Bill C-4 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexes the new limit to inflation;
(b) streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund a contribution made to a Registered Pension Plan as a result of a reasonable error;
(c) extends the reassessment period for reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters when information returns are not filed properly and on time;
(d) phases out the federal Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations tax credit;
(e) ensures that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate;
(f) ensures that the tax consequences of disposing of a property cannot be avoided by entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of the property;
(g) ensures that the tax attributes of trusts cannot be inappropriately transferred among arm’s length persons;
(h) responds to the Sommerer decision to restore the intended tax treatment with respect to non-resident trusts;
(i) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste;
(j) imposes a penalty in instances where information on tax preparers and billing arrangements is missing, incomplete or inaccurate on Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program claim forms;
(k) phases out the accelerated capital cost allowance for capital assets used in new mines and certain mine expansions, and reduces the deduction rate for pre-production mine development expenses;
(l) adjusts the five-year phase-out of the additional deduction for credit unions;
(m) eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect of two types of leveraged life insurance arrangements;
(n) clarifies the restricted farm loss rules and increases the restricted farm loss deduction limit;
(o) enhances corporate anti-loss trading rules to address planning that avoids those rules;
(p) extends, in certain circumstances, the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return;
(q) extends the application of Canada’s thin capitalization rules to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities; and
(r) introduces new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) implements measures announced on July 25, 2012, including measures that
(i) relate to the taxation of specified investment flow-through entities, real estate investment trusts and publicly-traded corporations, and
(ii) respond to the Lewin decision;
(b) implements measures announced on December 21, 2012, including measures that relate to
(i) the computation of adjusted taxable income for the purposes of the alternative minimum tax,
(ii) the prohibited investment and advantage rules for registered plans, and
(iii) the corporate reorganization rules; and
(c) clarifies that information may be provided to the Department of Employment and Social Development for a program for temporary foreign workers.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; and
(b) clarifying that the GST/HST provision, exempting supplies by a public sector body (PSB) of a property or a service if all or substantially all of the supplies of the property or service by the PSB are made for free, does not apply to supplies of paid parking.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend and expand a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including setting the 2015 and 2016 rates and requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission beginning with the 2017 rate. The Division repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and related provisions of other Acts. Lastly, it makes technical amendments to the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to remove the prohibition against federal and provincial Crown agents and federal and provincial government employees being directors of a federally regulated financial institution. It also amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to remove the obligation of certain persons to give the Minister of Finance notice of their intent to borrow money from a federally regulated financial institution or from a corporation that has deposit insurance under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to clarify the rules for certain indirect acquisitions of foreign financial institutions.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to update the definition “passport” in subsection 57(5) and also amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to update the reference to the Minister in paragraph 11(1)(a).
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to amend the definition of “danger” in subsection 122(1), to modify the refusal to work process, to remove all references to health and safety officers and to confer on the Minister of Labour their powers, duties and functions. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the name of the Department to the Department of Employment and Social Development and to reflect that name change in the title of that Act and of its responsible Minister. In addition, the Division amends Part 6 of that Act to extend that Minister’s powers with respect to certain Acts, programs and activities and to allow the Minister of Labour to administer or enforce electronically the Canada Labour Code. The Division also adds the title of a Minister to the Salaries Act. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to several other Acts to reflect the name change.
Division 7 of Part 3 authorizes Her Majesty in right of Canada to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks in any manner.
Division 8 of Part 3 authorizes the amalgamation of four Crown corporations that own or operate international bridges and gives the resulting amalgamated corporation certain powers. It also makes consequential amendments and repeals certain Acts.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that agent corporations designated by the Minister of Finance may, subject to any terms and conditions of the designation, pledge any securities or cash that they hold, or give deposits, as security for the payment or performance of obligations arising out of derivatives that they enter into or guarantee for the management of financial risks.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the National Research Council Act to reduce the number of members of the National Research Council of Canada and to create the position of Chairperson of the Council.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act to reduce the permanent number of members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to allow for the appointment of up to three directors who are not residents of Canada.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to extend to the whole Act the protection for communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and to provide that information disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under subsection 65(1) of that Act may be used by a law enforcement agency referred to in that subsection only as evidence of a contravention of Part 1 of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 3 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, which establishes the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund. The Division also repeals the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow the Governor in Council to designate a person or class of persons as public office holders and to designate a person who is a public office holder or a class of persons who are public office holders as reporting public office holders, for the purposes of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to establish a new regime that provides that a foreign national who wishes to apply for permanent residence as a member of a certain economic class may do so only if they have submitted an expression of interest to the Minister and have subsequently been issued an invitation to apply.
Division 17 of Part 3 modernizes the collective bargaining and recourse systems provided by the Public Service Labour Relations Act regime. It amends the dispute resolution process for collective bargaining by removing the choice of dispute resolution method and substituting conciliation, which involves the possibility of the use of a strike as the method by which the parties may resolve impasses. In those cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are considered necessary for providing an essential service, the dispute resolution mechanism is to be arbitration. The collective bargaining process is further streamlined through amendments to the provision dealing with essential services. The employer has the exclusive right to determine that a service is essential and the numbers of positions that will be required to provide that service. Bargaining agents are to be consulted as part of the essential services process. The collective bargaining process is also amended by extending the timeframe within which a notice to bargain collectively may be given before the expiry of a collective agreement or arbitral award.
In addition, the Division amends the factors that arbitration boards and public interest commissions must take into account when making awards or reports, respectively. It also amends the processes for the making of those awards and reports and removes the compensation analysis and research function from the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The Division streamlines the recourse process set out for grievances and complaints in Part 2 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act.
The Division also establishes a single forum for employees to challenge decisions relating to discrimination in the public service. Grievances and complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Labour Relations Board under the grievance process set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The process for the review of those grievances or complaints is to be the same as the one that currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, grievances and complaints related specifically to staffing complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. Grievances relating to discrimination are required to be submitted within one year or any longer period that the Public Service Labour Relations Board considers appropriate, to reflect what currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Furthermore, the Division amends the grievance recourse process in several ways. With the sole exception of grievances relating to issues of discrimination, employees included in a bargaining unit may only present or refer an individual grievance to adjudication if they have the approval of and are represented by their bargaining agent. Also, the process as it relates to policy grievances is streamlined, including by defining more clearly an adjudicator’s remedial power when dealing with a policy grievance.
In addition, the Division provides for a clearer apportionment of the expenses of adjudication relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement. They are to be borne in equal parts by the employer and the bargaining agent. If a grievance relates to a deputy head’s direct authority, such as with respect to discipline, termination of employment or demotion, the expenses are to be borne in equal parts by the deputy head and the bargaining agent. The expenses of adjudication for employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent are to be borne by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
Finally, the Division amends the recourse process for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act by ensuring that the right to complain is triggered only in situations when more than one employee participates in an exercise to select employees that are to be laid off. And, candidates who are found not to meet the qualifications set by a deputy head may only complain with respect to their own assessment.
Division 18 of Part 3 establishes the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to replace the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The new Board will deal with matters that were previously dealt with by those former Boards under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, respectively, which will permit proceedings under those Acts to be consolidated.
Division 19 of Part 3 adds declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act, respecting the criteria for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on the economy and on keeping the Canadian economy in general chugging along. Among the things we talked about, the job skills grant is going to affect us greatly and will answer the need, especially in the west, for skilled workers in our workforce. We are already being hit by that need. It is going to hit us even more, and we are responding to that need.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which was to be a budget implementation bill but it is much more. It is that much more that has a bunch of us on this side of the House worried about what the government really intends to do. For example, this budget implementation bill includes a redefinition of what constitutes a danger in the workplace.

The definition has been in the Canada Labour Code for many years and is well understood now by the health and safety officers, workplace safety committees, employers, and employees, and to change it in a manner that will not allow us to have full and fulsome debate is a dangerous practice in itself.

We will not know what the new definition means. The old definition talked about any existing or potential hazard or condition, or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it.

The new definition requires that this danger be imminent or serious. What the heck does imminent or serious mean? To find out, we have to ask the minister. The minister is the only person who is now able, under this legislation, to determine whether something is an imminent or serious threat to an individual, because the government has taken out health and safety officers across the country and replaced them with one individual.

Each and every declaration of a danger to a person in a workplace in Canada now has to be determined by the minister himself or herself. I do not know if the minister has enough time to get to all the workplaces in Canada. The minister is pretty busy legislating companies back to work, so I do not know if he or she has enough time to do that.

It is a very serious measure that is being taken in a budget implementation bill with very limited time for discussion.

The other thing that is happening in the bill is that for the public service the definition of what can be arbitrated, in terms of what we call interest arbitration processes, has changed dramatically. The definition of what constitutes an essential service is now in the head of the minister. It is not in a jointly agreed to by both parties system.

The minister can decide what is an essential service in the civil service. For example, the minister could decide that his or her driver is an essential service and therefore that person would be prohibited from taking any action.

The danger with this kind of tinkering with the existing well-known and well-understood legislation is where it may lead in the rest of Canada. We have police forces, fire departments, ambulance services and paramedic services across the country that rely on an arbitration system to feel as though they are getting paid appropriately for their work and that their terms and conditions of work are dealt with. They are not allowed to go on strike. They are not allowed to exercise what the rest of Canadians have, which is the ability to withdraw their services.

All of those other folks across the country have to be wondering where the heck the government is going and where it will lead the provincial governments that deal with these things as well.

The government has not only redefined what is an essential service and just basically said that the minister can pick and choose what he or she wants it to be, but it has redefined what constitutes the terms under which an arbitrator can decide a collective agreement.

As members will recall from a year and a half ago, or maybe two years, the former minister of labour actually set the conditions under which an arbitrator was free or not free to decide a collective agreement. When it came to Air Canada, Canada Post and CP Rail, those agreements were decided by an arbitrator, except the arbitrator's hands were tied.

If I were in the police force or if I were a firefighter, I would be worried about where this federal government was leading us, down the road of re-defining what could and could not be done by an arbitrator.

I want to talk about this issue, because I am the deputy critic for persons with disabilities. The member for Winnipeg South Centre talked in glowing terms about the fact that the government had made the enabling accessibility fund a permanent feature of future budgets, which is a good thing. The problem is that fund is a Conservative slush fund, unfortunately. I do not mean that any of the groups that receive the money are somehow complicit in this, but 85% of the money goes to Conservative ridings.

Conservatives do not represent 85% of the population of Canada. I think something like 24% voted for them last time. How is it that 85% of the enabling accessibility fund goes to Conservative-held ridings, or if a group or organization is turned down for money under the enabling accessibility fund, all it has to do is have a friend like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that minister will grease palms or whatever it is he has to do to change the decision by whoever made the decision so a group or association can get money out of the enabling accessibility fund?

We do not have any objections to there being an enabling accessibility fund. In fact, it should be bigger than it is, but we would like to see it distributed fairly across the country. I have groups in my riding that have been turned down for enabling accessibility money and cannot fathom the reasons why, because they are not given. There is no sudden decision that a group did not get it because of X, Y or Z. The decision is made that they just did not get it. When we hear that groups in Conservative-held ridings have no trouble getting money, we wonder where the money is coming from.

The other thing I want to say about the budget implementation act is that the government has determined it can add new stuff that was not in the budget. Not only were the issues dealing with the redefinition of what constitutes a danger, the removal of health and safety officers and replacing them with the minister, the changing of the arbitration for the civil service, but a redefinition of what constitutes a Supreme Court justice has been added, someone coming from Quebec. How is that in a budget bill? How is that something that we can think costs money? The Conservatives response, and I understand where they are coming from, but I do not like it, is that it is something that came up just recently, that they have to fix it really quick and that they can rush this thing through and get it done in a hurry.

There are a whole bunch of other things that came up just recently that have not been included in the bill but have to do with money, that have to do with budgets, that have to do with taxpayers and their pocketbooks. The Conservatives talked about them in the throne speech, but they are not here.

The throne speech talked about “pay to pay”. For those who do not know what that means, a cable TV or a cellphone subscriber with any of the big carriers in Canada has to by $2 to get a paper bill. If they do not have Internet to get their bill, they have to pay $2 and the government collects tax on that $2. No wonder it is delaying it because it wants to keep collecting that tax.

Most of the people affected by that are seniors who do not have access to the Internet, who do not have ready accessibility to electronic forms of payment. Not only that, even those people who have opted to get it electronically are now being told that if they want the detailed billing, they have to pay $3 to get it electronically, and the government will tax that. Therefore, there will 15¢ federally and in Ontario another 8¢ provincially going into the coffers of the government every time people pay their bill or accepts the bill in paper. The Conservatives promised to do something about that in the throne speech. Where is it? If they can do things really quick like this, why can they not put this in the budget implementation act?

There is no help for airline passengers. The Conservatives voted almost unanimously, if not unanimously, against Bill C-459, which would have provided a system to help airline passengers from the vagaries of the airlines bumping them off a flight. There was talk about that before the throne speech, but there is nothing in the throne speech or in the budget bill.

There is nothing in the budget bill that is a relief for the 200% increase in cable TV fares that have cable and satellite fees that have taken place since it was deregulated completely by the CRTC. In the throne speech the Conservatives did not even talk about that. They said that consumers would be able to pick and play whatever they want, but at a cost. If I pick a channel, it would cost me an arm and a leg. There is nothing in here for the pocketbook of the ordinary Canadian. If the Conservatives want to talk about pick and play, let us apply it to this legislation. We would like to pick and play those things that are good for Canadians and not have to vote against them, while we can vote against those things that are not good for Canadians. That is the kind of pick and play I would like to see.

We have no relief for bank fees. People from the Syme Seniors' Centre in my riding told me that just recently the banks told them that in order to get a printed statement of their bank account they would have to pay. It is a not-for-profit seniors centre that is trying to struggle through with whatever little money it can get from grants and the rest. It now has to pay to get that statement. It did not used to because it was a seniors centre. Now that it has to pay to get the statement, there is no relief. There is nothing in the budget bill that actually reduces those exorbitant bank fees.

We need to rethink how we do these budgets and not put things in a budget that have nothing to do with budgets.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to answer a question in regard to essential services. He mentioned firefighters and police officers would be subject to this. The Public Service Labour Relations Act is legislation that only applies to those who come under it. Could he explain how he would square the two? It seems to me he is creating some confusion for the people who are watching. I look forward to his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not in fact what I said. What I said was that there were groups of individuals in the country who were bound by the definition of an essential service, and I referred to police, firefighters and ambulance attendants. Those individuals, seeing a change at the federal level, ought to be worried about where that will take us at the provincial level. When the federal level starts re-deciding what can be arbitrated and how badly an arbitrator's hands would be tied, those kinds of indications at the federal level will spring up at the provincial level. We get, “If the feds can do it why can't we?” Those individuals ought to be worried about where the government is taking us.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the government members mentioned that it created these omnibus bills to get things done. I want to ask my colleague if he would comment on this ends justifies the means type of attitude, particularly in terms where the Conservatives seem to divide Canadian workers from Canadians. Canadian workers are the bulk of Canadian citizens. Thus, the attacks they are making on these workers are attacks on Canadians. Would my hon. colleague comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment that the government tends to attack working Canadians. It does this more than any other I have ever seen. The attacks that we find in this omnibus budget bill are attacks on ordinary Canadian workers. I use the term “budget bill” lightly because it really is not a budget bill when the government includes redefining the definition of a danger in a workplace. Those attacks take place in the context of something that the government is saying is a necessary part of the budget bill.

The government wants us to think, and wants Canadians to think, that this is ordinary, regular business, that it is ordinary for governments to throw everything into a budget, including the kitchen sink. It is not ordinary. It is extraordinary and it is extraordinary to limit debate on it. We, as parliamentarians, will not be given the opportunity to say our piece on the matters that the government has added to the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to talk about the catch-all nature of this budget bill. Rather than really talking about the economy, it seems that this bill is actually a way for government ministers to correct the mistakes they have been making from the outset. The Minister of Justice made mistakes in appointing Supreme Court justices? No problem. We can change that in a budget bill. The President of the Treasury Board is a bad negotiator with public servants? No problem. We can change that in a budget bill.

This type of mentality is unbelievable, particularly from a government that says that the economy is its priority. That does not seem to be the case in this budget bill.

I would like my colleague to comment on how important it is for small businesses to have low tax rates. I was looking at the report on the state of the federal government's finances, and I noticed that the tax rate for small businesses has dropped by only 1% since this government has been in power. In comparison, the tax rate for large corporations has dropped by about 20%, if I remember correctly.

Like me, the hon. member is probably a member of the chambers of commerce in his riding. He must understand that this is unacceptable for such a government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question certainly points to the difference the government has made when it comes to big business versus small business.

Obviously, big business has done very well under the government because their taxes have been reduced substantially, to the point where they are now sitting on half a trillion dollars in free cash that they are not investing. The whole point of cutting taxes for the big businesses was that they would create jobs. They did not. The real job creators in this country are the small businesses and they have not received the same kind of tax relief that we would have proposed. The government has not done this for those small businesses.

Those small businesses are the first ones to say that the bank fees they are being faced with when it comes to credit cards, which are not in the budget, are not being addressed by the government. Those small businesses are hurting from those bank fees.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

As members know, the bill is on the budget that was introduced in the spring of this year, and it is a very important budget.

The economic action plans that we have had have really helped the Canadian economy weather the storm of the financial turmoil that we have had around the world. We are also taking some important measures for my own city of Toronto and my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, and I would like to talk about that. However, before doing that, I would like to talk about the broader strokes of why the economic action plan is so important.

First of all, there is the identified need when it comes to skilled people in our economy, the disconnect between the available jobs out there and the people looking for work. We have put in place a plan, through the budget implementation act, to actually make that happen. We will get the provinces to get on board. They have been doing things for a long time now and we have had a lot of feedback from businesses.

The missing stakeholder in all of this job creation when it comes to labour training has been businesses and they have said very loudly, and we have responded to their request, to put in programs that really respond to their needs. That is why we have proposed the Canada job grant, subject to participation by the provinces. We hope that they will see the need and enough businesses will tell the provinces to get on board with that program.

The other big element in the economic action plan, of course, is the long-term infrastructure plan, which is critical. This is the first time that a government has put such a big infrastructure investment plan together. We are looking to invest in the much-neglected infrastructure in our cities, provinces and communities. It is critical that we have a long-term investment in infrastructure, and not just to move people around but to move goods and create jobs. That is why it is an important pillar of the economic action plan, and I will talk about some specific projects in my city of Toronto and why they are so critical.

There is also a recognition that we are now in the 21st century and our economy will be transitioning all the time, more so now than ever. That means there is a needed investment in research and innovation with a focus on the commercialization of all the great R and D that we do in this country, recognizing that once we have a commercialized set of programs, projects and services, it becomes a virtuous cycle of investment. That is the kind of far-sighted thinking that we have in this budget and why I support it so much.

Another important pillar is supporting families and communities. There are a lot of things we need to do to make sure that the costs associated with raising a family are recognized and that the measures we take in our communities to support the raising of families are also recognized.

As well, we have to look at the great successes we have had in our country with our great companies and the businesses that are world players. We have companies based in Toronto and cities across the country that can compete with anyone. They need the tools to succeed on the global stage, and they have been doing that, but they need that extra help from the federal government. In many cases, it is a “get out of the way” for the federal government. There are some measures in place in this budget implementation act that would do exactly that.

Underpinning all of this is an overall plan to return to balanced budgets, which is really critical. We are leading the G7 and most within the OECD when it comes to having a manageable debt to GDP ratio, and we are going to continue with that. We have a plan in place that would reduce our deficit and balance the budget. It is a combination of growing the economy and at the same time not raising taxes, unlike the opposition parties that keep talking about new taxes.

Members within the opposition parties say things like “amen” to new taxes. We are not saying that. We want to listen to Canadians who are saying “keep our taxes low”. They recognize that when they give $100 to the government, far less of that is actually spent on them. There is a big cut that the government takes for its bureaucracy.

Canadians want to keep their taxes low and in many cases they want to deliver the services themselves for things such as child care, for example, where they can find efficient means within their own home communities. That is why we introduced the universal child care benefit several years ago. They know they can efficiently get the child services they need.

I am going to talk about some of the context before talking about some of the specifics.

We have created over a million net new jobs since the depth of the recession in 2008. By far, it is the best job creation record in the G7. It is not just this government saying that, it is many other bodies, such as the IMF and OECD. They project that Canada is going to have the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. That is because of strong, stable and consistent government when it comes to supporting business and investment, and making sure that we have the foundation for a strong economy.

The World Economic Forum ranked our banking system the soundest in the world. It is the fifth year in a row it has done that, and of course, we have our AAA credit rating in this country, which lowers our borrowing costs, again keeping our deficits low. It is really important that we keep doing some of those things and stay on the track we have been on.

Before the global recession, the Conservative government, between 2006 and 2008, actually paid down $37 billion in debt. We were looking ahead, recognizing that we needed to pay down debt. I should also mention that we did that while reducing income taxes, consumption taxes and business taxes. We grew the economy and reduced taxes and paid down a lot of debt. There was an increase in the debt during the recession. Ours was actually less than most countries around the world. Now we are looking to get back to a balanced budget.

Let me talk about taxes. A significant source of revenue for the government is tariffs and in the economic action plan we are going to eliminate tariffs on some important items, such as baby clothes, sporting goods and exercise equipment. That is about $76 million in tariff relief. This is over and above the half a billion dollars a year in tariff reduction that we have already put in place. This is very important to people who need to be able to buy things affordably and support their families, things such as baby clothes and sporting goods, even clothing. There are all kinds of things on which we have reduced tariffs significantly and we hope to keep doing that.

Another important form of taxes, of course, is EI premiums. We are looking to extend the hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 for new hires. I should mention there were over half a million employers that benefited from that. They saved about $225 million in EI premiums. That is really important. It provides that added incentive to hire some new people. There has been some strong feedback from the small business community, in particular. It really supports that program.

I am going to mention briefly some things that we are doing in BIA 2 now. There are some specific actions that we have put into BIA 2 that talk about how we need to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. It is really important that everyone pay their fair share. In many ways people are getting more sophisticated when it comes to avoiding taxes and we have put some measures in place that will show that we mean it when we say we are going to crack down on tax cheats. We are going to close some tax loopholes, clarify the tax rules and reduce international tax evasion. There are some tax shelters that have been utilized by Canadian companies and they will not be able to use them anymore. We are really going to reduce that aggressive tax avoidance.

One thing that really impressed me was the level of detail that we went into in BIA 2, describing even how we are going to introduce new criminal offences to deter the use, possession and sale of electronic suppression of sales software. There are businesses that have actually built tools into their point of sale software so they can avoid taxes. That is clearly illegal and it is finally time that our legislation caught up with some of these tricks that certain people are using. We are going to make that a criminal offence and that is why it is part of BIA 2.

I want to mention another important measure that I talked about earlier, which is infrastructure. This is the largest and longest federal commitment to provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure in Canadian history. No government in Canadian history has planned to spend as much for as long a time as this government when it comes to municipal infrastructure. We are seeing some of the benefits of that in Toronto.

I should mention that since 2006 the federal government has spent over $4.5 billion on infrastructure and investment in the GTA. The GTA is an important part of our country. It is an economic engine, as are many other parts of the country. It has also had a lot of growth. Some of my colleagues from the GTA can testify to that. It has basically doubled in size as a city within our lifetimes, yet the infrastructure has not caught up. There is a real important need to make those investments. That includes things such as the Bloor-Danforth subway extension in Scarborough. We are investing in the Spadina subway extension. We are making investments with our partners in the Ontario government to improve GO Transit, for example. Of course, there is the Union Station revitalization, which is a really important building architecturally but also as a transportation and transit hub for the entire GTA.

I should mention some of the specific measures that are outlined in BIA 2, the budget implementation act. We are helping businesses succeed by providing tax relief for manufacturers. Manufacturing is important in southern Ontario, and through these measures tax relief will temporarily accelerate the capital cost allowance so the industry can make new investments in critical equipment that improves its productivity.

Regarding some specific items that are outlined in the budget, I appreciate very much the investments in things like Massey Hall, which is an important institution for the city of Toronto.

I hope the opposition will support the BIA 2. It is an important bill to keep the country moving forward.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

It would be nice to be able to support and pass this kind of bill, and we would really like to do so. However, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas raised a number of fundamental problems.

I have a simple question I would like to ask. What are clauses 471 and 472 doing in Bill C-4? What are two clauses about appointing judges to the Supreme Court doing in a budget implementation bill?

The devil is always in the details when it comes to the Conservatives, and that is unfortunate. Then they turn around and criticize us for voting against something that is being referred for an opinion, that is challenged just about everywhere and that has nothing to do with any budget items.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Quebec be represented on the Supreme Court.

This therefore needed to be included in a budget bill immediately, quite honestly, because it is crucial that this judge be appointed to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. This is simply a technical qualification.

Let me get back to the main point about the budget. There are so many good measures when it comes to keeping taxes low and encouraging investment. That is the most important thing. That is what creates jobs in this country. Of course, the legal framework has to be there. We are a fine country when it comes to having that framework to support business investment.

That is what is really attractive about this budget, and that is why I support it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has touched on many great projects that are in both economic action plan 2013 as well as this particular budget implementation act.

I want to make my comments, and then I have a question with regard to the Canada job grant.

Like many MPs, I spent a lot of time in my riding over the break consulting with local businesses and employers: job creators. I heard from many of them. West Manufacturing, in my area of West Kelowna, makes some of the most creative products for forestry, as well as tanks for oil and gas. However, it specifically noted that a lack of skilled labour is a key concern. The company wants to go from two shifts to three shifts, and it does not have the skilled labour.

I also met with a lot of people who are underemployed; they have credentials but they cannot find the work.

Could the parliamentary secretary flesh out why this is an important program to carry forward?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just small businesses; I have many small and medium-sized businesses in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. I spent some time this summer with the construction crafts union, a local trade union that has a fabulous training facility in Richmond Hill. It would like to participate in the Canada job grant. It says it could do the training much better than the province, and it would like to participate with the federal and provincial governments to help train much-needed people in the construction industry in the GTA. It was interesting to note that they pointed out the same gaps in the current training programs that the employers have identified.

I hope the opposition and the provinces will get on board with this great new plan.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's global competitiveness has been hampered by the Conservative government's inaction. Low taxes alone have not attracted innovators, and it is not a creative marketing policy for our economy.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada's competitiveness would be further enhanced by improvements in its innovation ecosystems, particularly government procurement of advanced technology. It has been saying the same thing for the past five years. Why did the government wait this long? Unfortunately, my suspicion is that the government's libertarian market recklessness was responsible for this hesitation in changing its economic policy.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to making Canada a more innovative place, governments in general across the country have been spending a lot more. We are basically at the top of the OECD countries when it comes to spending.

Where we have been lacking is in the private sector. Private sector employers in Canada do not spend nearly enough on research and development. We recognize that. That is why we are supporting some advanced research and commercialization projects. We are trying to get some of the colleges and polytechnics on board, which could do some of that work when it comes to commercialization. That is one of the important measures in the budget, and I support it.