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 Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

moved that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to highlight many of the pro-growth and job creation measures in Bill C-4, economic action plan 2013 act no. 2, which is a very important piece of legislation for our government.

We all recognize that during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries. Indeed, since the depths of the global economic recession, Canada's economy has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full-time, with over 80% in the private sector.

This morning, in fact, Statistics Canada announced that 21,600 net new jobs were created in the month of November, which is great news. Not only did this job growth beat market expectation, but solid gains were made in the manufacturing sector, where 24,900 new jobs were created. This continues Canada's strong job creation record, which is the best in the entire G7 by far.

It is not only that, but Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S. This is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.

However, that is not all.

All the major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's, have affirmed Canada's rock solid AAA credit rating. It is worth mentioning that Canada is one of only a handful of countries that can boast this top-notch rating. We can do this, thankfully, because the Conservative government understands the meaning of fiscal responsibility.

Indeed, when Standard and Poor's affirmed Canada's AAA rating on November 13, here is what it had to say:

The ratings on Canada reflect its strong public institutions, prosperous and resilient economy, fiscal and monetary flexibility, and effective policymaking. [...] Canada's success in the past decade in achieving credible monetary and fiscal policy, along with its openness to trade...will continue to support its economic performance.

Unlike other countries, Canada has found the right balance between efforts to support job creation and economic growth by respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets in 2015. While many European countries, and even the United States, continue to struggle with their national debts, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. In fact, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level in the G7 by far. Germany was second lowest, and closest to Canada, at 57.2%. If members are still not impressed, how about this: the G7 average is 90.4%.

While the Liberals may want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

Most importantly, unlike the previous Liberal government, we will balance the budget without slashing transfers for health care and education. Our Conservative government rejects that shameful practice and is protecting and growing transfers to help support the services that Canadian families depend on. Unlike the previous Liberal government, we understand that if we make government more efficient and control program spending, we can reduce the deficit while still increasing transfers.

As was recently outlined in the government's annual financial report in 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion, which was down by more than one-quarter; that is $7.4 billion from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. The Liberals might be interested to know that the reductions in direct program spending played a key role in this outcome. Indeed, expenses fell by 1.2% from the prior year and by 3.8% from 2010-11.

Our government will also balance the budget without raising taxes. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses.

The opposition may be interested to know that since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant that savings for a typical family of four, in 2013, totals nearly $3,400. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax, and introducing pension income splitting for seniors. It also includes measures like reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, which has put an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of average families. This is a measure that both the Liberals and the NDP opposed.

That is not all. It includes introducing measures like the working income tax benefit, and the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls.

Keeping taxes low also helps the businesses in our communities grow and succeed. That is why, since 2006 we have consistently reduced the tax burden for small businesses. This includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, while at the same time increasing the small business limit to $500,000. In fact, our government's low-tax plan has resulted in over $28,000 in savings for the typical small business.

The NDP and Liberals might not understand how the economy works, but lower taxes not only encourage businesses to innovate and grow, it also makes Canada a more attractive destination in which to invest. As a matter of fact, Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7.

To question whether this is having a positive impact, one need only look at the facts. Both the independent International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, project that Canada will have the strongest growth among the G7 in the years ahead. Last week, Statistics Canada announced that the Canadian economy grew 2.7% in the third quarter of 2013. This represents the ninth consecutive quarter of economic growth in Canada and is an encouraging sign that Canada's economy is on the right track.

However, while this is certainly encouraging news, we cannot become complacent. While economic conditions are improving, there are still too many Canadians out of work. The global economy looks fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, both among our largest trading partners. This is why our Conservative government remains focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and growing the economy. That is exactly what today's legislation is all about.

Bill C-4 would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013, which would help support job creation and growth in communities across the country. One such measure is the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business. The history of this credit illustrates our government's commitment to small business in Canada.

Indeed, in economic action plan 2011 our government first introduced the hiring credit for small business, which provided up to $1,000 to help defray the cost of hiring new workers. In fact, the credit was so successful that we extended it again in economic action plan 2012.

As I mentioned earlier, the economy is showing encouraging signs of growth. At the same time, there is still a large amount of uncertainty in the global economy. We have heard these concerns from business owners. That is why economic action plan 2013 and Bill C-4 extend and expand the hiring credit for small business.

As a result of this legislation, the credit provides for up to $1,000 against a small firm's increase in its 2013 EI premiums over that paid in 2012. It applies to employers with total EI premiums of $15,000 or less in 2012, an increase from the previous level of $10,000. Extending this credit would benefit over 560,000 employers, providing them with an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013.

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said recently:

The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit. [...] That's really good news....

That was from March 21, 2013, on the CTV News channel.

Clearly, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role that small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed.

On that note, there are many other measures in Bill C-4 that will support small businesses across Canada.

Bill C-4 increases and indexes to inflation the lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only will increasing the exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 make investing in small businesses more attractive, it will make it easier for entrepreneurs of today to transfer their family businesses to the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

Our government also wants to ensure that the value of this exemption is preserved over time. That is why Bill C-4 will index the exemption to inflation for the first time ever. Overall, this will provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15.

However, there are still more measures in Bill C-4 that support Canadian job creators.

Bill C-4 provides tax relief to encourage more businesses to invest in clean energy generation, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance.

The message is simple: keeping taxes low helps attract investment, allows our businesses to expand their operations and to hire more workers. It also helps Canadian families keep more money in their pockets. At the end of the day, Canadians know best how to spend their hard-earned money.

How can we keep taxes low if people are gaming the system and exploiting tax loopholes? Our government does not think it is fair when a select few businesses and individuals avoid paying their fair share. That is why economic action plan 2013 introduces a number of measures to close tax loopholes and address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

When it comes to closing tax loopholes, our record speaks for itself. Since 2006, including measures in economic plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. Bill C-4 includes some of these measures, such as eliminating the unintended tax benefits from character conversion transactions and 10/8 arrangements. It also includes a number of measures to strengthen the ability of the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, to crack down on tax cheats and combat international tax evasion.

Overall, the actions in economic action plan 2013 to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system will provide about $350 million in savings in 2013-14, rising to over $1.2 billion 2017-18, for a total of $4.4 billion over the next five years.

Protecting Canada's tax base is essential, as Canadians need to have confidence in their tax system. They need to know it is fair.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and NDP do not seem to share this view. While our government has worked hard to close over 75 tax loopholes, the NDP and Liberals have voted against each of these measures each and every time. I have to ask what the NDP and Liberals have against closing tax loopholes.

However, there is no reason to worry. While the Liberals and NDP work to protect these tax loopholes, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have a fair and neutral tax system that keeps everyone on a level playing field. Indeed, Canadians can rest assured that our government will continue to take action to close loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

Our government is also taking steps to crack down on those who are trying to defraud taxpayers. It has come to the attention of the CRA that certain retailers have been using electronic sales suppression software, also known as “zappers”, to selectively delete or modify sales transactions in their computer systems. By engaging in this practice, certain taxpayers are avoiding the payment of their fair share of taxes. That is why Bill C-4 introduced new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to target those who use, manufacture or possess this type of software.

The Canadian Restaurant and Food Service Association welcomed this, saying:

These measures appropriately target the producers, installers, and users of sales-distorting software, while supporting the competitiveness of Canada's hard-working small business community, among them 81,000 restaurants, the vast majority of which pay their taxes and operate in full transparency.

It is important that our government crack down on these types of activities. When some businesses cheat, everyone loses, but when everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share, we can keep taxes low.

On that note, I would like to quickly conclude my remarks by saying that I hope the opposition will support these measures and Bill C-4. It is clear that these measures will help grow Canada's economy and will create jobs for Canadians. If the opposition members decide to oppose these measures, as they have done so many times in the past, I hope, at the very least, that they will stop advocating for high taxes.

I must admit that I was very sad to hear just last week that the leader of the NDP confirmed that he would impose a crippling tax hike on job creators, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy.

The simple fact remains that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. Thankfully, our Conservative government understands that low taxes promote economic growth and job creation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I serve in the Standing Committee on Finance, for his speech.

This speech is not very different from all the other ones we have heard on Bill C-4. When the Conservatives deign to rise and speak, they usually just rehash the same old arguments, the same script written for everyone.

I would like to correct what the member said. He is very well aware that the NDP and even the third party are in favour of eliminating tax loopholes. We would like the government to act much more forcefully to prevent tax avoidance. My colleague knows this, since he sits on Standing Committee on Finance.

The arguments presented here to tout the government's record contain elements that the government often chooses to ignore. For example, the austerity measures and provisions for deep cuts in Bill C-4, as well as the other budget bills in the last two years, have a negative impact on the economy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke about this. An International Monetary Fund report released just two weeks ago shows that the budget cuts and various austerity measures enacted by the government will reduce the potential GDP by 0.2% per year. This is very close to the numbers quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I would like to hear the member's comments on this question: when I talked about the impact of certain measures included in Bill C-4, for example the phasing-out of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, his colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River replied that this was a good measure because it would create jobs in his province of Saskatchewan. This measure will eliminate 20,000 jobs in Quebec, which depend on the impact of these labour-sponsored funds.

I would like the member to tell me whether the government's strategy consists of promoting job creation and growth in some regions at the expense of other regions.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member across the way so rightly pointed out, we share a spot on the finance committee, and I have great respect for the member.

I would disagree, though. I mentioned in my speech that it is impossible for us to spend our way out of this position. The austerity measures the member mentioned are very modest.

We saw the massive unemployment after 2008-09 and saw the losses in the private sector. The government had to look at the public sector to see if there were some measures we could trim.

I know the hon. member shares those opinions. There are economists who feel that austerity will heighten and worsen the situation. I believe that what we have experienced in this country and in the western world is a spending problem, and it is incumbent on governments to address that and do what is necessary.

I just want to say again that the measures we have taken have been quite modest, but they were necessary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, walking into the House, it was encouraging to see the white ribbons we are all wearing today in recognition of the massacre that occurred at École Polytechnique back in 1989 on December 6. I would emphasize how important it is that we never forget it.

Having said that, I take issue with my colleague's comments from across the way when he says that Liberals, and in brackets, the NDP too, really do not understand jobs and deficits. I should remind the member that whether it was under Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien, the Liberals created more jobs than the current Conservative government. There was more small business investment from coast to coast to coast under previous governments than under the current government. In fact, it was the Jean Chrétien government that got rid of the massive billion dollar deficit created by the Brian Mulroney government. Not only did we get rid of that deficit, but when we handed over the books to the current government back in 2006, we provided a multibillion dollar surplus. It was not just the debt issue. We also provided a multibillion dollar trade surplus. A trade surplus equals thousands of jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Does the member not recognize good, solid policy when he sees it? Look at the facts. If he wants to look at good governance, all he needs to do is look at the most recent years prior to the Conservative government. He would recognize that there were balanced budgets, surpluses, job creation, and a trade deficit, which was a lot healthier for Canada back then.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that. I think he walked right into that one.

The fact of the matter is that he is correct. The former Liberal government did slash that deficit, which was massive in its time. However, it did so on the backs of the provinces. The Liberals made cuts to health care. We still feel the reverberations today. They practically eliminated the military as we know it today.

They did manage to do those things. We, however, and I brought this out in my speech, managed to do it by lowering taxes. The member is absolutely correct; there were some strong years of growth in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In those years, there was a budget surplus. We took those moneys and applied them to the national debt to the tune of $39 billion so that when we were faced with the global incident we now know as the great recession, we were able to weather it much better.

I would agree that it is important to erase those deficits, but the right way to do it is to lower taxes and to manage properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-4 introduced by the Conservatives is another undemocratic omnibus bill. What is more, the government has moved a time allocation motion to limit debate.

Once again, there was not enough time in committee to study the ins and outs of the bill and the negative impact it will have on the everyday lives of Canadians. This is another bill that attacks workers' rights instead of creating jobs. In this case, it is an attack on their right to work in a healthy and safe environment.

I think that nearly all of the members here met with Unifor workers, who came to tell us just how serious an attack this is and how difficult it was for them to refuse to work in dangerous situations. They feel that this bill makes it more difficult to refuse work when there never used to be an issue between the employers and the employees.

How can the member opposite justify those provisions, which now put workers at greater risk?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget consultation last year was an extensive process, as it was this year. We heard from an enormous number of people. Not only did we hear from them at committee, we were given many other submissions, which the committee looked as well. It was on these recommendations and findings that the budget was created in the spring of this year.

The budget implementation we are now debating and that the member says we are rushing through has taken a year. These things must be debated and have been at quite some length. The finance committee spent a significant amount of time working on this. It is the process we go through, and it must be done. I believe that we are prepared to look at this, and we are prepared to vote on it. I hope the members would also vote for this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-4. We do not have much time to debate it, despite what my colleague said, given that we have only one day for third reading debate. I am referring, of course, to the second budget implementation bill.

First of all, as we have already heard a few times, including during questions and comments this morning, it is worth reminding the House that this is another omnibus bill, at least the fourth one of its kind to be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance, where I was directly involved.

In order for an omnibus bill to really be effective, it must contain consistent measures. A budget bill should include budgetary measures, amendments to the Income Tax Act, for example, or the Excise Tax Act. We could understand such measures being in an omnibus bill.

However, the omnibus bill before us has practically everything in it. The Conservatives included measures that amend the process for selecting judges from Quebec for the Supreme Court, to correct an error they made. Furthermore, the bill contains measures dealing with workplace health and safety, as well as measures that alter the relationship between the government as an employer and the public service as employees.

These measures are extremely important and should be debated individually. Once again, however, despite what my colleague said, we did not have enough time to debate them. Time was very limited, particularly at the Standing Committee on Finance. A time limit on the debate was imposed from the very beginning of the committee's examination of the bill.

Three meetings were scheduled to study such an important bill that will add, eliminate or amend about 70 different acts. We heard from five witnesses during the first panel, which took about an hour and 45 minutes, and we heard from five witnesses during the second panel,which took less than an hour and 15 minutes. The Minister of Finance addressed the committee, but he did not really answer questions, as he often asked his officials to respond. Then four other witnesses spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes. We heard from an additional 13 witnesses over a three-hour period.

That is the extent of the study that was done of the imposing and important Bill C-4, just like all of the other budget implementation bills.

The Conservatives have a habit of ramming various measures down our throats, and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process and were not even in the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in March.

This tendency has been criticized by several extremely credible organizations, which leads me to wonder why the government continues to do this. We heard some very interesting evidence in that regard. There is a generalized sense of frustration among experts and Canadians who are worried and concerned about the state of our democracy.

For example, the Canadian Bar Association gave a presentation on this. No one here can dispute the credibility of that organization. I will quote what the representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance:

All parties are now disadvantaged as they hastily review unexpected and unexplained changes in Bill C-4. The concern is compounded when those changes arrive in omnibus legislation, as the opportunity for serious reflection and debate is minimal. The [Canadian Bar Association] Section believes that eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices.

I do not know how we could make it any clearer that the kind of omnibus bills the government has been introducing for the past three years distort the democratic process and force members of Parliament to vote on bills that have a lot of flaws and deserve closer attention.

The Association of Justice Counsel agrees. The judicial process is at the heart of what they do. They testified at the Standing Committee on Finance, which is never mentioned by the government. This is what they said:

By virtue of introducing these changes under the umbrella of a budget bill, the government has effectively sidestepped the much-needed consultation process with stakeholders. The scope of this Bill, combined with the very short time span, is unduly pressuring elected officials to make uninformed decisions without the benefit of a solid understanding and healthy discussion and debate.

When the government tries to claim that there were wide consultations, extensive debates and all kinds of presentations in committee or the House, and that we had time for exhaustive discussion, I have to say that I have some serious doubts.

Omnibus bills like this one have a huge impact. They are introduced very quickly with a minimal amount of consultation. Since these bills have a broad scope and there is little time for discussion, they can contain serious errors that the government is then forced to fix.

We saw an example of this a year or a year and a half ago. The government had introduced an omnibus crime bill. We told the government that some of the measures in Bill C-10 were quite problematic.

We told the government precisely how it should amend the bill. We did not agree with the scope of the bill, but we made proposals in the House and in committee. The government said no and had the omnibus crime bill passed very quickly.

After the bill passed, the Conservatives realized that the opposition was right, that the bill contained a very harmful measure. Do you know what they did? Instead of admitting their mistake, they turned to the Senate to fix the mistake. Once the bill was amended in the Senate, the government brought it back to the House.

The same thing is happening here with the budget bills. The last budget bill contained a measure that affected caisses populaires and credit unions by changing their tax rate from 11% to 15%, effectively eliminating the 4% advantage they had. We felt that the caisses populaires and credit unions deserved that leg up given their mandate. They are not-for-profit organizations, unlike the banks, and they play a major role in local economies.

For extremely complex technical reasons, this change did not simply shift the tax rate from 11% to 15%. The tax rate actually increased from 11% to 28% for caisses populaires and credit unions.

We had very little time to study the bill and therefore did not have the opportunity to address this technicality. The government realized that there was a mistake.

The bill before us contains a measure that corrects the tax rate and brings it back down to 15%. Nevertheless, this mistake should not have gone through in the first place. I wonder how many of these technical mistakes are in bills that we have had to pass hastily over the past two years.

Bill C-4 contains numerous measures. As I mentioned, the bill adds, eliminates or amends 70 acts. We are opposed to many of these measures. We agree with some of the government's efforts. There is no problem with the fight against tax havens and tax loopholes. If people look carefully into the testimony and interventions before the Standing Committee on Finance, they will see that we support this measure and indeed find that the government is not going far enough.

This bill has some extremely harmful measures. I find it really interesting that in their speeches the Conservatives talk in very general terms about how their budget bill and their government have such a positive impact. However, they only talk about those tax issues they support.

In 2008, the Conservative government established the Employment Insurance Financing Board. It was supposed to be a means of correcting the Liberal government's misuse of the EI fund in the 1990s. We are talking about $57 billion.

The Conservatives did not promise to put this amount in an independent employment insurance fund, but they promised to correct the situation and ensure that such a thing would never happen again. They created the Employment Insurance Financing Board to set EI premiums and to determine EI benefits and eligibility criteria.

We are now in 2013, only to find that this bill contains a proposal to eliminate the Employment Insurance Financing Board, which has been essentially an empty shell since it was created in 2008-09.

We heard testimony from some public servants. They said that, ultimately, the minister will be given significant discretionary power so that he can decide on issues such as premiums, benefits and eligibility.

There is a recurring theme in the government's budget bills, and that is the fact that they give more power to the minister, whether it is the Minister of Employment and Social Development with regard to employment insurance or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to changes to the system. The budget bill contains an amendment that will affect immigration and refugees.

Certain provisions will give the minister more discretionary power. Ministers are consistently assuming more and more power, and that poses serious problems. The Association of Justice Counsel commented on the Conservative government's tendency to centralize power in the hands of cabinet. That power used to be more spread out and dispersed among various experts and functions. The witness from the Association of Justice Counsel had this to say:

The government holds all the keys to the legislative closet. They hold all those cards, to use that analogy. The whole point of having a choice and giving that choice to the unions in terms of what route they choose was to recognize that unions are stacked when they're dealing with the government. We're not dealing with Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola can't draft legislation and say, “Go back to work”, or, “Here's wage restraint”. This government has used those tools, and our hands are tied.

Of course, the quotation refers to one element of the bill before us, namely the balance of power between the government as an employer—that is to say, the Treasury Board—and the public service. The government is using the bill to amend various aspects of the bargaining process. For one, it eliminates the possibility of using arbitration.

Arbitration is an extremely important tool when a government or an employer and an employee cannot come to an agreement. They may agree to have someone else make the decision for them. That is what arbitration is. The government is taking away that option.

Consequently, if the government wants to provoke a dispute with the public service for political reasons, for example, it can do just that. That poses a significant problem for government operations and for the system that provides public services. If the government wishes to provoke that kind of dispute, it will have a much easier time doing so now that the arbitration process has been amended.

Furthermore, the government is giving itself the right to define essential services, even after the fact. The government will be able to declare that a given area of the government, where a labour dispute might be happening, is now an essential service and therefore does not have the right to strike or use any kind of job action. The balance of power has shifted completely in favour of the employer, who happens to be the legislator. Thus, this is a huge conflict of interest for the government, but it chooses to ignore that fact, for purely political reasons.

I also referred to another aspect of Bill C-4 that I find completely appalling. There was a lot of media attention around the fact that the government made a colossal blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court to represent Quebec. Now the government is trying to correct that blunder after the fact by adding a measure to the omnibus budget bill. My comments have nothing to do with Justice Nadon's competency as a possible Supreme Court judge. However, the fact remains that the government really erred in this matter, as many experts agree. The government has included a measure to correct this process in a budget bill—a measure we will not be able to examine in detail. When measures like this are included, it makes it very difficult to see the relevance of the legislative process in terms of the budget.

A retroactive measure like this one will not make people forget the blunder, nor will it actually correct the government's blunder in this matter.

I talked about the attack on worker protection. Something else I would like to talk about is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. The government members know exactly where I stand on this issue.

This measure affects Quebec in particular because 90% of this tax credit goes to Quebeckers.

Once again, to clarify, this tax credit does not go to the funds. It does not go to big speculators, but to small investors. More than 600,000 Quebeckers save regularly for their retirement by investing in a program that is really like an RRSP. Instead of investing in speculative funds or mutual funds, where the money does not go directly to job creators, they invest in labour funds that work hand in hand with private venture capital funds and go directly into the Quebec economy.

This money is used to save businesses that need a hand during difficult times or a recession or to start up new companies, especially in very important emerging areas that promote innovation, research and development. I am referring to the medical and pharmaceutical fields and new technologies.

The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN specialize in these areas and work with private venture capital funds.

There is good reason why, the day after the government announced in its budget that it would phase out the tax credit, Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association said it was opposed to this measure, even though the government is also creating a venture capital action plan.

Other associations, such as the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec are also opposed to the phasing-out of this tax credit.

Even the witnesses that the government invited to praise the injection of $400 million and the creation of the venture capital action plan supported the opposition's arguments against phasing out the tax credit. They said that it did not make sense for the government to reject the agreement proposed by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction CSN.

That astounds me because the government had the opportunity to really make its venture capital action plan relevant and effective.

The two funds proposed an agreement with the government if it would decide to not go ahead with the phase-out. Under the agreement, the funds would voluntarily put a cap on their share issuing to save the government 30% in tax expenditures—in other words, the government would offer 30% less in tax credits. The funds would also inject the equivalent of $2 billion into the government's venture capital action plan.

The government is investing only $400 million. That is all. The funds proposed that they would invest the equivalent of $2 billion not only in Quebec but throughout the country.

I strongly believe that this model works in an area where Canada is lagging behind the other OECD countries. We are at the back of the pack. Quebec is a leading country as a result of the creation and administration of these funds. Of course, Quebec is not a country, but it is one of the leading jurisdictions in the OECD, ranking just below Israel and the United States when it comes to the amount of managed venture capital as a share of its GDP, its economy.

The proportion of managed venture capital in Quebec is nearly three times greater than the Canadian average and more than four times greater than Ontario's. The government should take note and learn from what happened in Ontario when it eliminated its tax credit. It got rid of it. That has been quite harmful to Ontario since its investment in venture capital, its amount of managed venture capital, has decreased steadily since the tax credit was eliminated in 2005. Despite having a much larger GDP than Quebec, Ontario's share of managed venture capital is equal to Quebec's in proportion to the total amount of venture capital invested in Canada. Right now, that figure is 36% for both provinces.

In many ways, Bill C-4 does not create jobs; it eliminates them. It stifles economic growth.

The IMF report shows the impact this will have on economic growth. The government should take that into account and take a more serious look at the measures it is proposing. That is why we, on this side of the House, will oppose Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques made a very well-organized speech. He makes good arguments, and it is obvious that he has a lot of experience with economic issues.

Recently, we have basically been reduced to launching a campaign about the Conservative government's abandonment of the regions. A number of the points my colleague made were general, but most of his arguments were specifically connected to realities that are more prevalent in rural regions than in other regions.

I would like to give my colleague a chance to expand on what he said and to go into more detail on the consequences that can sometimes be harsher, relatively speaking, for rural regions, especially in eastern Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The measures proposed by this government often affect the regions more than any other area of the country. That was the case.

That is why I responded to the speech made by the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River two days ago. He said that Bill C-4 would create jobs in Saskatchewan, right after I told him that this bill would destroy jobs in Quebec.

The member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I represent heavily rural regions. Some measures in the bill are absolutely disastrous for the regions, such as the reform of EI, as proposed by the government. Now, the government is going further and abolishing the Employment Insurance Financing Board. These measures hit regions like ours particularly hard, since our economies rely on seasonal employment.

I mentioned general measures. However, some of them affect labour-sponsored funds. The Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction have regional funds that specifically invest venture capital and development capital in areas like Rivière-du-Loup, Rimouski and Gaspé, where private venture capital is lacking compared to other regions.

These measures will hit rural regions very hard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues facing Winnipeg North, and an issue that faces many other constituencies throughout the country as well, is the issue of crime and safety.

We hear a lot from the government about how it wants to get tough on crime. However, what it seems to shy away from is getting tough on the causes of some of these crimes. If it took a more aggressive approach to dealing with some of these causes, it would be more successful at preventing crimes from taking place in the first place.

There is very much we could talk about in the budget, everything from a particular budget line to the amount of legislation that is being brought in through the back door by this budget bill. One thing that concerns people is that the government is not giving enough attention to dealing with the causes of crime in the hope of actually reducing the amount of crime in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I agree on the issue of prevention, whether we are talking about health and safety or crime. Prevention cannot be taken out of the equation.

I think it is extremely important that we try to reduce health and safety problems. One item in the bill amends the definition of danger at the workplace for organizations that are subject to the Canada Labour Code and runs counter to the notion of prevention. The same goes for crime.

In fact, I have not seen very many government initiatives to promote and enhance crime prevention in order to minimize the consequences.

During the recent debate on supervised injection sites, the government's approach went completely counter not only to the opposition's approach, but also to that of experts and organizations such as the Canadian Medical Association.

Unfortunately, one of the government's biggest flaws since being elected, and especially since winning a majority, is that prevention does not factor in to its approach to dealing with health and safety and crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague on his speech.

When the NDP develops its policy, it consults many people affected by the bills. Can my colleague say a few words about the people who support our position and provide some supporting figures?

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

Many witnesses support our position on various issues. At one point, we were discussing the gradual elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. I found it very interesting to see the government witnesses—who came to say good things about the government's initiatives—learn about certain aspects of the bill that they had ignored or neglected, such as the agreement proposed by the funds. Once they had that information, the government witnesses told us that we were right and that the government should have accepted those proposals.

With regard to omnibus bills and the use of this tool, this bundle of legislation, to fast-track a number of bills, some knowledgeable organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association and the Association of Justice Counsel, oppose the government's vision.

From everything we have seen in the most recent bills, the majority of witnesses are not siding with the government. The government invites its own witnesses and, obviously, it will get support for some aspects of its bills. However, the aspects that do get support are often the same ones that we support in committee.

We feel obliged to vote against bills such as Bill C-4 because of all the damage that these bills will cause and the consequences they will have. These are the reasons for our position. We will continue to fight, not only against the process but also against the damage caused by the government.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was a privilege to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. In addition to being an economist, he is our deputy critic for finance and also for international trade. This shows how much we trust in his expertise and his skills.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the macroeconomic impact of the upcoming budget. Since the Conservative government came to power, Canada has lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector, among other things. In addition, personal household debt increased, rising to 166%. This is a veritable attack on Canadians.

Could the member please describe the impact of austerity on the Canadian economy and on Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question because it allows me to elaborate.

In its interventions, the government always talks about the number of jobs that have been created since July 2009. Yes, jobs have been created. However, we were in the depths of the recession in July 2009, which explains the job numbers.

I want to point out two things about these numbers. First, when this government was in opposition, it kept saying that governments do not create jobs. However, this government is taking all the credit for job creation since the depths of the recession, to which it had a delayed reaction.

What is more, if we compare job creation to demographic growth or if we include demographic growth in the equation, we have more unemployed workers today than we did before the recession.

The government's policies are about one thing only, and that is taxation. Lower taxes is the government's leitmotif.

Making good investments can be more advantageous than tax cuts because of the multiplier effect. The Parliamentary Budget Officer and now the International Monetary Fund are deploring the adverse effect that the Conservative government's cuts and austerity measures are having on economic growth.

I hope that the government will take note of that in its next economic forecast.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for government orders has now expired. We will now proceed to statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. There is so much that could be said about the bill that limiting one to only 20 minutes does somewhat of a disservice because of the amount of content in the bill. It can be a challenge to take into consideration the numerous pieces of legislation that have been incorporated into Bill C-4.

There are probably five or six points I want to emphasize, but I will start off with regard to the government's attitude toward presenting budget bills. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of the majority Conservative style of governance in the House, which has been very disrespectful in terms of democracy. Democracy in the House of Commons has been lacking in allowing for proper diligent debate and proceedings on a wide spectrum of different issues.

We have witnessed the Prime Minister and the instructions he has given to the PMO that the best way to pass legislation under the Conservative majority is to start compiling it, submit it to the PMO and it will be bundled altogether, forwarded to the Minister of Finance and be brought in through budget legislation.

Not to be outdone by previous budgets like this under the same Conservative majority, this time not only did the Conservatives prorogue the session by limiting the number of days we would sit this fall, but they also once again put in time allocation on this legislation. It is so very bizarre and very undemocratic.

Unfortunately, we have found that the Prime Minister, through the Prime Minister's Office, has done a great disservice by not allowing for legitimate debate on a wide variety of issues. I plan to touch base on a number of those.

Things have really changed for the Prime Minister. I was provided a very interesting quote. I may have said this in the past. I have had opportunity to do so because it was last year around this time when we had another mega budget bill. Let there be no doubt before I cite the quote that it is important to recognize that no prime minister in the history of our country has taken such liberties in bringing so much legislation forward under one budget bill.

Let us reflect on the days when the Prime Minister was in opposition. What did he have to say about legislation of this nature? I quote what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

He asked government members in particular to worry about the implications of omnibus bills for democracy and the functionality of Parliament.

That is what he said when he was talking about a bill that was just over 100 pages long. This is the Prime Minister who has introduced thousands of pages through a few budget bills, effectively changing 100-plus pieces of legislation with a few budget bills.

That is why it is an assault on democracy. It is an assault on the House of Commons, the manner in which the majority Conservative/Reform government has brought forward budget legislation. The Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for what takes place within his cabinet and his government. There is no doubt in my mind that he does rule the Prime Minister's Office and that he is very much aware.

That bring me to the next topic. We know why the Prime Minister prorogued the session back in September. It was because he did not want to have the House sitting. He avoided the day in and day out accountability in the House, because he was not happy with what was being reported in a sequence of events that portrayed corruption and fraud in the Prime Minister's Office.

As a result, we lost weeks of debate earlier this fall because the Prime Minister did not want to come back. Why did he not want to come back? He had a very serious problem, and still does, and it is not going to go away. It is going to continue to be there and it will ultimately be dragged out, all the way to the next federal election in 2015.

There is so much more that has not been disclosed. We will ultimately ensure that we get more information as we sit, because Canadians deserve to know the honest truth, the full truth in what has taken place in regard to the scandal in and around the Prime Minister's Office.

I pointed this out to a number of individuals in looking at the Prime Minister's actions and trying to understand them. All those people are around the Prime Minister are so close to him. There was the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Nigel Wright. This individual had the ears of the Prime Minister on a daily basis. He in essence paid off a $90,000 debt that was owed by Senator Mike Duffy.

The Prime Minister likes to say that he had taken corrective actions. We are not too sure if, after it became public, what Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, did but within days of when it became public he was no longer the chief of staff.

There were no RCMP charges or anything of that nature. It just became public. The chief of staff at least acknowledged that something wrong had been done. We do not know if he was actually fired or released or took it upon himself to leave. We do not know, or at least it is not clear. It is one of the things the Prime Minister has not been very clear on.

What we do know is that he has not been consistent.

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

How is this relevant to the discussion?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about the most recent questions—

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

We are talking about the budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a series of questions that we have in regard to Mr. Gerstein.

When we look at what has happened with Mr. Gerstein and we do the contrast between Nigel Wright and Senator Gerstein, we have to wonder why the Prime Minister has not done anything in regard to that.

It seems there is a different standard of testing of a moral compass. We just do not know what the PMO is doing on this. Staff members who worked in the PMO and who were directly involved in the conflict or scandal now work for other ministers.

All of this has stolen a great deal of attention away from what should be talked about a whole lot more, and that is in fact the budget and the impact, from our perspective, that these budgetary measures are taking on the middle class in Canada. That has been a huge priority for the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Party as a whole, holding the government accountable on the issue of the middle class and how the government's policy has not been in the interest of those people.

However, it has been overshadowed because of the scandal that has been taking place inside the Prime Minister's Office. This is the reason why—

[The Acting Speaker, Dan Albas]

The hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not alluded much to Bill C-4 and that is what we are debating. Could you get him to come back on track, please?

[The Acting Speaker, Dan Albas]

I will inform the member that the tradition of this place is to allow members to have a wide amount of discretion. I imagine the member will continue his speech on the theme of the debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were to reflect on the last two paragraphs prior to him standing, I was talking about the budget. It was absolutely relevant.

I can appreciate that the Conservative members are very sensitive about what is taking place in the Prime Minister's Office. I know if I were them, I would be. I would want answers to many questions. I sense it at the doors of people's homes in my own constituency. I have had the opportunity to knock on a lot of doors in the last couple of months and to have a lot of discussions with many of my constituents. It is a very genuine and serious concern, and we still do not know the full truth. I hope the Prime Minister and the PMO will see the merit of taking advantage of the offer that was suggested by the member for Avalon with regard to having individuals testify before an ethics committee.

With regard to the issues within the budget, I made reference at the beginning of my speech to the size of the bill and the different types of legislation that are being incorporated into Bill C-4—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, I do not see much relevance to Bill C-4 in the member's speech, frankly. It was mentioned once before that the speech should be kept relevant. One obligation we have in this place is to keep the debate relevant to the topic at hand. I would ask you to ensure that happens, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am not sure if the member has been here throughout my comments. If he reads what has been said, I was talking about Bill C-4. I am talking about the budget bill and it is very lengthy. I am showing how it is relevant. Bill C-4 is a huge bill and the government prorogued the session.

The members need to listen closely to what I am saying and they will find it is actually relevant.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we go back to the hon. member so that he can continue his speech, as all members know, there is a rule of relevance in this place that hon. members are required to speak to the matter that is before the House. That is true.

As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Bill C-4 touches on many areas. Therefore, there is inherently significant latitude within this discussion to talk about things that are in the bill or things that relate to things that are in the bill. On that basis, I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the time for the points of order will be deducted so that I will still get my full 20 minutes, because there is so much that I want to get on the record.

When we look at representing our constituents, one of the tools that I often use to allow my constituents the opportunity to have direct input here on the floor of the House of Commons is petitions. Through the petitions, members will know that I have had the opportunity to introduce a number of petitions on a wide variety of issues.

I would like to take a look at some of those petitions and how the government's budgetary decisions have had, I would say, a very poor performance in terms of priorities. Let me give a few examples. I am referring only to petitions that constituents of mine in Winnipeg North have taken the time to sign. I very much appreciate it. I will take those petitions here to the floor and provide some comment.

Example number one is one of the more popular petitions that I have. It deals with pensions and calls upon the government to recognize that people should continue to have the right to be able to retire at age 65, as opposed to the budgetary decision of the government to increase the age when one can qualify for the old age pension from 65 to 67. This is something that the government has now committed to do and that we believe is wrong.

I can tell the members opposite, and particularly the Prime Minister, that the residents of Winnipeg North believe that Canada is a wealthy enough country that we can allow people to retire at the age of 65 if that is what they choose. We have the riches available as a nation to continue that. That has been independently approved beyond a shadow of a doubt by individuals such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Another very popular petition that I get back deals with the House itself. When I do my questionnaires, there is a resounding response on this issue. At a time when the government is cutting back on its civil service, what is it also doing? It is increasing the number of politicians here in Canada. I have an overwhelming majority of constituents in Winnipeg North who disagree with the government's decision to increase the size of the House of Commons. We do not need to increase the size of the House of Commons. That has been an issue on which I have received an overwhelming response from constituents, with an overwhelming majority of them saying no.

Some, including myself, would estimate the cost at $30 million or more to accommodate that increase on an annual basis, not to mention the millions that would be involved in creating those positions. My constituents would rather see the millions and millions of dollars that it would cost spent on a wide variety of other types of social programs.

We have petitions regarding crime prevention. As the government talks tough about crime and getting tough on criminal activity, what it fails to recognize is the importance of dealing with some of the causes of crime and becoming more aggressive and progressive in dealing with issues that would prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. This is something that the constituents that I represent want me to express to the Prime Minister and to the government. They want me to say that we need to start doing what we can to prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. The best way to do that is to come up with activities and programs that would prevent, for example, gang activities from growing.

We can say to young people it is better to get involved in programs such as Katimavik, even though the government has cut that program, which provided thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast with wonderful opportunities, and fantastic lives have followed out of those opportunities. However, we should be looking for programs and ideas that would allow our young people to say “yes, I would rather be doing that as opposed to getting engaged in gangs”.

I was at the McGregor Armoury for the Remembrance Day service and it was so encouraging to see so many young people involved in Air Cadets and other cadet programs. This again provides opportunities for young people.

I only have another minute but there are so many other issues. I could talk about the housing co-ops. I could spend at least 20 minutes just on health care. The issue is that there is so much encompassed in the bill that we could and should be talking about. The bill is going to be forced to a vote. Why? Because of time allocation. The government does not allow MPs to express themselves and that is indeed unfortunate because there is so much to talk about.

I did not even get the opportunity to say that the government inherited billions in surplus and converted it into billions in debt. I did not say anything about the billions in trade surplus, which were converted into trade deficits. The government has not done what it should be doing and that is the reason that we cannot support Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my friend across the way. He seemed to touch on two major aspects. One was the ongoing Senate scandal and the Prime Minister's involvement in that. If I could follow his logic, the point he was making was that the Prime Minister's Office and the government have been greatly distracted by their own ethical lapses and that distraction leads to bad legislation and bad planning around the economy and health for Canadians.

We have seen a recent report by the OECD, another one from The Economist just today, talking about the frailty of the Canadian economy and the significant foundational issues that need to be addressed.

When we look at Bill C-4, which is the topic of today's debate, this bill, which is meant to deal with supposedly the budget and finances, has all of these things crammed in, as we so often see with these omnibus bills from the Conservatives.

I would make note that the bill is, in part, introduced to fix a previous omnibus bill that was introduced to fix a previous omnibus piece of legislation. That is why we in the New Democratic Party have such opposition to the very process the government uses, because Conservatives keep introducing laws to fix old laws and doing it all under time allocation.

One of the significant frailties or concerns in the Canadian economy is the housing bubble that exists in many of our housing markets across the country; it varies. What has the government done, from my hon. friend's perspective, to address the potential, growing and concerning issue of overpricing in the housing market and of course the potential bubble bursting and affecting so many millions of Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and I will address both points. There have been ethical challenges within the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians are very much aware of those challenges and as a result of that and as a result of the Prime Minister not being transparent, accountable or fully truthful on a wide variety of different issues coming out of the Prime Minister's Office, we have been putting in a huge amount of time in terms of the agenda of the House on that issue. It has taken away from other aspects that we could be addressing. The best example of that would probably be how that issue has dominated question period. We hope that the Prime Minister will see the value in terms of testifying under oath and coming to committee.

In regard to the housing issue, the member is quite right. There is a serious housing crisis today that does need to be dealt with. One of the petitions that I introduced deals with housing co-ops. We need to start looking at ways in which we can give strength to different types of housing programs such as housing co-ops, life lease programs, renovation programs. There is so much there that we could be doing, but we find that the government's budgets have been lacking in providing this.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech in the House earlier. He brought up some very valid points in relation to the ongoing scandals that we are seeing on the other side of the House from the government and how those relate to Bill C-4.

One of the things that Bill C-4 does is change the way the government is acting when it comes to budgets. It is not so much in the sense of omnibus budget bills, because it seems to be the common practice to put in as much stuff as it can, call it a budget, and then introduce it to the House. What we see now are changes to health and safety for workers. We have seen changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the previous omnibus budget bills. Then we had a prorogation of another month so that the government could come up with consumer-friendly items, but we have seen no action on these items, just a lot of talk.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on all of the talk that we hear from the other side, contrasted with the lack of action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a real need for us to look at the way in which the government has chosen to pass legislation through these budget mega-bills. It is not healthy.

I believe that what we could do here in opposition, as much as possible, is to remind our constituents and to inform all Canadians, in the best way we can, that passing legislation through the back door is not a good way to go about it.

Whenever we have a budget bill, whether it federal or provincial, there is always a need to have some bills brought through in a budget implementation bill. That has happened in the past. What makes this unique is the quantity of bills that are being brought in through this back door.

I want to add one further comment, because I realize that people are really concerned about the PMO. Let us recognize that it is the budget that allows for the PMO to exist in the first place. Maybe we should be looking at how we could be cutting back on the budget in the Prime Minister's Office until we start to get straightforward and truthful answers and possibly have representatives come before a committee to testify under oath.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP obviously opposes Bill C-4, because of both its content and the process used. I have a question for my colleague.

Over the past 35 years, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, the income of the richest 20% of Canadians has increased, while the income of the poorest 80% has decreased.

Could he speak to that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and the good fortune to be around for a number of years. One of the things I have found is that statistics can often be used in many different types of manipulative ways. I can reflect on the reality that back in the nineties, for three or four years, the United Nations reported Canada as the best country in the world to live in, based on a wide spectrum of social factors. I take great pride in our quality of life. Many Canadians will say that we are the best country in the world to live in. I like to believe that the Liberal Party of Canada had a lot to do with that through engaging Canadians and, as a political entity, bringing ideas forward to the floor of the House of Commons.

Therefore, I give credit where credit is due. Canadians who have taken the time to get engaged and to participate in the political process have made me a proud Liberal in terms of our social programs and health care, where we had record amounts of dollars. That was because of Paul Martin and his health care accord. Programs such as our CPP and pension programs and many of the national programs we have today, if not virtually all of them, exist because of the efforts of wonderful, great Canadians getting engaged, and the Liberal Party has most frequently been the vehicle used to implement them as government policy.

When the member makes reference to some mistakes being made over the last 35 years, I suspect there have been some. However, all in all, I believe that we have done exceptionally well.

I find that at times there is a need for us to reflect on where we are. That is why I concluded my opening remarks by saying that when the Conservative government took office from Paul Martin, there was a healthy surplus. There was a surplus in terms of trade deficit, which means thousands of jobs, and there was a surplus in terms of finances, which means we had a healthier economy.

The Liberal Party, under the good, strong leadership of individuals like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Paul Martin, and Jean Chrétien, has done exceptionally well over the years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak at third reading to Bill C-4, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Economic action plan 2013 is crucial to Canada's long-term growth. It is a strategic plan for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity and it builds on our government's success.

Let me begin by noting that Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the global recession. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels and shows the best performance in the G7. Since we introduced our economic action plan, Canada has recovered more than all the output and all of the jobs lost during the great recession. Employment has increased by over one million since July 2009. This is the strongest job growth record among G7 countries over the recovery. About 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, and more than 80% are in the private sector. This has been no easy feat, but our government continues to focus on job creation and economic growth.

I would like to point out that Canada has weathered the economic storm quite well, and the world has noticed. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the next few years. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. Three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada, and it is expected Canada will maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead.

I should point out that we are one of only a few countries that still maintain those AAA ratings.

This economic resilience reflects the actions our government took before the global crisis: lowering taxes, paying down debt by $38 billion, 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, there are Canadians who remain unemployed. Much of our vast potential remains unfulfilled; consequently, our work is not done. We are not out of the woods yet. That is why today's legislation focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets in 2015.

Let me briefly highlight a few of the most important initiatives in the legislation before us today, all of which touch on three pillars of this legislation: closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion, respecting taxpayers' dollars, and providing support for job creators.

I would like to start with tax fairness, which is a significant part of today's legislation.

This issue affects all hard-working Canadians. They know that when everyone pays their fair share, it helps us keep taxes low for all Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save, and invest in Canada. That is why we are taking additional action to improve the integrity of the tax system, such as further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules—which limit the amount of Canadian profits that can be distributed to certain non-resident shareholders as deductible interest payments—to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities, and lengthening the normal reassessment period by three years for a taxpayer who has failed to report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return and failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement.

It does not end there. The legislation takes further action on this front by modifying the tax treatment of certain financial arrangements, which are referred to as “character conversion transactions”. These transactions seek to reduce tax by converting the returns on an investment that would have the character of fully taxable ordinary income to capital gains, only 50% of which are included in income. Other financial arrangements, which are referred to as “synthetic dispositions”, seek to defer tax or obtain other tax benefits by allowing a taxpayer to economically dispose of a property while continuing to own it for income tax purposes.

To ensure that taxpayers cannot avoid paying their fair share by entering into these types of arrangements and transactions, Bill C-4 proposes a measure that treats these transactions as giving rise to dispositions at fair market value for income tax purposes.

As I am sure some may recognize, “synthetic dispositions” and “character conversion transactions” may not be terms we use on a regular basis, but make no mistake, these schemes have unfortunately allowed a select few to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Today's legislation would correct this imbalance by making common sense changes we believe are necessary and timely to ensure fairness in Canada's tax system.

While we are on the subject of tax fairness, Bill C-4 also proposes to further enhance the integrity of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, also knows as SR and ED. Today's legislation would introduce a penalty of $1,000 in respect of each SR and ED program claim for which the information about SR and ED tax preparers and billing arrangements are missing, incomplete or inaccurate. In addition, in the case where a third-party SR and ED tax preparer had been engaged, the SR and ED program claimant and the tax preparer would be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.

Hon. members, our government has also taken steps to enhance the neutrality of the tax system, thereby improving the allocation of investment and capital within the Canadian economy. Economic action plan 2013 contained a number of measures to improve the neutrality of the tax system, including the phase-out of certain preferences, such as the 10% corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit.

Bill C-4 builds on this success by introducing two changes that would make the tax system more neutral across mining and other industries.

First, pre-production mine development expenses, which are currently treated as Canadian exploration expenses for tax purposes, would be treated instead as Canadian development expenses. Whereas CEE is fully deductible in the year incurred, CDE would be deductible at a rate of 30% per year on a declining balance basis. To allow companies to adapt to these changes, the transition from CEE to CDE treatment would be phased in over the period of 2015 to 2017.

Second, the accelerated capital cost allowance provided for certain assets acquired for use in new mines or eligible mine expansions would be phased out over the period of 2017-20.

These two changes are consistent with similar changes announced for the oil sands sector in budget 2007 and economic action plan 2011.

Hon. members, today's legislation would improve the fairness and neutrality of the tax system while keeping taxes low for Canadian families who work hard, play by the rules and pay their taxes. Let me remind all members that it is our government that has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system since 2006.

Let me now briefly touch on some of the other key measures in Bill C-4.

First I will touch on the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. Canada is increasingly looked at as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives. The government has also supported these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment. Through economic action plan 2012, we expanded the eligibility of the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of equipment that generates or distributes energy from waste.

To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy-efficient equipment, today's legislation would expand eligibility by providing for more types of organic waste to be used in qualifying biogas production equipment. Specifically, eligible organic waste is expanded to include pulp and paper waste and waste water, beverage industry waste and waste water, and separated organics from municipal waste.

This legislation would also broaden the range of cleaning and upgrading equipment used to treat eligible gases from waste that is eligible for the ACCA.

These are all measures that are in line with our Conservative government's strong record of environmental protection and examples of how we are ensuring that environmental protection goes hand in hand with building a strong economic future.

Our Conservative government is also committed to keeping the employment insurance premium rate low. Bill C-4 would make good on this commitment. In September, we announced that we would freeze the EI premium rate at the 2013 level of $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings for the year 2014. Additionally, the rate would be set no higher than $1.88 for the years 2015 and 2016.

By doing this, our Conservative government is promoting stability and predictability for both employers and employees. It would also leave an estimated $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in the year 2014 alone. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently told the House finance committee that:

...85% of our members indicated that a steady and predictable EI rate is critical for small business to help keep their businesses afloat during unstable economic times, and in turn help them grow their business as the economy improves.

These are the businesses that are looking to hire Canadians and are critical to Canada's success and economic recovery.

To ensure further predictability and stability around EI premium rates, this measure would amend the Employment Insurance Act to set the EI premium rate for 2015 and 2016 at $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings. Unlike the old Liberal government, which raided the EI fund for its own pet projects, we would ensure that EI premiums are only used for EI payments. This measure would also establish that the premium rate for 2017 and onward would be set according to the seven-year, break-even rate setting mechanism.

Make no mistake, when it comes to employment insurance, we will take no advice from the members across the way. It is a bit rich to be here to hear the Liberals and the New Democrats talk about EI rates when they supported a 45-day work year that would have seen EI premiums increase by at least 35%. Thankfully, the members on this side of the House had the common sense to oppose such a job killing proposal.

Bill C-4 also recognizes the challenges faced by small businesses across the country. In economic action plan 2011, we announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, the temporary hiring credit was so well received by businesses that it was extended to 2012.

While the Canadian economy is improving, the global recovery remains fragile. In order to support job creation, Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses to 2013. By doing this, an employer whose premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012 would be refunded the increase in their 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 alone in 2013. Through this initiative, we would stimulate new employment and provide better support to small businesses.

Bill C-4 would also phase out inefficient and ineffective tax credits, such as the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. Clearly, the NDP does not realize that this credit simply is not working. The message we heard from Canadians during our consultations was loud and clear, and consistent with independent experts such as the OECD. They all said that this tax subsidy was not working to promote economic growth and create jobs.

Just listen to what the Montreal Economic Institute had to say:

All things considered, labour-sponsored funds are financial instruments that fulfill neither their economic objectives, namely to make venture capital available to help Quebec businesses, nor their financial objectives of offering a good return to contributors, their performance being interesting only by taking into account the additional tax credit.

Here is what the reputable economist, Jack Mintz, had to say:

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.

There is more. This is what the C.D. Howe Institute had to say:

Providing tax relief to LSIFs has been, overall, a disappointing use of taxpayer money. Such funds have been shown in multiple studies, including this one, to do a poor job of achieving public policy aims.

When will the NDP get it? These credits simply do not work. 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.

That is why economic action plan 2012 announced resources to support Canada's venture capital industry, including $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital to help recapitalize existing private sector funds with willing provinces, and to support the creation of large scale venture capital funds led by the private sector.

In summary, as I said at the outset, Bill C-4 contains many important new measures. These are measures we must take in order to respond to the needs of our time, while setting out the goals our long-term prosperity demands. Measures that find efficiencies and cost savings in government are critical to sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Action taken to support business and industry are imperative to the economic success of Canada. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery.

Our government will not apologize for streamlining government, creating jobs and keeping our tax system fair, while keeping taxes low. I therefore urge all hon. members to continue to support the government in this work that is so vital to the people of Canada and their continued prosperity, and thus vote for Bill C-4 in its entirety.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the speech of my neighbour about which I have some questions.

I am particularly interested in the National Research Council. There are changes mentioned in Bill C-4. However, I do have other questions about the National Research Council. For example, there have been hundreds and hundreds of scientists for the National Research Council fired over the last years and the council has taken an entirely different direction without really consulting any of these scientists.

We have heard of the muzzling that is going on in federal agencies. I smell a bit of mismanagement there. I do not have confidence that the new president, Mr. McDougall, really has a handle on what he should be doing in the NRC. Could the member comment on that and does Mr. McDougall enjoy his complete confidence?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to support the National Research Council. In fact, I have been to certain announcements in the last couple of weeks and shows that our government is spending unprecedented amounts of money on research and technology.

I was at Simon Fraser University just last weekend announcing funding for the VIVA, the visual analytics program, which is making great strides in analyzing new ways to form data and go through important information, which will help our country when it comes to innovation and research.

This morning I went to the innovation breakfast where Gilles Patry, the president, gave a wonderful speech about what his organization was doing for innovation and research in our country.

We will continue to support research and innovation because that is the future of our country. That is how our businesses will compete head on with businesses worldwide.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague did a really good job of explaining why predictable EI rates were so important to businesses as they plan future hiring decisions.

He mentioned the former Liberal government and the way it raided EI funds over the years, and this absurd notion the opposition puts forward of a 45-day work year.

He also mentioned the small business hiring tax credit. I represent the city of Mississauga, which has a number of large employers, manufacturers, but it also has many small businesses especially. It is a diverse community made up of a lot of new Canadians. Many new Canadians operate those small businesses.

Could he tell us how the small business hiring tax credit could benefit those types of business and encourage them to hire new employees?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we understand that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are the ones creating the bulk of the new jobs. That is why we have extended the hiring credit for small businesses. We expect over 560,000 small businesses across the country to be eligible to apply for this. Those are small businesses that could actually get up to $1,000 back next year as a result of their claims.

We expect that employment will continue to grow. In fact, we just found out that in the month of November alone, 21,600 net new jobs were created. That adds to over one million net new jobs that have been created since July 2009. It is the number one jobs growth record in the G7. It is thanks to smart policies like the hiring credit for small businesses that we are experiencing such great growth in jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that even though we are pretending that we are debating the budget here, the budget has two new bills in it and all kinds of matters that are not really budget related.

I am glad my colleague across the way raised the question of employment. We have a government that is absolutely married to giving more and more power to ministers. Now we are going to have the Minister of Finance actually setting the rate for EI contributions and having the final say, instead of a board. Yet the people who pay into that EI fund are employers and workers. The government does not put any money into that fund.

Is this another ruse so that the government can keep stealing from the EI fund, as it did in the past to the tune of $57 billion?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that took almost $57 billion from the EI fund. We are changing that. We are making sure that EI premiums go only to EI payments. That is going to be in our budget. That is something we are going to stick to.

We are also freezing EI premiums for three years so that there is predictability for both employers and employees. After those three years, we are going to have the rate set to the break-even rate so that employers and employees will be paying just the necessary amount for the system to break even. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it is going to be.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa has a strong history of manufacturing. I was wondering if the member would be able to contrast our approach, where we are lowering taxes for business and trying to keep taxes low for families and all Canadians, with the NDP policies.

We all know that the NDP wants to put in a $20-billion carbon tax. Right now, with the recovery kind of iffy and when we are not sure where we are going to be going, does the member think that in the economy right now Canadians can afford another hit such as is being suggested by the NDP with this $20-billion carbon tax?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the question from my hon. colleague.

As we all know, lower taxes create jobs, and they help families get by, as well. That is why, since 2006, we have lowered over 200 different taxes. Canadian families, on average, have $3,200 extra in their pockets at the end of each year as a result of our low-tax policies.

It has also encouraged businesses to invest. It has encouraged businesses to come back and relocate their head offices in Canada, such as Tim Hortons, which relocated its head office back in Canada because of our low-tax policies and our low-tax plans, which have proven to be a success. They helped us through the recession we had in 2008.

We came out stronger than any of our trading partners in any of the G7 countries. It is because of our low-tax policies. It is because we are also intending to balance the budget in 2015. It is because we have already paid down the debt by $38 billion between 2006 and 2008. We all know that a $21-billion carbon tax, which is proposed by the NDP, would be a job-killing tax.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, December 9, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the House give its consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-4.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #41

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)