax competitiveness for business is part of a policy framework that targets growth, which has allowed Canada to have the lowest corporate taxes in the G7.

That is not all. Canada is an increasingly dynamic place for investment and corporate growth. In the most recent Bloomberg rating of the most attractive countries for business, Canada jumped to second place, topped only by Hong Kong.

Our government recognizes that our greatest asset is also what will keep us a leader in the global economy, our people. This is why we continue to invest in training to help workers get the skills they need to succeed and to connect more Canadians with available jobs. To better align training with labour market needs, the Canada job grant will launch this year, ensuring that employers have input into skills-training decisions. We are also working with provinces and territories to renew the $500 million per year labour market agreements. Our government will also renegotiate the $1.95 billion per year labour market development agreements to better reorient training toward labour market demand. This, along with our commitment of $222 million annually, matched by the provinces and territories over the next four years through a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, will strengthen Canada's job market and will get Canadians working.

Now I would like to return to the specific measures in today's legislation.

First of all, economic action plan 2014 act, no.1, focuses on our commitment to families and announces improved support for Canadian families who adopt a child.

All parents must pay for their children's education, but adoptive parents have additional expenses, including agency fees and legal costs. These costs can be significant, especially in the case of children adopted outside Canada, and can include travel and accommodation expenses and the cost of translating documents.

With respect to taxation, in order to better recognize adoption expenses, primarily agency fees and legal costs, economic action plan 2014 will increase the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit, which had already been increased in economic action plan 2013, to $15,000 in 2014. This amount will be indexed to inflation in subsequent years.

Our government will also ensure that the tax system takes into account the changing nature of the health care system and Canadians' needs.

We are also proposing amendments to the Excise Tax Act to improve the application of the GST-HST in the health care sector. Specifically, today's legislation proposes three changes to expand tax relief under the GST-HST for certain health-related services and medical and assistive devices to reflect the evolving nature of the health care system.

The first change would expand the current GST-HST exemption for training designed to help individuals cope with a disorder or disability. It would now also exempt services for designing training, such as developing a training plan.

The second change would exempt the professional services of acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors from GST-HST.

The third change would add to the list of GST-HST-free medical and assistive devices eyewear designed to electronically enhance the vision of individuals who are vision impaired when it is supplied on the order of a physician or other specified health professional.

Today's legislation also recognizes the important role played by research and rescue volunteers in their communities. They protect people while often risking their own safety. Bill C-31 proposes a 15% non-refundable search and rescue volunteer tax credit on an amount of $3,000 for ground, air, and marine search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of eligible service in the year, starting in 2014.

Our government is very proud to publicly recognize the outstanding commitment of these volunteers and the difference they make in their communities, communities like my riding of North Vancouver.

North Shore Rescue is a daily example of the sacrifice these brave men and women commit to every day. It is why I know that measures like this will go a long way in supporting these selfless volunteers across Canada.

As everyone can see, we are protecting the health and well-being of Canadians. Promoting a clean, safe environment is also one of our government's priorities.

For example, since 2006, the government has taken significant action to protect our natural areas, including taking steps to add more than 160,000 km² to the Canadian national parks and marine conservation areas system—an increase of more than 58%—and securing almost 4,000 km² of ecologically sensitive private lands.

Economic action plan 2014 includes measures to protect Canada's rich natural heritage by investing in national parks, conserving recreational fisheries, expanding recreational trails, supporting family-oriented conservation and expanding tax support for clean energy generation.

Today's legislative measure will encourage additional donations of ecologically sensitive lands to conservation charities by doubling to 10 years, for income tax purposes, the carry-forward period.

This is in response to a recommendation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in its February 2013 report entitled “Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving in Canada”.

As all hon. members can see, through Canada's economic action plan 2014 we are keeping taxes low, putting consumers first, protecting Canadians' health and safety, and strengthening communities from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-31 expands on the government's consumer-focused measures to improve the bottom line for Canadian families and to ensure that they are getting value for their hard-earned dollars.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant action to support and protect Canadian consumers. We have reduced taxes and tariffs; ensured marketplace fairness; promoted competition in industries such as financial services, telecommunications, and air services; and improved products and food safety.

Through the consumers first agenda measures contained in economic action plan 2014, our government is going even further. One key focus of our government has been encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market. Today's legislation proposes new measures to do this 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.

Our government will also bring forward future legislation to provide telecommunications regulators with the power to impose administrative monetary penalties on companies that violate rules such as the Wireless Code, further enhancing competition in the telecommunications market.

The list goes on. I could speak well beyond my allotted time on the benefits of today's legislation. Let me very quickly list some of the other positive measures in Bill C-31:

Creating the Canada apprentice loan, a new initiative that would help apprentices registered in Red Seal trades by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year;

Eliminating tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration to improve the global competitiveness of Canadian energy projects;

Investing $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process, ensuring that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs;

Strengthening Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime and adding measures to fight tax evasion, ensuring that all Canadians pay their fair share;

Cutting red tape on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account for source deductions;

Reducing costs and red tape for all Canadian businesses by harmonizing Canada's trademark framework with international norms; and

Providing $165 million over two years on a cash basis to advance the construction of a new bridge for the St. Lawrence.

In my presentation today, I have merely provided an overview of the many ways in which economic action plan 2014 will benefit Canadians.

Let us look at the facts: Canada has recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession and then some. Over one million more Canadians are employed now than were employed at the end of the recession in 2009. Nearly 90% of those jobs are full-time jobs. Canada's job growth has dramatically outpaced that of the other G7 countries.

Again, we are on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, as promised, but this has not deterred us from making Canada one of the best places to do business or from providing tax relief for all Canadians. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them and have removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. I will remind my colleagues that a Canadian family of four saves nearly $3,400 in 2014.

While the NDP and Liberals keep demanding reckless spending, our government will stay the course with fiscal prudence.

When the Liberal leader suggests questionable economic policy and claims that budgets balance themselves, our government will stay the course to balance the budget. When the opposition calls for higher taxes and taking more money from hard-working Canadians, our government will stay the course with our low-tax plan. Quite simply, it is our government that has had to make the tough decisions and stick to our priorities, the priorities of all Canadians. For that reason, we have remained steadfast in our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians.

To sum up, in an uncertain world, Canada's economic action plan is working. It is creating jobs, keeping the economy growing and returning to balanced budgets. By staying the course and sticking to our proven track record and economic action plan, Canada remains on track for a great future. I therefore strongly encourage all members of the House to read the legislation and give it the support that it deserves.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)