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

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of Don Valley West being home to the largest veterans home and hospital in the country. That is Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, which has a veterans wing with 450 residents who fought in World War II and the Korean War.

I do support and applaud our veterans. I had the privilege this past week of hosting seven veterans from Sunnybrook Hospital for lunch on the Hill. It was the first time that they had taken a tour of this great facility.

Our government believes in our veterans. These are the people who have provided us with freedom and democracy in this great country. I applaud them, and I support them.

I also encourage the member to recognize that we have increased access to service for our veterans, whether at home or through offices across this country. I will vote for this bill. I support our veterans and will continue to do so.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my caucus mate for explaining to Canadians the benefits of this particular part of Canada's economic action plan.

I listened when he was speaking, particularly with regard to small business people, who are the principle generators of Canada's gross domestic product. I wonder if the member could expand on what this bill means to people in small business, who are hiring anywhere from 2 to 55 people in order to keep this country going, and expand our ability to trade, not only in Canada but with the rest of the world. What are some of the benefits to small business in this bill?

I wonder if the member could expand on that for the benefit of people who are watching and listening today.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, small business is the lifeblood of this country.

I come from a small business background, as does my colleague. As we celebrate Small Business Week in this country, we applaud those who take risk in small business through personal hard work and hard-earned investment.

To the member's question with regard to the opportunities in front of us, we will be opening up a market of 500 million new consumers. Small business from coast to coast to coast will have access. EI tax credits specifically give small business the opportunity to invest in their employees and create an environment of stability and sustainability.

However, do not take my word for it. Let me read what Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, had to say:

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

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time in this Parliament, the Conservative government is introducing a massive bill to implement certain provisions of its last budget.

Bill C-4 is an example of why we have been criticizing this government since it came to power; it is an example of the government's lack of respect for parliamentary processes, as it imposes unrelated measures in a single piece of legislation and limits the work of members of Parliament. It is the epitome of a tired old government that has no vision for Canadians, a government whose pathological partisanship is affecting our parliamentary institutions and the interests of Canadians.

This bill amends close to 70 laws and includes a number of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget, strictly speaking. Bill C-4 contains dozens of measures that could have been introduced in separate bills. In one bill, the government is amending taxation, employment insurance rules, economic immigration parameters, arbitration in the public sector, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, and so on.

Instead of making room for real parliamentary debate, the government has crammed dozens of measures into one single piece of legislation. Instead of allowing members of Parliament to do their jobs, the government has chosen to impose an anti-democratic approach and a dogmatic vision of politics.

Not only does Bill C-4 violate the whole parliamentary process, but the Conservatives also waited until the very last minute to present the content of the bill. The bill was finally introduced 48 hours ago. We have had 48 hours to review almost 300 pages and to assess the impact of dozens of measures. This is preventing us from doing the job we were elected to do.

The Prime Minister shut down Parliament for five weeks, which is simply outrageous and unacceptable for a democratic country like Canada. Clearly, the negative consequences of this approach cannot be denied. This single vote on a huge number of measures is certainly going to limit debate, and it will increase the potential for errors. As a result, the content will be less representative.

Furthermore, a clear example of the potential danger is the mistake that caused credit unions to face a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. An in-depth study of the measure in committee and the testimony of many witnesses would have made it possible to avoid that blunder. If parliamentary committees have one meeting only to consider such wide-ranging measures, of course, members of Parliament do not have all the tools they need for a proper review.

In the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we had only 40 minutes to study measures in Bill C-60 that had major consequences. We had 40 minutes to study a piece of legislation that easily would have required more committee meetings. That is the anti-democratic approach the Conservatives are taking with Bill C-4.

As if the general structure of Bill C-4 was not enough of a violation of democracy, the government moved a time allocation motion yesterday to further limit debate. If that is not mocking democracy, I do not know what it is. The situation is all the more worrisome and deplorable considering that some parts of Bill C-4 have serious and troubling implications.

First of all, the budget implementation bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, thereby allowing the Minister of Finance to manipulate the rates for the employment insurance fund. Clearly, the Conservative promises to make the management of employment insurance parameters more independent and transparent are now no more than a distant memory. Once again, the government is going back on its commitments and, in some cases, its own actions.

The Conservatives criticized the Liberals—and so did we for that matter—for helping themselves to and squandering the surplus in the employment insurance fund. In total, $57 billion was taken by those governments. In the past, the Conservatives rose up against that, but now, with Bill C-4, they are changing their tune once again.

With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are once more setting up the same mechanisms that allowed finance ministers, both Conservative and Liberal, to dip into the premiums paid by workers.

With access to benefits constantly decreasing, Canadians find this decision unacceptable. After all, the money involved belongs to the workers and the Conservatives are acting as if it were theirs.

We in the NDP maintain that the employment insurance fund must be managed independently and transparently. The Minister of Finance has decided otherwise by granting himself discretionary powers that will tarnish the very management of the fund.

In addition, Bill C-4 will amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act by redefining the process by which disputes are resolved in the government.

Not only is the government reserving the right to define essential services, but it is also imposing a process of binding arbitration in disputes where less than 80% of the members of a bargaining unit are performing essential services.

As a result, the Conservatives are reserving the right to define the rules on resolving disputes in the public service of Canada and to impose working conditions on its employees through arbitration.

Clearly, the government wants to give itself some elbow room so that it can attack the unions that stand up for the rights of workers.

Amendments of this kind require discussions in depth, with other voices to be heard on the matter, not just Conservative voices. To roll out measures of this kind without real debate is to lay oneself open to regrettable errors.

That applies to the amendments to employment insurance and the dispute resolution processes in the public service. It also applies to the omnibus bill in its entirety.

In closing, never has a government shown so much contempt for our parliamentary institutions and for Canadians. Here we are with a single bill with 300 pages of measures amending about 70 acts. It is impossible for members of Parliament to do their jobs properly. Then we get a time allocation motion that restricts debate even more.

Clearly, our democracy is suffering. All the work by members of the House of Commons is also being placed in jeopardy.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the EI issue, which the member spent quite a bit of time discussing.

An EI freeze for the next couple of years would create an incentive for business and workers. It would reduce costs in business. It would put money back in the pockets of our workers.

I wonder if the member would be good enough to explain why she is against job creation and sustainability in small business.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

Clearly, what we are also seeing is a major move on the part of the Conservatives to control workers and unions.

In Bill C-4, we see that the Minister of Finance is given the power to manipulate the setting of rates. The Conservatives, in fact, have now completely broken their promise to have an independent and accountable body oversee employment insurance funding.

The government talks about and champions transparency, and forges ahead saying that it is the government that stands for greater accountability and much more transparency. Unfortunately, that is not at all what we are seeing here and these are not at all the principles that this government claims to have guaranteed.

Clearly, this amendment in Bill C-4 will simply prevent workers from having meaningful access to their unions and, at some point, will clearly and specifically prevent them from having any access to their premiums.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Lambert for her excellent speech. She is always ready to stand up for her constituents and for workers in general.

On a number of occasions, she emphasized how completely absurd, irresponsible and anti-democratic it is to table such a lengthy bill and to allow parliamentarians so little time to study the repercussions of all the amendments to the 70 acts, not to mention the two new acts, contained in Bill C-4.

The Conservatives say loud and clear that they are standing up for workers. However, as we read the bill, we see clearly that they are continuing their attack on employment insurance.

Could the hon. member provide more details of the attack on the public service? She discussed it briefly, but we must understand the dangers and the concerns that lie in store for workers in terms of their right to present cases and in terms of the unions.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

First, I would like to go back to Bill C-4, another omnibus bill that deals with technical changes.

Clearly, this is another smokescreen, but we have not been taken in. It does not hide the fact that Bill C-4 really is trying to slip in major changes with no real prior consultation.

Once more, we are seeing a complete lack of democracy and of debate. Debates in this House have become impossible, and all workers, all Canadians, are having a hard time with that.

We are talking about major changes to the public service. A huge number of our workers will be affected by this tired old government's latest moves to take control of all our institutions at all costs. It really is unacceptable.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today and speak to economic action plan 2013.

I rise in the House to better inform not only members here but more specifically Canadians on the impact that the act would have and the key measures in economic action plan 2013, as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate the economy and secure long-term prosperity across our great nation.

I am pleased to first address our government's continued reduction of Canada's deficit. This past Tuesday the Minister of Finance introduced the “Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada” for 2012-13. The report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13 the deficit fell to just under $19 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, or $7.4 billion, from the deficit just last year, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. This shows that we are still on track to balance the budget by fiscal year 2015-16.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide support for job creators. Since 2006 our government's top priority has been the economy and job creation. We are extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers right across this great country of ours.

Currently, there are thousands of jobs available across Canada that are unfulfilled. In fact, CIBC World Markets stated in a report in December 2012 that 30% of businesses in Canada are facing skilled labour shortages. In addition, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated in its “Business Barometer” report that 34% of small and medium-size businesses identified a shortage of skilled labour as a constraint to their growth.

Difficulty in hiring has increased over the recovery and is becoming a key issue for employers in some sectors and regions of our country. In particular, persistent pockets of unfilled positions exist for skilled tradespeople and professionals such as electricians, millwrights, carpenters, machinists, heavy equipment operators, engineers and architects, just to name a few. The hiring credit for small business will continue to bridge that gap.

In recognition of the importance of small business owners, farmers and fishers, economic action plan 2013 proposes to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000. The lifetime capital gains exemption increases the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing. The exemption also helps these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement and facilitates the intergenerational transfer of their businesses.

From speaking with farmers in Northumberland—Quinte West as well as small business owners, whether they be at the corner store, an insurance agency or many other businesses, this is their RRSP in addition to the money they have been able to save, and in some instances it might not be that much. This is their future. This is their ability to be able to retire after a lifetime in some cases of working from about 5:30 in the morning until about 8:30 to 9:30 at night and sometimes longer.

Furthermore, to provide support to job creators, we are freezing employment insurance premiums for the next three years. This will leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Economic action plan 2013 would ensure that the government will promote education in high demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and math. It is critically important for young Canadians to have access to information on a variety of careers in order to make informed choices about their education early in their lives. Making good choices early can help ensure that young Canadians obtain the skills and experiences necessary to find work quickly, avoid unnecessary debt and get a better start to their careers.

Economic action plan 2013 proposes to reallocate $19 million over two years to help inform young people about the fields of study that are relevant to the existing and forecasted demand for labour in particular occupations. The government would provide more information on job prospects and the benefits of working in various occupations and it would develop new outreach efforts to promote careers in such high demand fields as science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as the skilled trades.

Economic action plan 2013 would help break down youth employment barriers. This past June, in my riding of Northumberland—Quinte West, a community training and development centre in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity Northumberland received over $90,000 from the skills link program for one of its projects. The skills link program is part of the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy. With annual funding of approximately $300 million across Canada, the youth employment strategy helps youth, particularly those facing barriers to employment, obtain career information, develop skills, find jobs and stay employed.

If I can go back to the Habitat for Humanity program that I am referring to, the particular Habitat project in question is called the “Faith Build”. For the benefit of those outside of Northumberland, who are unaware of this particular build, Habitat for Humanity wanted to build one housing unit for a worthy family. Of course, we know that Habitat for Humanity depends on a lot of volunteer help. Madelaine Currelly, who works at the community training and development centre, was successful, as I mentioned, in obtaining a $90,000 grant. Ten young people who were experiencing barriers to employment were hired to work on this project, utilizing this $90,000. Today, I am told that the vast majority of those young people are now working in full-time jobs because they obtained the necessary skills and experience on that project.

In addition to pre-existing funding, economic action plan 2012 invested an extra $50 million to enhance the youth employment strategy with a new initiative that connects young Canadians with jobs in high demand, and helps them develop tangible skills and gain work experience. Economic action plan 2013 proposes an additional investment of $70 million over three years to create 5,000 more internships.

Furthermore, our government not only assists youth in finding jobs, it also assists young scientists and engineers with the launch their businesses. Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation launched two initiatives in collaboration with FedDev Ontario, the Spark Centre and the IDEAHUB in Port Hope. Scientists and engineers in business provide matching performance-based grants to graduates of science, technology, engineering or math, or as we refer to them, the STEM programs.

The CFDCs offer free business counselling and financing for small and medium-size enterprises for start-up and expansion, strategic planning support for local projects and community economic development in rural areas right across our great country. Economic action plan 2013 would continue to fund programs such as the Community Futures Development Corporations, which promote the growth of science and technology, as well as other fields.

Manufacturing in Ontario must increasingly seek to become more competitive by investing in innovation and moving up the value chain. That is why, in economic action plan 2013, we propose to provide a new, advanced manufacturing fund to be delivered by FedDev or the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.

Firms in manufacturing sectors, including information and communication technologies, life sciences, machinery and equipment, and sophisticated niche sectors are pursuing competitive advantage through the development of transformative products and technologies that open and expand markets. To support the efforts of advanced manufacturing in Ontario to become more competitive, economic action plan 2013 would provide $200 million over five years for the creation of an advanced manufacturing fund. The new fund would support investments by manufacturing firms and activities that create new and innovative products or production methods, such as prototyping, demonstrating projects and advancing product testing.

I am confident that economic action plan 2013 will continue to provide for Canadians, and in the face of global economic uncertainty, keep our economy strong.

I am prepared now to answer any questions and hear comments from my fellow parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He spoke at length about the importance of creating jobs for young people. However, we know that the youth unemployment rate is double the national average for other age groups.

Could the hon. member explain his government's really depressing record? In addition, could he tell us what he thinks of measures such as the one that the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park and I proposed a few weeks ago? This was a tax credit for small and medium businesses to train and hire young employees. I feel that this is a great way to help businesses, and especially young people, whom this government seems to overlook.

Given the importance he attributed to the issue, especially at the end of his speech, I wonder if he might be ready to help us get such an important initiative passed.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, during my speech I mentioned specific instances where we have, through different government programs, shown how we can employ young people, especially those with barriers, those who do not possess the skills necessary to get the jobs that are available. I mentioned the Habitat for Humanity project and the fact that we now have young people who are currently fully employed who probably would not be otherwise.

The hon. member mentioned that youth unemployment is double the average, and he is correct. There are far too many young people who are not employed. However, what he leaves out of that statement is the fact that in the western economies, Canada is one of the best when it comes to youth employment. It is still not where it should be. We readily agree with that, but when he mentioned credits for hiring people, I already mentioned in my speech the hiring credit for small business, where the Government of Canada provides credits for people who hire workers, and in particular, workers who have the skills necessary.

This government, more than any other government, has concentrated more money in the science and technology fields. Therefore, while the hon. member mentioned some facts, he left out the fact that Canada is doing, compared to our neighbours, fairly well when it comes to youth employment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to change the focus slightly from what the hon. member covered in his speech and just ask him about the measures we are seeing brought forward in Bill C-4 about which he is excited. I have to admit, I have less excitement in the sense of happiness about them. I am concerned that it is becoming too predictable a trend that the bulk of the government's legislation that we see in any session of Parliament is coming to us bundled together with many unrelated pieces of legislation. In fact, over 30% of the government legislation in the previous session of Parliament came in the form of omnibus bills.

These measures, about which my hon. friend is so happy, are ones that I am very concerned about, such as the changes to the Canada Labour Code, changes to the public service act, changes to the Supreme Court Act. These have nothing to do with one another or with the budget. Would they not have been better handled as separate bills?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that during the lead-up to the last election, the Green Party candidate in my riding said that the economic policies of the Green Party were very conservative in nature. Yet I noticed the voting record of the only member of the Green Party is pretty close to 95% to 100% of that of the New Democratic Party. The policies of the Green Party are very democratic socialist in nature.

She mentioned that we have these omnibus bills and we need to talk at length about all the things that happen. My constituents tell me they are tired of a bunch of politicians who talk and talk, and very little gets done. I tell my constituents that we are getting things done, that we have had more private members' bills in the history of this country happen under this government, that we get things done such as the economic action plan, that our place in the world, especially in the G7, is at the top of the heap and not where we want it to be quite yet but getting there. They tell me that they want to see action taken, not more talk from a bunch of politicians here in Ottawa.

I am happy that we get things done and that we do not sit here babbling ad infinitum about things that are not really of interest to average Canadians. They want action, and that is what they are getting from our government.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill, which, as you know, the Liberals will oppose.

I would like to address three issues. One is the fact that it does nothing for middle-class families. Second is the omnibus nature of the bill. Third are issues related to immigration.

The basic problem with this bill is that, really, it does nothing for the middle class in Canada.

This is an important issue, because the middle class is really struggling. It is only this week that the Bank of Canada came out with a radically more pessimistic projection for the Canadian economy. We know that the youth unemployment rate is twice the national average. We know that there are 224,000 fewer jobs for young people today than there were before the recession. We know that Canadian debt levels are at a record level. It is about $1.6 dollars for every dollar of income, which is considerably higher than it is in the United States. We know that tuition fees have been going sky high way faster than the rate of inflation.

We know all this, yet I do not think the government does anything significant to address these fundamental issues facing middle-class Canadians. Yes, the Conservatives would extend the hiring credit, but that is just the status quo. Yes, they would refrain from further increases in employment insurance premiums, which they had for the last three years, to the tune of $600 million per year. They would freeze them. They should have frozen them for the last three years as well as for the next two years, because this is a job-killing tax. A time of economic weakness is not the time to increase EI premiums.

Yes, the books have to be balanced over the longer term. Economists agree with that. However, that does not mean that we have to have increases in premiums every single year during a period of economic hardship. The fact that the Conservatives have increased those premiums in each of the last three years has done damage to the economy and damage to jobs.

There are many other details, but the fundamental point is that middle-class Canadians are struggling, and this budget implementation bill has essentially nothing to provide assistance or to provide hope to those people. At best, it is the status quo with little that is new or novel or helpful to help the Canadian economy at this time of weakness.

The second issue I would raise is the question of omnibus bills. This is a bill of 308 pages with 472 clauses.

We are fully aware that the problem with this kind of bill is that it goes against democratic principles. Neither the House nor the committees of the House have had the time to study the provisions of this bill. This has been a problem since this government arrived and it continues to be a problem.

Another aspect of this problem is that mistakes are made.

One example of mistakes I would mention is the question of credit unions. In the budget, the Conservatives proposed a major increase in taxes on credit unions. This bill has a decrease in taxes on credit unions, but that is only because they made a mistake the first time around. They increased the tax on credit unions radically more than they intended. That was a mistake partly related to the omnibus, complicated nature of the bill, and now they have to undo that mistake.

They throw in corrective measures regarding the Supreme Court, which have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is an important issue for Canada but one parliamentarians will not have the opportunity to study in any detail.

The last point I would like to make has to do with immigration, which is currently and recently one of my responsibilities. There are two aspects I would like to mention. The first is potentially positive. It is the idea that new economic immigrants would first write a letter of interest, and then the government would decide whether those people were likely to have the skills and qualifications to match the needs of Canada before they were allowed to make a formal application. Other countries have done this. To some extent, it makes sense, in principle. However, here is a case where the devil is in the details. How would the government implement this? Which people would be advantaged? Which people would be disadvantaged, and according to what criteria?

This is where the regulations and the details of the proposal, which are absent from the bill, have to be studied in detail by the immigration committee to see whether the proposal, which in principle maybe makes sense, will in practice make sense, given the way the government plans to implement it, which is something we do not yet know.

The last issue I would like to mention is perhaps the most egregious, the most serious, in the area of immigration. It is the dramatic increase in waiting times for family class immigrants.

Over the last five years, we have seen those waiting times double, triple, and quadruple. In the case of China, the average waiting time five years ago, in 2007, was seven months. In 2012, that had ballooned from seven months to 39 months. In other words, the average waiting time has gone from just over half a year to more than three years. China is not alone. For India, the waiting time has tripled from eight months to 24 months. The situation is at least as bad, or worse, for Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and many other countries.

Many new Canadians come into my office desperate, often in tears, because they are waiting interminably for their spouses, their children, or their parents to be allowed in. The waiting times keep growing and growing. The government said absolutely nothing about this issue in the throne speech except a modest amount of self-praise, if one can believe it, for its treatment of family class immigrants. There is nothing in the budget to correct this egregious situation.

As one who represents Canada's most diverse community, Markham, I know very well from the day-to-day work in my office that this is a huge issue for new Canadians. It is not only the waiting times to be reunited with children, spouses, or parents. It is also the denials for parents or grandparents who want to come to attend the weddings of their grandchildren or funerals in the family or other important family events. They keep being turned down, for no apparent reason.

This is a sin of omission, not of commission. There is nothing in the throne speech and nothing in the budget bill to address this problem, which is of huge concern for all the new Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious economics question for the member. A lot of us in this place talk about economics. The member for Markham—Unionville is one of those who is actually qualified to speak to it, having achieved a Ph.D., having taught at four universities, and having been the former chief economist at the Royal Bank.

I am curious about his views. We keep hearing the mantra that cutting corporate tax rates, so that Canada now has the lowest corporate tax rate in the OECD, is helping the job creators. However, we are also seeing that our job creation rate is very low. Youth unemployment is 14%.

Current RBC staff are telling us, as Mark Carney from the Bank of Canada pointed out, that low corporate tax rates are resulting in a large accumulated pile of what Carney called “dead money”. It is not going into the economy. It is not stimulating jobs. A current RBC economist says that it is now $600 billion. I believe that is 32% of our current GDP. I wonder if my friend from Markham—Unionville has any comments on this.