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

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been in this House for very long, but I know one thing: the cuts to the housing program started under the Liberal government.

We know what the Liberals do. They will say one thing before the election and then do exactly the same thing as the Conservatives after the election.

I have heard representatives from FCM. They are local people. They are telling parliamentarians that we have a housing crunch. What does the government do? It has been cutting funds to these programs that would help provide affordable housing for Canadians.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate in recent days, I have heard complaints from the opposition benches about repetition on our side of the House. However, I firmly believe that it cannot be said often enough that our Conservative government remains focused on those issues that matter most to Canadians: creating jobs, stimulating economic growth, and working to ensure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Just to correct my friend from Surrey North with regard to debt and deficit, I remind him that before the recession hit, our government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada to its lowest debt in a quarter century. Our aggressive dealing with debt reduction placed this country and this government in the best position to deal with the recession when it did hit. When it did hit, we were able to respond quickly and aggressively with the first incarnation of Canada's economic action plan.

Although my colleagues may not realize that my constituency of Thornhill is no longer the thriving agricultural community it once was, we still have working farms in the region, in Stouffville and Markham, and indeed, in the new Rouge national urban park, which is on the edge of York Region.

I thought this debate might be assisted somewhat if we recalled an old agricultural story I heard first as a youth. We might learn a lesson from the art of plowing. It has to do with a story, perhaps apocryphal, but that I think relevant to this debate.

A farmer put his son on a tractor for the first time, turned on the motor, and told him, “If you want to plow a straight furrow, fix your vision on a distant object, keep your vision on that object, drive toward it, and when you get to the other side of the field, look back with pride on the furrow you have plowed”.

The young fellow did that. He said, “I'm going to drive toward that dark rock on the horizon”. He progressed across the field, except when he got to other side, he looked around, and what he saw was a furrow that was anything but straight. It turned out that he had fixed his vision on a grazing cow that had wandered, which led the tractor.

I tell this story to remind colleagues that when the economic crisis first bloomed, and it became very clear that our government had to act and had to act very strongly, our Minister of Finance, our Prime Minister—our government—took great care to focus on where we were and where we had to get to and created the first economic action plan. It is a plan we have built on and continue to build with the legislation before us today.

At the same time, I would suggest, respectfully, that in contrast to the straight furrow we plowed, we heard from the opposition all sorts of criticism and hemming and hawing, representing the equivalent of the grazing cow. Four years later, where are we? Again, as we hear from the other side of the House, there are calls from the opposition for what our government considers to be reckless spending.

We are on track to achieve a balanced budget in 2015. Indeed, our plan to get back to a balanced budget, while at the same time addressing the needs of Canadians and Canadian society, is working. The deficit is being reduced. We are on course to achieve a significant surplus by 2015-16.

However, there is still more to do. That is what economic action plan 2013, part 2, is aimed at doing. What we intend to achieve with economic action plan 2013, part 2, is to address the challenge of job creation. There is much to do in this area. Our government recognizes that. We want to close tax loopholes at the same time. We also want to continue to respect taxpayer dollars.

In the time I have left, I would like to address the matter of closing tax loopholes, combatting tax evasion and tweaking our tax system to make it more equitable and fair.

In the legislation before us, we extend the reassessment period of reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters for information returns that have not been filed properly or on time.

It phases out the inefficient and ineffective federal labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. I know this is a sensitive area with some of my colleagues in the NDP.

This is another sensitive area. At the same time, it adjusts the five year phase out of additional deductions for credit unions.

It eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect to types of leveraged life insurance arrangements.

What we are trying to achieve with the Canada Revenue Agency is ultimately greater fairness and equitable treatment for individual and corporate taxpayers. Therefore, in certain circumstances this legislation extends the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from specified foreign properties on their annual income tax returns.

We heard a few times today references to the introduction of new monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software, known by those who use this illegal process and those who try to catch them as sale software zappers, which are designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

There is more. However, I would be glad to take questions from my colleagues on both sides of the House.

In response to requests from the other side this what needs to be said again is what this government considers to be not reasonable spending but somewhat reckless spending. Canada is still not immune to the volatile and precarious economic situation in other parts of the globe that directly affect our economy, trade and Canadian manufacturing. Even as we are being impacted by the turbulence in the American, European and parts of the Asian economies, as well as among our important trading partners, we will continue to be in contact with them. That is why economic action plan 2013, part 2, focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth, while at the same time returning to a balanced budget to ensure Canada's economic advantage remains strong for today and well into the future.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only myth in Canadian politics is that the Conservatives are good money managers. The two largest deficits in Canadian history were under the Conservatives: Michael Wilson in the eighties and now the current finance minister just a few years ago. The debt of our country has gone up 25% to over $600 billion under the government. The real truth is that the misguided policies of the government put the finances of the federal government into a structural deficit even before the recession hit. It routinely inherited a surplus of $10 billion to $12 billion a year and then cut the GST two points, which wiped out that surplus. It then went on a spree of reducing corporate tax cuts down to the current 16% that put us into a structural deficit of between $10 billion and $15 billion every year.

Now Canadians are faced with the only answer with a government that is ideologically opposed to government. It is slashing services from coast to coast, including cutting things like the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in Vancouver and closing down Service Canada outlets so people have to make phone calls to talk to recorded messages to get government services. I just found out today that it cut funding in British Columbia for immigration workers in classrooms.

Canadians are facing Conservative reality. Hard times are Conservative times. I would like the member to explain to Canadians how having a spiralling debt, the biggest deficit in Canadian history, and reduced services is bringing the kind of government that Canadians want.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague will not be surprised if I disagree with almost all of the points that he has just made. My colleague asks for facts and I will remind him that when our government paid down the debt by $37 billion, we achieved the lowest debt that Canada had in 25 years.

Again, my colleague refuses to recognize the urgency and the crisis that we faced when the international economic monetary crisis loomed and where we did spend. It is quite true that we ran up a deficit to $56 billion at its height, but that was in the interests of stimulating the economy, in creating jobs, in addressing infrastructure needs that the country needed and continues to need. At the same time, having stimulated the economy, having saved the Canadian economy, being admired by countries around the world, the envy of the G7, we have now reduced that deficit and are, as I said in my remarks, on target to return to surplus by 2015-16.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the former minister indicated that they would spend money in order to stimulate the economy, I had a flashback to last spring when we were seeing commercials, which were very heavy in costs. The NHL playoff commercials were all promoting and self-congratulating, patting the government on the back for its action plan and so forth. The government has spent record amounts of money on advertising and self-promotion, hundreds of millions of dollars.

One commercial in the NHL hockey playoffs was taking away jobs from 20-plus student. When we look at the underemployment within our student population, how does the member contrast the irresponsible spending of hundreds of millions of tax dollars, while we have so many youths who are unemployed, especially when they are looking for a summer job that is going assist in providing their continuing education?

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Thornhill has about one minute.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is very little time to respond to some of the dots that my colleague has inaccurately joined.

I would remind the member that the economic action plan in its first and continuing versions did create jobs, did address infrastructure needs, did assist, and we continue, to fund summer student jobs. We have created apprenticeship incentives. We have funded small and medium-size enterprises and assisted them in growing jobs. We have created over one million jobs, 90% of those are full time.

I acknowledge there is much more to do. That is where the continuity of this version of economic action plan 2013, part two, is addressing those very problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, over eight months ago, I rose in the House to talk about the Conservatives' 2013-14 budget. I shared my concerns about the issues close to my heart, such as housing and homelessness, not only in my capacity as official opposition housing critic, but also as a champion of social justice.

Today I want to talk about those who have been forgotten by this government and I also want to point out some of the injustices created by Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill.

It is no secret that housing and homelessness in Canada are not—and unfortunately probably never will be—priorities for this government. However, at some point the Conservatives will have to open their eyes.

The $1.7-billion budget for social housing administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is dwindling every year, as long-term operating agreements with social housing providers come to an end. Unfortunately, the government is presenting this as savings, but at the expense of whom?

I have criticized this situation many times in this House. After the throne speech, I rose three times to ask a question of a member opposite who had just read out the government's talking points. You could have heard a pin drop in the House. He had no idea how to answer.

I understand that he cannot know every single detail about everything the government does. However, we are talking about $1.7 billion and thousands of people who could end up on the street once these agreements expire. I think that is enough to sound the alarm on the other side and for them to care a little about what is going on.

If we listened to the ministers and backbenchers—and even the ministers opposite sometimes—without really thinking about it we could perhaps believe that this “government has invested more than any government in Canadian history” in any area. I will repeat this, because it needs to sink in on other side of the House: the last time a government invested new money in social housing, it was Jack Layton who worked hard to get it out of Paul Martin's Liberals, and the Conservatives voted against that money.

Members of the House will have an opportunity to ponder the housing situation in Canada when they debate my motion M-450, which I tabled in the House last June. It asks the government, in accordance with Canada’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities and community partners to maintain and expand the federal investment in social housing, which would include renewal of the federal long-term social housing operating agreements in order to continue rent subsidies and provide the necessary funding for residential building renovation.

I would like to reassure my colleagues opposite. They will certainly have all the information needed to understand how important this matter is. In the meantime, they can always go to my website, where they will find all the information they need in order finally to grasp the subject, and where they can also sign my petition. There is social housing across the country, from coast to coast, including their own constituencies.

Whatever form the renewal of these agreements takes, whether by maintaining at least the status quo or by negotiating a transfer to the provinces and territories, what is certain is that this amount of $1.7 billion must be preserved for social housing, period, paragraph.

What is most distressing in the current situation, however, are those cases in which people living in social housing where the agreement has run out or is about to expire are no longer able to pay their rent, because under the agreement, their social housing provider was able to pay them a rent subsidy. They will have difficulty in finding such a subsidy elsewhere, because the total envelope administered by CMHC for social housing is constantly shrinking. To put it plainly, people and families are literally being put out on the street.

How does this government respond? It cuts $15.8 million from the annual budget to deal with homelessness. They put people on the street, and they reduce the funding to deal with homelessness.

In the same breath, they are changing the structure of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy in such a way that a large portion of the budget will be allocated to projects that take a Housing First approach. I suppose everyone understands that I am not against housing.

The Housing First approach does have some advantages. One of the problems, however, is that since the last budget, practitioners involved in dealing with homelessness, those who work on a day-to-day basis with the people affected, are no longer allowed to decide what the priorities are in this area. Homelessness is not just a housing problem.

Another problem is that the reduction in the total budget, combined with the new Housing First approach, will have the effect of reducing considerably the services currently available to the homeless.

Only today, on Parliament Hill, the largest gathering of Quebec groups working to combat homelessness, the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ itinérance du Québec (RSIQ), appeared before Parliament. It came to denounce the government’s new approach to the homeless, particularly with respect to the services currently available to them, which could soon disappear, if the government does not allow those best placed—those working in the field—to decide their own priorities in dealing with homelessness.

That is how things have been done for years, yet someone, somewhere in Employment and Social Development Canada had a brainwave when they read the report on the At Home/Chez soi project, which incidentally produced good results. This person said that they were now going to change everything.

Money was already tight in the budget to deal with homelessness. If they wanted to do some good, they should have preserved at least the current HPS budget by indexing it, of course, as well as approving permanent funding for the Housing First approach.

The omnibus bill is not merely silent on housing and homelessness. As has now become customary, the Conservatives will also be using this legislative tool to amend or repeal more than 70 laws that are not necessarily budget-related.

Among other things, if this bill is passed, it will also withdraw powers from occupational health and safety officers and place them almost exclusively in the hands of the Minister, and directly challenge the rights of workers to refuse to work in unsafe conditions.

In both situations, I believe we have a major problem. The only question that comes to my mind is the following: why do we really want to compel people to work in unsafe conditions?

By adding the adjective “imminent” to the word “danger”, that is exactly what we are doing. It will henceforth be more difficult for a worker under federal jurisdiction to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. The danger will now have to be imminent. It will no longer be sufficient, therefore, to work in an environment where a large rock is suspended overhead; it will really have to be on the point of falling on you before you can claim dangerous working conditions and refuse to work.

They are playing with people’s lives. The current provisions are already sufficiently restrictive to prevent abuse. On top of all that, all the powers of occupational health and safety officers are to be concentrated in the hands of the minister, and the process is going to be politicized.

What message is being sent to employers? That occupational health and safety are no longer important? Will the minister herself be asked to inspect workplaces to ensure that conditions are not likely to impair workers’ health or safety?

What they are trying to do by means of this bill is a serious backward step with respect to the protections that have been put in place to safeguard the lives and health of people who spend a large part of their time in the workplace.

People go to work to make a life for themselves, not to lose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech. I particularly admire her work because she speaks about real issues, which is very important. I will address the housing issue with her.

I had the honour of attending a conference of the Société d'habitation du Québec. In a workshop, I learned something about the unsanitary conditions in rental housing. This focused only on the Island of Montreal, but it was still possible to extrapolate our findings to the rest of the province, if not the rest of the country.

In some particularly poor areas, it was shocking to find unsanitary condition rates easily above 10%. This was virtually uninhabitable housing.

As part of the Standing Committee on Finance's study on inequalities, the Canadian Medical Association discussed the determinants of health inequalities. The association indicated that the conditions in which children grow up have a huge impact on their future.

Would my colleague talk about this shortcoming in social housing and in the construction of new housing that affects our future as a society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak to such an important subject.

What was not mentioned in the budget was the end of long-term contracts and agreements. This will result in the gradual loss of social housing. People using these units do not necessarily have the means to afford housing at market prices.

They are therefore forced to live in mouldy homes with holes in the walls. In this environment, children have difficulty concentrating, especially when there is mould in schools as well.

We should therefore avoid phasing out the rent subsidies that currently exist, but there is absolutely nothing in the budget about this.

Also, rather than vote against the national housing strategy, they should have adopted it to make sure that we have enough rental units. Right now, there are not enough. That is one of the reasons why people are forced to find housing that is not healthy for their families. They do not have a choice because there are not enough units on the market that match their needs and their budget.

There are so many things the government could have done about housing in the budget, but unfortunately, it did nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend on her excellent speech and her excellent references to the fact that the budget would do absolutely nothing to protect social housing and to enhance social housing, because we clearly do not have enough in this country.

Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development confirmed that this $1.7 billion would end and disappear over the coming years and that many individuals would lose those subsidies and find themselves in untenable positions they would not be able to afford. The government claims it is not a cut, and yet it is. The government is spending $1.7 billion. It is going to spend zero. We know what a cut is. That is a cut, and housing groups will lose the subsidy they have been receiving for so many years.

Therefore, the current government has shown, again, its lack of understanding of the housing issue in this country.

Would she like to comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I know that he works very hard on the housing issue too.

The Conservative government does not understand that if it fails to renew the agreements, the money is no longer there. Is that what they call a budget cut? I think so, and my colleague seems to think so too. They are cutting social housing.

In Pierrefonds, there is a housing co-op that is home to 700 people, and 40% of the units are subsidized. When their agreement expires next year or the year after, those people will have to pay about $200 more for rent, which they will not be able to do. Many of them could end up on the street.

The government is also reducing funding allocated to the HPS, which helps prevent homelessness, and the organization's mandate will no longer include homelessness prevention. That makes no sense.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-4. This is a very important piece of economic legislation that will benefit Canadians right across the country.

As many members know, since we introduced our economic action plan, Canada has recovered more than all of the output and all of the jobs lost during the recession. Employment has increased by over one million since July 2009, the strongest job growth among the G7 countries over the recovery. About 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, nearly 85% are in the private sector, and more than two-thirds are in high-wage industries. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7.

Canada has weathered the economic storm well, and the world has noticed. For example, both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and the next. This economic resilience also reflects the actions our government took before the global crisis, lowering taxes, paying down debt, reducing red tape and promoting free trade and innovation.

Of course Canada cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since July 2009, many Canadians remain unemployed. Much of our vast potential remains unfulfilled. That is why economic action plan 2013 focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, such as innovation, investment, skills training and communities, underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets by 2015.

Let me now provide a few details on some of the proposed measures in Bill C-4 and how they fit into the government's agenda. First, the bill proposes to increase and index the lifetime capital gains exemption, LCG, to help support small business owners, farmers and fishermen. By doing this our government is helping to increase the rewards of investing in small business and to make it easier for owners to transfer their businesses to the next generation of Canadians.

Specifically, Bill C-4 proposes to increase the LCG by $50,000 so that it will apply on up to $800,000 of capital gains realized by an individual on qualifying property, effective for the 2014 taxation year. In addition, to ensure that the real value of the LCG is not eroded over time, the bill proposes to index the $800,000 LCG limit to inflation for the first time ever. The first indexation adjustment will occur for the 2015 taxation year.

Just one example of where this is a big benefit is a land transfer from generation to generation in agriculture. Anyone in a rural riding knows that one of the obstacles young farmers have faced is being able to afford land. At the same time, their parents or grandparents, or whoever, owns that property, but they cannot just hand it over. At one time, property could be handed down from generation to generation. It is just not affordable or easy to do that today. This is a big benefit.

By providing this tax exemption on capital gains, our government is increasing the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing, and helping these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement. Indeed, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture noted the positive impact this will have on small business owners and farmers, saying that they were:

...pleased to see the increase of $50,000 to the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption—an important tool for helping farmers manage the tax burden associated with the transfer of farm assets. ...the resulting positive change is that it will be indexed with inflation, allowing the exemption to keep up with increasing real costs.

That was from a March 21, 2013, press release.

The second proposal I want to highlight in the bill is the extension and expansion of the temporary hiring credit for small business for 2013. In recognition of the challenges faced by small businesses across the country, budget 2011 announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer.

This credit provided support to small businesses by helping defray the cost of hiring new workers so that they could better take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, the hiring credit was so successful that it was extended for one year in 2012.

While the Canadian economy is improving, the global economy remains fragile. In order to support job creation, today's legislation would amend the Employment Insurance Act to expand the hiring credit for small businesses and extend it to 2013.

As a result, an employer whose employment insurance premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012, an amount increased from the $10,000 used in the 2011 and 2012 hiring credit for small businesses, would be refunded the increase in its 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012 to a maximum of $1,000. It is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013.

The hiring credit is so popular and effective that small business owners were asking for its extension. Our government listened, and as soon as the budget was introduced, small business owners were happy.

According to Dan Kelly, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

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

He added:

We're particularly pleased the government publicly acknowledged taking some of these measures—such as the expansion of the EI hiring credit—at the recommendation of CFIB's 109,000 members.

Another measure in Bill C-4 that I would like to highlight is the phasing out of the tax credit for federal labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, or LSVCCs.

This tax credit was introduced in the 1980s when access to venture capital for small and medium-sized businesses was limited. However, the economic environment and the structure of the venture capital market have changed significantly since that time.

Independent experts who have studied the federal labour-sponsored venture capital corporations program have concluded that this tax credit is an ineffective means of stimulating a healthy venture capital sector and represents a poor use of government resources. Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has recommended that the tax credit be eliminated in order to enhance innovation outcomes in Canada, and the OECD is not alone. Here is what respected economist Jack Mintz had to say in a National Post article on March 15, 2012:

These credits have not only been ineffective in generating more venture capital, but they have also helped finance poor projects that should have never been funded in the first place.

Our government understands that Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in the emerging knowledge economy needs to be driven by globally competitive high-growth businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs. This is why the phase-out of the LSVCC tax credit aligns with the increase in venture capital investments resulting from the implementation of our government's venture capital action plan.

Indeed, as part of this plan, economic action plan 2013 announced $60 million over five years to help outstanding and high-potential incubator and accelerator organizations expand their services to worthy entrepreneurs. These organizations bring entrepreneurs together and provide them with hands-on mentorship by successful innovators and access to specialized business services to develop their ideas and grow their businesses and the jobs of tomorrow.

This is only the most recent step in our venture capital action plan, a $400 million strategy to increase private sector venture capital investments in Canada.

I wish I could continue to speak about the many positive measures in Bill C-4, but unfortunately I am running out of time.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that Canadians have every reason to be confident. Our government is doing what it is necessary to bolster growth by maintaining a sound fiscal position. By achieving a return to balanced budgets in 2015, we will help keep taxes low, encourage investment, and ensure sustainable social programs for future generations. This is what Bill C-4 is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from southwestern Ontario.

His colleague from Thornhill made a comment about trying to plow a field straight and suggested that the government was actually plowing in a straight line. Unfortunately, when we read the bill, we see there is nothing straight about the bill. The bill wanders all over the map. It does not deal just with economic issues; it deals with many issues that are weird and do not belong in a budget bill, and they are issues that we have not had time to debate.

For example, the bill reduces health and safety protections for federal workers. It reduces some of Quebec's rights in the Supreme Court. It strips civil servants of their right to free collective bargaining. It cuts some people at the National Research Council. It reduces the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and it forces immigrants to get permission from the minister to continue.

There are so many right turns. We cannot have a straight furrow with this many right turns. If we turn right often enough, we end up back where we started. I wonder if the member would like to comment.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy sitting with my hon. colleague on the transport committee and I enjoy his comments. I was really happy to see him point out that we are on the right path, as I think he said, and that we were shooting straight.

Ironically, he talked about plowing straight. I farmed, and that is one of the things I took a lot of pride in. I wanted my plow line to be straight. I wanted my corn rows to be straight. It is nice to see him recognize that this government is going straight down the path the right way as well.