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.

(The House resumed at 12 noon)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

There are 284 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-4.

Motions Nos. 1 to 284 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 284 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

, seconded by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

, seconded by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 197.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 198.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 199.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 200.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 201.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 202.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 210.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 215.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 216.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 217.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 219.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 220.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 221.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 222.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 223.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 247.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 248.

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

, seconded by the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, moved:

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 276.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 282.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 283.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 284.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 285.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 286.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 287.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 288.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 289.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 294.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 295.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 296.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 297.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 298.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 299.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 300.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 301.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 302.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 303.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 304.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 305.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 306.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 307.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 308.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 309.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 310.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 311.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 318.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 319.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 320.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 321.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 322.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 323.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 324.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 325.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 326.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 327.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 328.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 329.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 330.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 331.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 332.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 333.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 334.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 335.

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 336.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 337.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 338.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 339.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 340.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 341.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 342.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 343.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 344.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 345.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 346.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 347.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 348.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 349.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 350.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 351.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 352.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 353.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 354.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 355.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 356.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 357.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 358.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 359.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 360.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 361.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 362.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 363.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 364.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 365.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 366.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 367.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 368.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 369.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 370.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 371.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 372.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 376.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 377.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 378.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 379.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 380.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 381.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 382.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 383.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 384.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 385.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 386.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 387.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 388.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 389.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 390.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 391.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 392.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 393.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 394.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 395.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 396.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 397.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 398.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 399.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 400.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 401.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 402.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 217

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 218

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motion No. 219

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 407.

Motion No. 220

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 408.

Motion No. 221

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 409.

Motion No. 222

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 410.

Motion No. 223

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 411.

Motion No. 224

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 412.

Motion No. 225

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 413.

Motion No. 226

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 414.

Motion No. 227

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 415.

Motion No. 228

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 416.

Motion No. 229

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 417.

Motion No. 230

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 418.

Motion No. 231

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 419.

Motion No. 232

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 420.

Motion No. 233

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 421.

Motion No. 234

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 422.

Motion No. 235

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 423.

Motion No. 236

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 424.

Motion No. 237

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 425.

Motion No. 238

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 426.

Motion No. 239

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 427.

Motion No. 240

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 428.

Motion No. 241

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 429.

Motion No. 242

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 430.

Motion No. 243

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 431.

Motion No. 244

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 432.

Motion No. 245

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 433.

Motion No. 246

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 434.

Motion No. 247

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 435.

Motion No. 248

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 436.

Motion No. 249

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 437.

Motion No. 250

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 438.

Motion No. 251

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 439.

Motion No. 252

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 440.

Motion No. 253

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 441.

Motion No. 254

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 255

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 256

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 257

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 258

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 259

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 260

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 261

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 262

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 263

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 264

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 265

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 266

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 267

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 268

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 269

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motion No. 270

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 458.

Motion No. 271

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 459.

Motion No. 272

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 460.

Motion No. 273

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 461.

Motion No. 274

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 462.

Motion No. 275

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 463.

Motion No. 276

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 464.

Motion No. 277

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 465.

Motion No. 278

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 466.

Motion No. 279

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 467.

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 468.

Motion No. 281

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 469.

Motion No. 282

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 470.

Motion No. 283

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 471.

Motion No. 284

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 472.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding all of these changes.

Let us let Canadians know what all these amendments are in aid of. We are now debating Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, except that we are dealing with another attempt by the Conservatives to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians. We want to slow the process down so that Canadians are not blindsided again with this omnibus legislation.

This is the fourth omnibus budget bill the government has brought in. Bill C-4 amends over 70 different pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It follows on the heels of previous omnibus budget Bills C-38, C-45, and C-60. The bill contains entirely new laws: the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board act. There are brand new acts within the bill.

Like its predecessor omnibus budget bills, this bill contains a wide variety of measures, many of which are not even in the budget and do not have any relationship to the budget. They are changes such as gutting health and safety protections for federal jurisdiction workers; cuts to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; repealing the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board; and changes to how we select Supreme Court judges.

These are not budget items, yet they are crammed into an omnibus bill, within a very short timeframe, to evade the scrutiny of Parliament. Canadians will not really have a full appreciation of the changes being made. It negates the opportunity of parliamentarians to hear a full range of witnesses, to engage in thorough examination, discussion, and debate about a bill, and to then propose reasoned amendments for improvements that would help make these laws better.

As we have seen in the past, because of the short timeframe, bills have been rushed through Parliament and passed, and then the government has had to go back and correct them after the fact because of mistakes it had made.

With this bill, as with all the other omnibus bills, Conservatives accepted not one amendment. They would not change even one comma. No one else has any good ideas. They would change nothing. In our discussions at committee, there were several amendments proposed. The NDP proposed 24. Other opposition parties proposed amendments. Not one change was accepted, as in the previous omnibus budget bills.

There was a time limit imposed on our study at committee. We had only two days of witnesses, including an hour with the minister, and there was a deadline of midnight. Everything we had not voted on in the bill was deemed passed, and if it was an amendment, it was deemed rejected. That certainly did not allow us much latitude for making changes or even for trying to slow down the parliamentary process and review.

Canadians are offended by this. We have heard from many Canadians who are getting the message about the lack of democracy in these omnibus budget bills. However, we also heard expert testimony.

The Canadian Bar Association testified at our committee during the two days of study. It said that “eschewing consultation and employing omnibus bills diminish the quality of our laws and the democratic process. We urge you to reconsider these practices”.

We completely agree.

We heard a variety of witnesses oppose the process of omnibus budget bills. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed with us that this is a bad way to bring in legislation.

What it does is attach unpopular measures to popular measures and does not allow the separation of issues so that there can be good and thorough debate. It prevents separate votes on issues by lumping them all together. Obviously, it is less transparent and fundamentally less democratic. We believe that this evasion of parliamentary scrutiny is not worthy of the House.

Let me deal with the notion that this bill is in any way aiding the priorities of Canadians in terms of creating jobs and a stronger economy. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed to put forward significant job creation measures at a time when we are seeing stagnating incomes, stagnating wages, insecurity in the workplace, job insecurity, and all-time high household debt. This is at a time when we have a current account trade deficit of over $60 billion, which is a record for our country.

We believe that what the Conservative government ought to do is deal with the real challenges the economy is facing. Let me quote a couple of sources. The Conservatives may feel that they know better, but let us hear what the International Monetary Fund had to say:

...the IMF no longer views Canada as the growth engine of the G7 economies. While bettering the European members, Canadian growth is projected to play second fiddle to the U.S. in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Growth in “other advanced countries” not in the G7 club, such as the Scandinavian nations and Australia and New Zealand, are also projected to outperform Canada. Going forward, it predicts the Canadian economy will continue to be held back by high household debt levels and a cooling housing market.

That is the International Monetary Fund.

Business columnist David Olive wrote:

We know from the recent American and British experience with austerity chic that you cannot cut your way to prosperity. Indeed, sucking demand, or cash, out of an economy with cutbacks to government spending—including essential services and infrastructure upgrading—merely adds to the jobless lines and cuts household incomes. That, in turn, drives up social-spending costs related to mounting unemployment.

Clearly, the Conservative government is failing on the economy.

Let us hear from Paul Wells, from Maclean's, in his recent article, “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers”. He wrote:

...by the broadest measure of expenditure on research and development, Canada has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries [since] the year Stephen Harper became prime minister...

The Conservative government is failing on so many counts to do the job on the economy, yet it has an omnibus budget bill that would cram in over 60 amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Anyone working anywhere in the federal jurisdiction, not just for the federal government but perhaps in the transportation sector, banking, telecommunications, interprovincial trucking, rail, ships, trains, or airlines, would be affected by this.

It would strip the powers of health and safety inspectors. They could inspect a workplace with a phone call. However, it would not be a qualified inspector; it would just be someone the minister appointed, who would not even have to be qualified.

There are so many regressive changes in this bill that attack the basic rights of people in the workplace. It is a colossal step backward. All Canadian workers should be very concerned about this legislation. It is a colossal step backward for Canadians.

New Democrats will not support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by Parliament and Canadians. We oppose this budget and its implementation bills, unless it is revised to reflect the real priorities of Canadian families: creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring retirement security; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life for families more affordable.

I see that my time is up. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I welcome questions from my parliamentary colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member has pointed out, it is important for us to recognize what the Prime Minister has done with previous bills. It is also important for us to recognize that never in the history of Canada have we seen so much incorporated into budget legislation. What is happening is that the government is using the back door of budget debate to pass massive amounts of legislation that should be stand-alone legislation.

Could the member comment on the fact that when stand-alone legislation is incorporated into what should be a budget debate, it takes away the opportunity for parliamentarians in this House to contribute fully to a debate on an entirely separate piece of legislation that should have come before the House? We are supposed to be doing this on behalf of all Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of debate recently about the rights of parliamentarians and what kind of autonomy and power we do or should have. I understand that there may even be some rumblings growing in the government caucus. I would urge my colleagues on the other side that if they want to assert their independence and truly represent the constituents who elected them to this place, then regardless of the content of this bill, they should stand in this place and vote against the process of these omnibus budget bills. They are fundamentally undermining our rights as parliamentarians and undermining the democratic right of Canadians to have adequate scrutiny of their legislation. I urge my colleagues on the other side to stand in their places and vote against this bill.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the leader of the Green Party that the rumblings she is hearing are from my tummy. There are no other rumblings coming from the Conservative Party. We fully support this budget and what it does for Canadians.

Given all the great things this budget does for aboriginal people, homeless people, the environment, and the economy as a whole, why would the Green Party vote against all of these wonderful initiatives? Can the member answer that?

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

Mr. Speaker—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member for Parkdale—High Park has the floor, not the leader of the Green Party. Therefore, I will recognize the member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Green Party will answer that question at some point.

Let me just provide another example of what the government is doing. It created the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board in order to take the politics out of financing employment insurance. That was at a time when Liberal and Conservative governments had plundered $57 billion from the premiums paid by working people and employers across this country into the EI fund. The government created an independent fund to get away from those politics. It put the fund at zero, so there was no money. It was immediately in deficit, and ultimately, the premiums had to be raised. Now it wants to get rid of this board, this outside agency it created, and go back to being able to play politics with EI funding. It is shameful. It is a disgrace. It opens up the premiums paid into this fund, which ought to be going to unemployed workers and ought to be the best adjustment program Canada has during a time of insecurity and high unemployment. Instead, it uses them to play political points by having bigger surpluses or lower deficits than it would otherwise have. It is shameful. That is another measure included in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if my hon. colleague had given the member for Parkdale—High Park a promotion or demotion by making her leader of the Green Party.

However, on this particular debate, the Green Party and the NDP are on the same page. We completely lament the fact that this is an omnibus bill once again, with multiple sections that were very much deserving of a full parliamentary review and full and proper hearings in committee.

I want to begin my analysis of Bill C-4 in presenting the various amendments I have made for deletions with two fairly brief points to the substance of the abuse of Parliament that omnibus budget bills represent.

We have heard it said by Conservative members in their talking points that this is nothing new. In every debate we have on budget omnibus bills, we are told this is normal. However, although I have only been a member of Parliament since 2011, I have been around a long time, and I know that we have never had budget omnibus bills of the staggering length of these bills until the current administration. It is only under the current Prime Minister that we have seen an omnibus budget bill top 200 pages.

Between 1994 and 2005, there were occasions of omnibus budget bills, and they were averaging 73 pages. The first big whopper of an omnibus budget bill occurred under the current Prime Minister in 2009. The 2010 budget omnibus bill was almost 900 pages.

Then, by 2012, the Conservatives started a new process. Ironically, my very first question in the House once I was elected was on the 2011 budget. I asked the Minister of Finance if he was planning the abuse of process constituted by an omnibus budget bill. He said he was not. Well, 2011 was indeed the last year in which we did not see omnibus budget bills. By 2012, the Conservative administration had started this new practice of putting forward two omnibus budget bills. It now refers to it as a tradition, almost like having Easter in the spring and Christmas in December. It is a tradition, apparently, that we are now going to see a 300- to 400-page spring omnibus budget bill, followed by 200-, 300-, or 400-page fall omnibus budget bill. The government has done this now for 2012 and 2013.

What this does is make a mockery of Parliament. I cannot put it more strongly than that. The idea that we would have disparate, unconnected bills, many of them never mentioned in the budget, that do substantial damage—this one in particular to labour relations, previous ones to environmental concerns—is an offence to Parliament. There is no excuse for it.

Second, I know there has been a lot of public interest in the fate of members of Parliament like myself and my party. I quite clearly represent a party with fewer than 12 MPs; I represent a party with one MP. However, I am a party in the House. So are my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, and so are four independent members of Parliament. We were treated differently, since there were multiple motions carried through multiple committees to require that substantive amendments be submitted at committee, where we are not members and do not have equal and full rights of participation.

I will set that aside for now. That is why all of my amendments presented today are deletions. I did have substantive amendments I would have liked to present at report stage. I had 26 substantive amendments that I did present to the finance committee, and they went through a very quick ritual slaughter. I would have liked for the people of Canada to know about those amendments. I would have liked to have brought them forward at report stage.

Before I move to the specific parts of the bill that Canadians need to know about, I want to make an overarching comment.

As the only member of Parliament for the Green Party, one of the great advantages of having to watch everything while also doing due diligence on behalf of my constituents is that I am able to see everything in a comprehensive overview, not just in silos. There are themes here. There are disparate bills, but the manoeuvres are the same. The manoeuvres go in the direction of increasing ministerial discretion, reducing objective criteria, removing boards and agencies that have independent expertise, and putting bills forward instead to systems of political whim.

That certainly was the case in budget omnibus Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. They reduced criteria, letting the minister of environment or the minister of natural resources make decisions without guidance.

In this particular omnibus budget bill, we see it happening quite a lot again. I will mention just a few of the areas.

Under the Canada Labour Code changes, which my friend from the official opposition already referred to, the changes go in the direction of removing health and safety officers and leaving decisions about health and safety up to the minister.

The same kinds of changes have happened in immigration. In Bill C-4, we see substantial changes in part 3, division 16, to the expression of interest system, basically for immigrants who are coming by way of economic advantage. The decision-making would now increasingly be by ministerial discretion.

Another area where we see ministerial discretion replacing an objective system is in division 14, in which we would repeal the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and replace it with a very similar Mackenzie gas project impacts funds act. In this change the one big difference between the two acts would be to replace an objective corporation, a regional organization that would make decisions about where the funds go, entirely with ministerial discretion.

My friend and colleague from the NDP, the member for Western Arctic, had this to say about it, because he has a lot of expertise in this area. He said:

There was an independent body set up by the Conservative government through an act of Parliament to manage this money and ensure that it was managed in a correct and careful fashion, following the procedures that had been set up and the planning that had taken place in these communities over a period of two years, from 2006 to 2008.

Then I have another excerpt from his quote:

What we have now is a move to a system that would have a Conservative minister handing out cheques for particular projects as he or she deems appropriate.

Before diving into the specifics of Bill C-4, I wanted to raise into higher profile a consistent ideological theme: moving more and more decision-making in our system of government, which is a parliamentary democracy, away from Parliament, and at the same time moving decision-making of ministers into more and more discretion with less and less guidance.

Those of us who have practised law at any time know that administrative law provides a certain amount of accountability whereby a minister has to follow certain prescribed considerations or in fact delegates authority to expert boards. Less and less will we see this. More and more will we see ministerial discretion. As well, we know that ministers do not really exercise discretion, not in this administration. They do what they are told by the people at PMO, who I think one Conservative described brilliantly as a series of Stepford wives who insist on certain decisions being made a certain way.

To raise my concerns in brief, this bill would do serious damage to the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would change the definition of danger and the ability to refuse dangerous work. It would remove the health and safety officers.

As well, a different section of this bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act, again for more ministerial discretion about which aspects of public service work would be considered to be essential and therefore not open to the usual recourse that trade unions have in negotiations.

We see changes to the Immigration Act to increase ministerial discretion. I would like to cite concerns from the Canadian Bar Association on the immigration law section. They wrote to the committee:

The CBA Section has concerns about the limited consultation on this important change to Canadian immigration law and policy. Bill C-4 would substantially change the way in which economic immigrants are selected to come to Canada. The Bill would remove these changes from Parliamentary scrutiny and approval and give what appears to be unilateral authority to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to change selection rules and procedures.

Another section of the bill that has gotten very limited public attention is the section that appears in part 3, division 7, which is in aid of getting rid of our deficit by selling off assets. This is the sale of 20,000 hectares described as the Dominion Coal Blocks land.

My amendments at committee, had they been approved, would have provided some conservation protection. These lands are among the most ecologically significant in Canada. They are the blocks in the Flathead Valley and Elk Valley. They are an integral part of what is called the Crown of the Continent, right near the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which is an international peace park on both sides of the border.

The Flathead has been protected by the strange reality of its ownership by the federal government over these years, but it is now to be sold for coal mining. We need to ensure that careful concern is applied to the conveyance of these lands and to ensure that we do not contaminate adjacent park areas. This is a concern already expressed by the United Nations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to again try to emphasize, as the member has done, the importance of the immigration and other legislation that has been incorporated in this bill. I have argued in the past and will continue to argue in the future that this is the wrong way to bring in legislation. By doing it this way, we are not allowing for proper procedures on substantial pieces of legislation.

For example, when the leader for the Green Party makes reference to immigration changes, that should have been stand-alone legislation that would have had a second reading at a committee of its own. The committee on immigration would have dealt with it. We would have had stakeholders and witnesses come to committee to provide comment on it, and then it would ultimately come back there. There would have been a more wholesome debate on the whole issue of that specific change.

I wonder if the member could highlight for people who might be watching what has been lost as a result of not having that separate stand-alone legislation for the immigration component and for other pieces.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be very hard to know what was lost. We do know that in previous omnibus budget bills, even drafting errors were not corrected. We have seen this rush to pass legislation in a hurry, and if the disparate parts do not get reviewed by committees that have developed expertise in this area, they come back to the government's attention, even within six months, as mistakes.

At the simplest level, haste makes waste, and they end up coming back with amendments to fix things. This bill includes amendments to fix mistakes the government made last time in the employment insurance system for fisheries, fisheries families, and their income.

What is important to drive home is that at a more fundamental level we see a systematic, transformative change in Canadian legislation, away from well-considered and well-developed legislation operating under criteria and controls to a system that could very easily become completely manipulated through the Prime Minister's Office, a system in which ministers have nothing to do but follow through with their directions while the people who actually understand the system are precluded from the decision-making.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the over 70 changes through this legislation would be to public sector collective bargaining rights. Unlike in the private sector, the government wants to give itself the unfettered right to deem certain workers as essential workers in the federal public sector. This could have the impact of their deeming the majority of workers in a bargaining unit to be essential workers, thereby essentially denying them normal collective bargaining rights and the normal right to strike. Coca-Cola cannot do that with its bargaining, but it is what the minister is proposing to do.

Does the member have any comments about the impact this would have on public sector collective bargaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as with other pieces of legislation we have seen in this Parliament, would strike directly at the heart of collective bargaining. I will admit a bias, because part of my past work history included working for a union side labour firm and working for labour unions and in collective bargaining.

The principles of collective bargaining are important. If the tools that a labour union and an employer have at their disposal are roughly equal, the employer has the right to lock out and the trade union has the right to strike. If that aspect of collective bargaining is removed, essentially it becomes a system of the employer dictating terms. The employees have no recourse.

In healthy democracies and healthy economies and in places where civil society is healthy and there is less of a gap between the wealthiest and the poorest, the strengths of the trade union movement are one of the clearest indicators of a healthy society and a robust middle class. Striking at the heart of collective bargaining for federal employees, as this bill does, is not in Canada's interest.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are talking about deleting provisions of Bill C-4 at report stage. The Conservative government wants to hastily pass this bill without conducting any real impact studies.

The Conservatives claim that this bill focuses exclusively on the economy, but that is far from true. Bill C-4 will affect a host of different areas. Some of the changes set out in the bill will mainly affect Quebec, its regions, its entrepreneurs and its businesses.

For example, Bill C-4 will eliminate the federal tax credit on labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, which are more commonly referred to as workers' funds. Over 80% of these funds are found in Quebec. The main ones are the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction CSN.

This will therefore have a direct impact on Quebec's economy and particularly that of its regions. These funds are quite prevalent in Quebec and they have helped to create and maintain tens of thousands of jobs, strengthen communities and breathe life into the economy where regular instruments, such as bank loans, were unable to play that role. It is therefore extremely important that the federal government reconsider this decision.

Another point of contention is that this mammoth bill affects the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Recently, a judge was appointed who was not on the list submitted by the Government of Quebec. What is more, he did not even meet the criteria set out in legislation. The Supreme Court has to include three justices from Quebec for a reason. Quebec's civil law is quite different from Canadian law, and the justices who sit on the highest court must be able to rely on sufficient expertise so that they can rule on complex civil law issues.

In addition, in the many existing legal cases between Ottawa and Quebec, it is only natural that Quebec should be able to rely on three justices who are attuned to the province's unique characteristics. Justice Nadon decided to step aside temporarily because his appointment is being challenged. The federal government decided to refer Justice Nadon's case to the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court will be both judge and judged in this case. Not wanting to be defeated in this dispute, the federal government is trying to use Bill C-4 to amend the Supreme Court Act to make Justice Nadon's appointment legal, after the fact.

For the Bloc Québécois, the amendments in Bill C-4 pertaining to the amount of time the person nominated must have spent as a member of the Quebec bar are nothing less than an admission of the problems that tainted the appointment of Justice Nadon. His appointment, we should point out, was unfortunately endorsed by the Conservatives as well as the Liberals and the NDP, who included Justice Nadon on their list of top three candidates. Once again, the Bloc Québécois was the only party to oppose this appointment.

Instead of changing the legislation to try to save face, the federal government must acknowledge that it must choose Supreme Court justices who represent Quebec from the list submitted by the Quebec government, as has always been the case.

Another point of contention is that this bill will eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It has become clear that the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, have no problem using employment insurance for political purposes and taking the employment insurance fund surpluses.

The board was established to ensure that employment insurance premiums are used only for the employment insurance program. When we read this description, we can better understand why the Conservatives want to abolish a body that was opposed to their helping themselves to the surplus, as they are currently doing. This year alone, $2 billion will be taken from the employment insurance account. That is, of course, a hidden tax.

We also do not agree on the major changes to labour laws included in the bill.

During the recent labour disputes at Air Canada and CP, the Conservatives showed that they were allergic to any form of job action taken by employees. The mere possibility of a strike worries them so much that they have to pass special legislation to prevent them.

What is more, Air Canada is now very quietly transferring specialized, well-paid jobs to Toronto without the federal government lifting a finger to intervene.

What is truly shocking is that all the federalist parties in the House are just sitting back and letting Air Canada get away with skirting the law and transforming its offices in Montreal into post office boxes.

I keep bringing up this issue, because in the Air Canada privatization contract it was agreed that any jobs in maintenance and at headquarters would remain in Montreal. However, jobs are currently slipping away to Toronto and every member in the House of Commons is remaining silent, except for the Bloc members.

I am calling on all NDP, Conservative and Liberal members in Quebec. We should stand together to prevent the injustice that is the transfer of high-paying jobs to Ontario. Furthermore, this transfer is completely at odds with the contract Air Canada signed when it was privatized. I am making an appeal. I hope that all members from Quebec break their silence about this.

With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are now making major changes to the way in which services are deemed essential because they want to pre-empt any possibility of job action by employees.

From now on, the Conservatives are giving the employer the exclusive right to determine whether a service is essential and to set the number of positions needed to provide that service.

Previously, the essential services designation was agreed upon by the union and the employer. This provided for a level playing field. These are major changes because they affect the fundamental balance that must be in place between employers and employees.

Even worse is the fact that Bill C-4 politicizes the occupational health and safety process. Indeed, Bill C-4 gives the minister the power to issue directives to employers and to make certain decisions that were previously made by health and safety officers.

It goes even further by changing the concept of “danger” in the Canada Labour Code and, as a consequence, exposing employees to higher levels of risk.

As I just explained, the Bloc Québécois has proposed the removal of the clauses pertaining to labour-sponsored funds, employment insurance—including the Employment Insurance Commission—the Canada Labour Code and the Supreme Court.

These issues should be addressed in separate bills and not in an omnibus bill. That is why we proposed that these clauses be removed.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with much interest, and I would like to acknowledge that he is our longest serving member of Parliament. I know he has the interest of his home province at heart.

However, the tone of the hon. member's speech was very negative. He pointed out a lot of complaints and faults in his speech, but I am wondering whether he would support the hiring tax credit for small business that is in Bill C-4 and that would be important for small businesses in the province of Quebec.

How about electronic applications for students, access to Canada student loans for the students in Quebec who access this program? It would speed that process up for them and help them to get loans to advance their education.

What about the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers? The manufacturing sector is important in Quebec.

Does the hon. member support these measures that are in Bill C-4? With regard to our move to balance the budget, does he agree that it is an important ideal to move Canada towards balanced budgets?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

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

I did not mention the hiring tax credit because we support this measure, but it will not have the kind of impact the member thinks it will. These measures are insignificant and will not have the desired effect, especially for SMEs.

Electronic applications for students, as with anything that has to do with education, loans and grants, fall under provincial jurisdiction, so Quebec is responsible for them. The existing systems work very well for students. We have no complaints.

The accelerated tax credits could be a positive, but the member must acknowledge that they generally favour large corporations, as is the case in the automotive and oil sectors. When an oil company has $1 billion to spend and can get a deduction in the form of tax credits for purchases over three years, that can make a huge difference compared to 10 years. However, if an SME is spending $50,000, that will not have a huge impact whether it is three years or 10 years. This credit therefore favours big companies, and small businesses are once again shut out of this budget.

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

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

I could not help but think it was odd when he mentioned that the NDP was complicit in Justice Nadon's appointment process, since that meeting was held in camera. The details of the process were confidential, so we do not know what kind of debate was going on or what our representative, the member for Gatineau, said.

On October 31, the member for Gatineau once again asked for the unanimous consent of the House to respect Quebec's place at the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court Act. In light of what I just said, it is clear that we took this lack of respect for Quebec in our constitutional structure very seriously, and we have frequently spoken out in defence of this.

I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to step back and to acknowledge the work that the NDP has done on this issue.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that the parties met in private—the member himself said it—and the outcome was that this judge was chosen. The three parties were complicit. That was also the case with the unilingual English judge, when the NDP approved the appointment and then criticized it, realizing that it had made a mistake. That was the context surrounding my comments about the NDP. The party did not speak up right away and say that this gentleman should have been immediately dropped during the secret meeting because he did not meet the usual criteria for being appointed to the court.

I could provide other examples of how, often, the NDP has not been involved in the debate on issues of concern to Quebec. For example, you said nothing about the Canadian securities commission in Toronto. During the debate on hydroelectric development in Newfoundland and Labrador, not only did you not speak out against it—even though Quebec passed a unanimous resolution—you rose in the House to speak in favour of it. You were completely uninvolved in the debate about the fact that Quebec City did not get a contract to build warships. That is what I am getting at—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member has been in the House for a number of years. He knows he is to address his comments to the Chair and not to other members.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand today on behalf of the residents of Nanaimo—Alberni and enter the debate on extremely important federal legislation.

Bill C-4 is an act to implement measures contained in budget 2013. It is the second such bill therefore we could refer to it as BIA 2, the budget implementation act 2. Budget 2013 continues our government's drive toward creating jobs and promoting economic growth in a highly competitive world. It also continues our steadfast drive toward returning to fiscal balance by 2015. Why this bill is relevant and how it is managed is extremely important to the lives of each and every Canadian.

First, let me remind those watching the debate that Canada was slammed by an economic tsunami in 2008, one that was not of our making, but one that crashed across our borders. It started south of our border with a subprime mortgage meltdown. As the credit crisis and housing defaults put financial institutes in peril, the U.S.A. and other nations backstopped the banks to prevent panic south of the border. They spent billions of public dollars in bailout money to institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Businesses had trouble maintaining cash flow and major industries, like the auto sector, danced along the edge of insolvency. It quickly spread around the globe. Many nations were faced with huge financial commitments to stabilize their financial institutions and prevent wholesale collapse.

As the world economy spun, our government had to act fast to keep Canadians employed and provide incentives and retraining programs. Part of the economic action plan was targeted short-term spending on infrastructure, investments that would generate economic activity, keep people employed and improve the quality of life in communities across Canada.

Our plan worked. In fact, it worked so well that since the depths of the recession in July 2009, we have generated nearly a million new jobs, more than 80% of those in the private sector. We have been driving toward balanced budgets year by year with targeted measures to keep our economy moving forward. Canada has the best job creation record in the G7, the most stable banking sector and the lowest debt to GDP ratio.

Why is this important? It is important because debt is strangling economic opportunity and competitiveness in many nations. The commitment of this government and the Prime Minister is that we will bring Canada back to balanced budgets and we will do it without raising taxes and without slashing transfers to the provinces for services upon which Canadians depend.

I am pleased to report that we are on track to do exactly that. Our Minister of Finance recently reported that we would achieve this objective not only on time, but ahead of time. We will, barring world circumstances beyond our sight or control, achieve that objective and a healthy surplus by the fiscal year 2015.

Budget 2013 and Bill C-4 continue to drive toward balanced budgets. There are provisions that impact British Columbia in a significant way, such as $92 million for innovation in the forest sector. These funds will help our forest industry continue the transformation to compete in new global realities.

Budget 2013 includes measures to protect the iconic west coast Pacific salmon. In fact, the entire Pacific salmon stamp, collected from recreational fishers on the coast, is valued at just over $6. For years, $1 from that stamp used to go to the PSF, the Pacific Salmon Foundation. Now the entire value of that stamp, which would be a value of about $1.2 million, will go to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and into projects that restore salmon habitat. In partnership with local environmental groups, we have salmon enhancement societies and streamkeepers, which share great interest in bringing them back stream by stream, which is the model of the Pacific Salmon Foundation.

In addition, this budget brought in the recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. That is a further $10 million over two years to help activist groups, like the ones I mentioned, advance causes that help restore fisheries habitat, improve the riparian zones and remove obstacles that prevent fish from getting up to their spawning grounds.

This is like one project that was announced in my riding. A major highway culvert was eroded and it was restored so the fish could get past that obstacle and up to the spawning grounds. These projects, collectively, have a huge impact on helping our great iconic salmon resource on the west coast.

The funds dramatically increase the reach of our premier salmon habitat restoration institute on the coast. Doing so allows mother nature to do her thing. As we remove obstacles and improve the riparian zones and spawning grounds, it helps mother nature help the salmon do what they do best, which is to reproduce successfully and create opportunities commercially, for first nations through their food cultural ceremonial programs and recreational anglers. One of the reasons many people move to British Columbia and coastal B.C. is to take part in a tremendous fishing opportunity.

Since 2006, our economic action plan has cut taxes in over 150 different measures to make our economy more productive. As a result, the average Canadian family is saving about $3,200 each and every year in reduced federal taxes. That means more money to meet family needs and address priorities of their own choosing. On this side of the House, we think that is a good idea. It allows Canadians to manage their own money, invest in priorities that strengthen their families, help their children participate in activities that are meaningful to them and ensure the needs of their families are met.

Bill C-4 continues our drive to job creation and economic stimulus. I would like to refer to a few of these measures.

I will talk about renewing the hiring tax credit for small business and other measures, such as closing tax loopholes to ensure tax fairness. The one I mentioned earlier was the accelerated capital cost allowance in a question for the member opposite, a measure that would allow manufacturers to invest in equipment upgrades. There are other measures like extending the lifetime capital gains exemption to increase the rewards for investing in small business in Canada and closing tax loopholes to protect the inherent integrity and fairness of our tax system.

The number one priority of our government is creating jobs. The hiring tax credit recognizes the important role of small business in sustaining Canadian communities. Economic action plan 2013 proposes to extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses. The measure provides up to a $1,000 credit against an increase in EI premiums for businesses. Small businesses are the engines of job creation. This measure was first introduced in budget 2011. It helps defray the costs of taking on a new employee and permits local employers to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. It is estimated some 560,000 small businesses could potentially benefit from this measure, saving them an estimated $225 million in federal taxes in 2013.

With regard to tax fairness, since 2006, including measures in the 2013 economic action plan, the government has introduced more than 75 measures to improve the integrity of our tax system. One example in budget 2013 is to close tax loopholes that permit certain individuals and/or institutions to avoid tax. Included are stiff penalties to curb a disturbing new trend, which is the electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

Specifically, the following administrative money penalties and criminal offences apply. For using electronic suppression of sales software, there is an administrative monetary penalty of $5,000 for the first infraction and up to $50,000 on subsequent infractions. For possession and acquisition, there are even higher penalties for the manufacture, development, sale and possession. There are also criminal offences for those involved in this type of tax avoidance. Those measures are broadly supported by business and job creators across Canada. If I had time, I would quote the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which issued a statement commenting on closing the tax loopholes and tax fairness measures in the budget. It concluded by saying that it supported efforts to maintain the integrity of our tax system.

The tax relief for new manufacturing and equipment is a very important measure, and there are many other measures in this budget that are important for advancing our economy and bringing us back to balanced budgets. I hope all the members opposite will join with us in passing these measures to keep Canada moving in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni. He talked about many things in his speech, and he overlooked some other things.

One of the things that interests me the most in Bill C-4 is the issue of phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which, as we know, are extremely important in Quebec. There is about $10 billion in capital, and nearly 70% of that capital is invested in Quebec and outside Quebec.

This makes Quebec a leader in the area of venture capital, not only in Canada, but internationally. In terms of economic importance, Quebec ranks third among all OECD members. Furthermore, it invests nearly three times as much venture capital as the Canadian average, and more than four times the Ontario average.

At present, 160,000 jobs are supported by the capital provided by labour-sponsored funds. The phasing-out of this tax credit could kill about 20,000 of those jobs. The government claims to support economic growth and job creation, but this measure will be extremely harmful to Quebec.

What does the member think of that? I would like to hear his comments on the phasing-out of this tax credit.

Furthermore, why does the government insist on continuing in this direction, without any proof, when Canada really needs venture capital and private equity funds want to continue benefiting from the support of the Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in trying to balance the budget for a country the size of Canada and with an economy like ours, there are many measures that have to be kept in balance.

As I mentioned in parts of my speech, there are measures to close developing situations where tax loopholes have been exploited by certain individuals. Also, there are investments that are strategically designed to help certain sectors advance their interests, but times have changed. For example, there are changes to measures that were brought in the 1970s to help credit unions in the country. Now, with advances and changes in the budget over the years, those measures are no longer needed and so they are being phased out. There are measures for the mining sector that are being phased out, some by 2015 and some by 2017.

The measures the member has referred to are part of the ongoing evolution of shifting to ensure our tax plan remains balanced, fair, representative and that it delivers the kinds of benefits to keep our economy moving in the right direction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat amazing the number of times in which the member has made reference to balancing the budget and the government's desire to balance the budget. In reality, the government inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus from a Liberal government. Prior to the recession even starting, the Conservatives turned that multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit. Now they are trying to convince Canadians that they can actually bring us back to a balanced budget sometime in the future. There is a credibility issue with which the Conservatives will have to deal.

Having said that, my question for the member is this. Why does the government choose to bring in so much legislative change through the back door of budget legislation when in fact it should be separate pieces of legislation?

Bill C-4 is really about that. It is being used as a back door for that sneaky government, through the PMO, to bring in numerous changes to other pieces of legislation.

Why is the Conservative government doing that?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the member also has selective memory it appears. He says that we inherited a great surplus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Billions.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Yes, billions, but in fact we managed the economy so well in 2006, 2007 and 2008 that we paid down $37 billion on our national debt. That actually took us to the lowest national debt in 25 years at about $458 billion.

The member would probably like to acknowledge that the economic downturn was worldwide. It did not start in this nation and so we had to respond. We had to keep people employed and we had to do something that this government was reluctant to do, which was to run a deficit in order to keep Canadians on track. Unlike the government opposite when it was faced with a deficit, we did not slash transfers to the provinces for health, social services and education.

We are determined to balance the budget by growing the economy and without increasing taxes. We are on track to do that to keep Canada going in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-4, the government's latest budget implementation bill.

The bill fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class in Canada.

This bill does little to help middle-class families in Canada.

First and foremost, this bill does nothing to create good paying jobs for Canadians. Middle-class Canadians are worried about their finances. They ought to be, because they face record levels of personal debt, amounting to $1.66 for every dollar of annual income. They are struggling to make ends meet when interest rates are low. They are petrified to think of what will happen in the future if interest rates start to rise at some point.

One of the driving forces behind this accumulation of household debt is the direct financial subsidization of adult children who cannot yet make it on their own. These are young people between the ages of 25 to 35 who are living at home and unable to pay rent. In fact, 43% of Canadian families have directly financially subsidized young people who have lived for extended periods of time at home with them because they cannot make ends meet. Young Canadians have been left behind during this so-called economic recovery; they have 225,000 fewer jobs than before the downturn.

Bill C-4 does nothing to help young Canadians find jobs, even though the youth unemployment and underemployment rates are higher than they were before the recession.

Instead of supporting job creation for young Canadians, a number of items in Bill C-4 would put existing jobs at risk. This bill phases out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation tax credit. These venture funds help small business start-ups grow and create good jobs for Canadians. They are particularly important in Quebec.

All of the chambers of commerce in Quebec are against these changes.

However, it is important to realize that the impacts of these labour-sponsored funds and investments, many of which are based in Quebec, benefit small business across the country, in start-ups, technology companies, biotech, cleantech, and certainly the jobs of tomorrow.

The provinces that have labour-sponsored venture capital funds include B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Bill C-4 would cut the tax incentives for those labour-sponsored venture capital funds by half, endangering not only their business model but also the businesses that rely on that venture capital to grow and create jobs.

The government has said that the reason it is doing this is because it is bringing in the VCAP, the venture capital action plan, The problem is that the VCAP is not up and running yet. Therefore, the government is actually destroying one source of venture capital, the labour-sponsored venture capital source, without having a new program that is running. It is creating a vacuum in funding. That funding is extremely important to create innovation, commercialization, and jobs of today and tomorrow for young Canadians, exactly the kind of jobs we ought to be focused on.

Again, this is like the government with its jobs training program that it introduced shortly after the last budget. In fact, it is still not running. It forgot to talk to the provinces. Therefore, there is no jobs training program. It spent millions of dollars on advertising it, but there is no program. This is a government that invests money in self-promotion, but does not get the job done when it comes to putting in place the kinds of measures to create jobs, good training and to close the job skills gap. The government is more interested in promoting activities as opposed to getting the job done.

In terms of the mining sector, Bill C-4 reduces tax incentives for Canadian mining companies, which will severely hurt Canada's competitiveness in an important global industry where Canada is seen as an international leader. Canada's mining sector is an important source of good paying jobs for Canadians. These measures in Bill C-4 would put Canadian jobs, particularly in rural and remote communities, at risk. These are communities that are struggling. Rural Canada is struggling. This is no time to reduce the support for and incentives for investments in mining, particularly at a time when the mining industry faces huge challenges globally.

In terms of employment insurance rates, the Conservatives claim that the proposed changes to EI rates are going to be good for the Canadian economy. Certainly extending the EI hiring credit is an initiative that we do support, but this credit has been in place for three years and young Canadians are still struggling to find good work. Clearly, this measure is not strong enough to kick-start the economy, particularly in terms of opportunities for young Canadians.

However, Bill C-4 also freezes EI rates, which at first glance may seem like a good idea. When EI rates are going up, it may be good for small businesses and good for workers to freeze EI rates. We now know that the EI account will be balanced in 2015 instead of 2016, and ultimately would be able to start falling after that, left to its own devices.

The problem is that the Conservatives had promised to set EI rates at a break-even rate as soon as the EI account is balanced. However, Bill C-4 actually breaks that promise by freezing EI rates until the end of 2016, instead of them being allowed to fall naturally commensurate with the account being in balance.

As a result, Canadians will pay an extra $5.6 billion more than what is required to balance the EI account. That is an extra $5.6 billion over two years that we should be using to keep in the pockets of Canadians and Canadian small businesses in order to create jobs during a time of significant unemployment and underemployment in Canada.

This legislation has a large number of measures that have nothing to do whatsoever with the budget or the fiscal framework. They do not belong in a budget bill. This legislation amends the rules for appointments to the Supreme Court. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives created this farce whereby the finance committee was tasked with making decisions on the selection process for the Supreme Court of Canada. What is next? Are we going to be having members of the justice committee making decisions on government-wide fiscal policy?

Bill C-4 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow cabinet to designate one person or class of persons as public office holders or reporting public office officers.

We have even heard from the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, who was so concerned about this part of Bill C-4 that he wrote to MPs on the finance committee. This is what Mr. Giorno had to say about the measures in part 3, division 15, of Bill C-4:

Cabinet's power to designate new public office holders and reporting public office holders would be unlimited and far-reaching. The bill would place no restrictions on cabinet's power to designate individuals and classes of individuals as subject to the Act. Virtually anyone could be designated as subject to the Conflict of Interest Act at any point during his or her employment or tenure in office.

The government has not indicated who, if anyone, might be designated if these provisions are passed and come into force. The Budget is silent on this point. In fact, the Budget Plan did not even suggest that the Conflict of Interest Act should be amended.

Mr. Giorno makes some very clear points as to why this may be the wrong direction, but the finance committee is not the best committee to actually deal with this kind of issue or the process around the appointments to the Supreme Court.

The changes to the Labour Code in the bill ought to have been dealt with at another committee. They were broad, sweeping and controversial and ought not be dealt with by the House of Commons finance committee. Again, there are changes to the numbers of members of the veterans review board. The government continues to demonstrate disrespect for Parliament, parliamentarians and the people who elect us. Conservative members and opposition members have a responsibility to defend their right to do their jobs and to study legislation.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to add my comments to this debate.

Today I will focus on ways in which economic action plan 2013 helps strengthen Canada's economy in these uncertain times.

Let me assure the House that our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians: job creation and economic growth. Indeed, just last week Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy expanded in the third quarter of 2013. This is the ninth consecutive positive quarter of economic growth and this is just the most recent example that our economy remains on the right track.

What is more, Canada continues to have the best job growth record among all of the G7, with over one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession.

However, Canada is not immune to the challenges beyond our borders. The global economy remains fragile, especially in the U.S. and Europe, our largest trading partners. That is why our Conservative government is working hard to grow the Canadian economy with positive measures such as tax breaks to help small businesses create more jobs, freezing employment insurance premium increases to allow Canadians to take home more of what they earn, and introducing new tax relief to help our manufacturing sector grow.

Indeed, implementing the job-supporting measures in economic action plan 2013 will help Canada's economy continue to grow. It is these job-supporting measures that I would like to discuss today.

Our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small businesses play in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed. We know that we have been growing. We see the results in that Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs since the recession. However, while the Canadian economy is improving, uncertainty remains.

We heard the concerns of business owners. That is why Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business. By expanding this credit over 560,000 employers will benefit, helping them hire new workers and grow. This would provide an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013.

Bill C-4 would also increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000. This would increase the rewards of investing in small businesses and make it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation. Today's legislation would also index the exemption to inflation for the first time. This would ensure the real value of the lifetime capital gains exemption is not eroded over time. Overall, this measure would provide an estimated $5 million in tax relief in 2013-14, and $15 million in 2014-15.

As Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

...they've expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That's really good news, with a promise to index it each year going forward. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs.

There is still more. Bill C-4 would freeze employment insurance premium rates in 2015 and 2016. This tax relief would help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustained business-led, long-term growth. This would build on our government’s recent announcement to freeze EI premium rates, bringing more stability and predictability to employers and workers. What is more, it would save them $660 million in 2014 alone.

Diane J. Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, agrees. She stated, “This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure”.

Furthermore, the employment insurance freeze would enhance Canada's globally competitive business environment. The freeze would help to attract foreign investment into Canada, create jobs for Canadians and foster long-term economic growth.

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated:

...payroll taxes like EI are particularly challenging for small business, [the] announcement of an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs and their employees.... This move will keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-4 would also extend tax relief to manufacturers, by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to include the equipment used in the production of biogas and equipment used to treat gases from waste.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadians and families. In fact, as a result of our government's low-tax plan, in 2013 the average Canadian family now pays $3,400 less in taxes. This includes reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back into the pockets of the average Canadian family; introducing and enhancing the working income tax benefit; introducing the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs; and eliminating consumer tariffs on babies' clothes, sporting goods, exercise equipment and more.

Having said that, our government is under no illusion that our work is finished. The global economy remains fragile with the growth in advanced economies slower than expected, and Canada is not immune. That is why Canada's economic action plan actively pursues new trade and investment opportunities, particularly with large, dynamic and fast-growing economies. Indeed, our government recently completed negotiations on a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement alone has the potential to add more than 80,000 new jobs. In fact, John Manley, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives agrees, “the [comprehensive economic and trade agreement] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth.”

Unlike the members of the opposition, we understand that the pursuit of free trade is beneficial for the economy. Our government trade agenda has already made Canada one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world. Since 2006, we have reached free trade agreements with nine countries and are currently negotiating with many more. Canada has also joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and we are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic and fast-growing economies, such as South Korea, reflecting our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for global economic recovery.

Our government remains firmly committed to supporting Canadian jobs and fostering long-term prosperity for Canadians and their families. Canada's low-tax approach continues to be a beacon to other nations around the world in a time of global economic uncertainty.

Our efforts have not gone unnoticed. Indeed, KPMG's Competitive Alternatives 2012 report concluded that Canada's total business taxes are more than 40% lower than those in the United States, and confirmed that Canada has the lowest tax burden on business in the G7. Along with growing investment and our support for free and open trade, our government continues to support the low-tax environment that is required to create jobs and economic growth.

Canada is now one of the top five destinations in the world to start a business. Colleen McMorrow of Ernst & Young remarked that:

Canada has emerged as a real leader in fostering an entrepreneurial culture... Canada also offers a supportive tax and regulatory environment for entrepreneurs. All these factors are combining to really promote the growth of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship from coast to coast [to coast].

She concluded by saying that Canada’s government has been highly supportive of entrepreneurs, providing regulatory and tax regimes that have enabled start-ups and growing companies to flourish.

Clearly, Canada's competitive tax system plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth. These tax reductions would leave more money for job creation, to hire more workers and to invest in new machinery, equipment and other technology that will further strengthen Canada's economic partnerships.

With that in mind, it is shocking that just last week the Leader of the Opposition again confirmed that he would increase taxes on Canadian job creators in a time of global economic uncertainty. Clearly, when it comes to the economy the NDP cannot be trusted. With no economic action plan, the Liberals cannot be taken seriously as well. When it comes to the economy, there is a clear choice. It is our Conservative government that will keep Canada's economy strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech, but it seemed pretty repetitive to me. Indeed, it was more or less the same speech that I have been hearing from all Conservative members any time they are debating a budget bill.

The member talked about job creation and economic growth. One measure in the bill involves phasing out the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds.

I have already mentioned this in the past, but I would like to ask the member the question once more.

Phasing out this tax credit will have a serious impact on job creation. In fact, 160,000 jobs are currently supported by the private venture capital provided by labour-sponsored funds, which makes Quebec a leader in venture capital. Studies have shown that at least 20,000 of those 160,000 jobs are at risk and could disappear as a result of the measure proposed in this budget.

I would like to know how the member can justify a bill like Bill C-4, which could quickly kill over 20,000 jobs, particularly in Quebec, but also across Canada.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic, listening to my colleague across the floor ask the same repetitive question over and over again. This is the same official party that rejects any type of economic stimulus to help Canada grow.

We are seeing the government doing just that. I would like to point out a couple of things that we have done. I hate to be repetitive, but since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years.

We are seeing this take place and we are seeing the economic benefit assisting Saskatchewan, my home province. We are seeing it flourish. We are seeing it become an economic driving hub across Canada. We are seeing jobs being created. We are seeing individuals leaving other provinces and coming to Saskatchewan to work, because the jobs are there. We are seeing economic development take place.

That is why the government is reducing taxes, to help people create a better, more financial and fiscally responsible lifestyle.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from across the way talked about the Canadian corporate tax rates being lower than those in the U.S. I do not see a lot of companies lining up to come to Canada because of that. There are other things going on.

I should also point out an example of something else that is going on. Quite often I find that Canadian managers of R and D cannot get the large global corporations, often headquartered in the United States, to do their R and D in Canada. The proposals are just not as good as what they get from other countries where some of the subsidies are bigger.

An example of what is going on is that, in budget 2012, the government decided that it would reduce the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, and replace that with a system of direct grants.

We heard in the finance committee a couple of weeks ago that there is a delay. The cuts in SR and ED are already occurring, but replacement by the grants has been slow to happen. Therefore, a witness in committee told us that something like $300 million in investment has not been made. That amounts to something like 2,000 ongoing jobs.

I would like to ask my colleague to comment on that.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what we see is what Canada is doing to lure businesses to the country, or to have more individuals hired in.

What this Conservative government is doing is extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employees. We are also increasing the indexing of the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarding. Also, we are expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation.

One of the most important things here is freezing the employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding directly to the speech of the colleague to whom I asked a question.

I am always repeating the same question because I never get an answer from the government. There is a specific measure set out in Bill C-4 that could result in the loss of 20,000 jobs in Quebec, and the member is telling me about the jobs that will be created in Saskatchewan.

Does he really mean to say that Bill C-4 will create jobs in certain locations and eliminate them in others? In fact, that is exactly what Bill C-4 will do.

The issue of labour-sponsored funds is crucial. This model for economic development has worked well in Quebec. Since labour-sponsored funds were created in 1983, this economic model has strengthened the role of Quebec and Canada in raising venture capital funds in order to develop emerging leading-edge sectors for the country. This has happened not only in Quebec but also in the rest of the country, because other provinces followed suit with other models for labour-sponsored funds.

These funds have not only been useful in raising venture capital levels but also in raising savings levels. Quebec used to be one of the provinces where people saved the least, but now it is among those where people save the most. Speculators and large corporations are not the ones who are investing in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction. It is small investors, workers. These people decided to put money aside, but they did not choose to invest in major hedge funds or mutual funds made up of mostly stocks and bonds. They were prepared to accept a greater share of the risk.

We know that venture capital that is invested in labour-sponsored funds or private venture capital funds is unsecured. For example, if things go bad, then one becomes a creditor. These funds are provided to a company and the creditor, which is actually a venture capital fund, is at the bottom of the creditor pecking order.

This model has worked well in Quebec, despite what the government says. How do I know? It is obvious. If Quebec were an OECD member country, it would currently rank third in terms of venture capital in relation to GDP—its economic size—behind Israel and the United States. It invests in proportion to its economy. It is nearly three times the Canadian average and four times the Ontario average.

The government's proposal to gradually eliminate the tax credit is something that Ontario did in 2005. Since then, the venture capital rates in Ontario have been steadily decreasing and now represent just 36% of Canada's venture capital. There is a cause-effect relationship here.

Quebec's rate has reached 36%, even though its economy is much smaller than Ontario's. The two have the same proportion even though they have very different economic levels.

How significant are venture capital and labour-sponsored funds in Quebec?

Labour-sponsored funds represent over $10 billion in capital. At the beginning of the debate at second reading, the member for Beauce said that 10% of this capital is invested, but that is not true. He would repeat that to anyone who would listen.

Every year, investments are renewed, which means that 10% is reinvested. Obviously, when the capital is invested in a business that operates well, the funds will eventually withdraw the capital to invest it elsewhere.

However, Quebec law requires labour-sponsored funds to invest at least 60% of their assets in venture capital or development capital every year. I repeat: 60%.

Labour-sponsored funds generally surpass that objective. Right now, 67% of all that capital is invested. We are talking about nearly $7 billion invested in innovation, research and development, and it also goes to help struggling businesses and start-ups, in order to help Quebec develop.

I believe that this model could be adapted to the Canadian model. This is a model that is universally supported.

If our Conservative friends had bothered to listen to the submissions, particularly those made to the Standing Committee on Finance, they would have noted that opposition to this tax credit goes well beyond the two labour-sponsored funds targeted.

Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association opposes abolishing this tax credit because private venture capital works hand in hand with labour-sponsored funds. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec also opposes this measure. The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Regroupement des jeunes chambres de commerce du Québec and the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec all oppose this measure because they know the impact it will have.

The government relied on only two studies to support its position, if we can actually call them studies. The first comes from the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary and dates back to three or four years ago. The second is an OECD study from 2006.

These studies clearly show that the OECD and the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary have no understanding whatsoever of the complex role played by the two labour-sponsored funds, particularly in Quebec.

There are examples of development outside Quebec, but the fact remains that this is fundamentally a Quebec phenomenon. The study by the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy states that it is not really venture capital. The amounts are much smaller. The role of these labour-sponsored funds is extremely complex and there are two types: development capital and risk capital. Both are needed in a region such as mine, where there is insufficient venture capital. These funds can serve regions ignored by private capital.

There is another important aspect. I am addressing my remarks in particular to those members who represent rural areas, areas outside a large city or major urban centre.

Obviously, risk capital is more readily and disproportionately available in major cities. Regions such as mine and the Lower St. Lawrence need this capital to develop. For that reason, labour-sponsored funds have specific funds for regions not served by private venture capital or development capital. Thus, labour-sponsored funds play a very crucial role.

I am surprised to see the government acting so nonchalantly and not justifying its position. The government wants to eliminate the tax credit gradually, even though it knows what happened in Ontario. Ontario is no longer a leader in terms of venture capital and development capital.

I asked a government official some questions. How can the government take this position without conducting any studies? Was there an impact study on venture capital? The answer was no. Was there an impact study on savings? The official told me no. The last question I asked is probably the most serious: was a study conducted to compare what these two types of funds offered and what the government has offered?

What the two funds offered the government in exchange for not phasing out this tax credit was to accept the venture capital action plan proposed by the government. The government is taking away the equivalent of $355 million from the tax credit over five years, while allocating $400 million to launch the venture capital action plan. The two funds said they wanted to put a cap on the share offering and reduce the government's tax cost by 30%. In return, they proposed investing $2 billion over 10 years in the venture capital action plan. The government has only $400 million invested. The funds said they would invest five times more than what the government invested. The Minister of Finance refused. He wants to eliminate the tax credit. How does that make any sense? If the government were really serious about wanting to develop venture capital in Canada, it would have accepted and jumped all over the offer made by the two funds, which work hand in hand with all funds and private venture capital funds.

Preserving this particular measure is extremely important. I have made it my own personal cause, as the opposition and government members know very well. Indeed, this issue is critical and crucial to economic development in Quebec—development that this government is jeopardizing. At this time, the funds support 160,000 jobs, and studies have shown that 20,000 of those jobs will disappear if the government goes ahead with this measure.

I implore the government to carefully assess the impact this will have. If it really cares about job creation and economic growth, it will remove those parts of the bill in order to ensure a better future for Quebec and the rest of Canada.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and his comments. What struck me was the negativity from the member. It was negative, negative, negative. He did not highlight any of the positive aspects of the budget, not even one.

His province of Quebec, like my province of Manitoba, receives a lot of payments through the federal transfers. I wonder if he could at least acknowledge that Quebec benefits from these billions of dollars in transfers, as I am happy to acknowledge that Manitoba benefits from the billions of dollars it receives from the federal government.

Will the member say thanks to the federal government for the transfer payments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the current government is not taking credit for transfer payments.

If we look only at the transfer payments for health, in last year's budget, the government cut the increase in those transfers from 6% to 3% a year. Yes, the transfers will continue to increase, but only by half as much at a time when we will have to deal with an aging population and a demographic curve that will require us to invest more in health. The government has capped the increase in those transfers.

I talked about only one aspect of Bill C-4, and my colleague from Parkdale—High Park mentioned quite a bit more. I am actually focusing on the elimination of the tax credit, which will have an adverse effect on Quebec in particular, when the Quebec model should be adopted across the country so that everyone can benefit from it. Venture capital and development capital are crucial for Canada's economic development.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the bill. I understand and appreciate the value of venture capital funds. In fact, if the member were to google the Crocus fund, which did not really work out too well, it did create lots of opportunities and economic wealth for the province of Manitoba.

That said, when we look at the amendments that have been brought forward and the bill as a whole, we see a budget bill once again that is changing all sorts of legislation. There is great substance we could talk about in regard to the budget component, but it is the 85%-plus of the other aspects of the bill that cause a great deal of concern in regard to the government sneaking all sorts of legislative changes in through the back door.

I am wondering if the hon. member might provide a comment on that aspect of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his important question.

He talked about the Crocus Investment Fund. There are examples that have worked well and others that have not worked so well.

For example, when the Ontario government abolished its tax credit, it implemented an action plan, the Ontario Venture Capital Fund, which is what the government is proposing today. For that fund to work, the labour-sponsored funds in Quebec had to invest heavily in it in order to sustain it.

We have concerns about a number of other aspects of the bill. That is why we proposed 24 amendments, the Liberal Party proposed 6 and the Green Party proposed almost 30. Some aspects of the bill need to be corrected.

This is fourth budget implementation bill I have debated in committee and, again, I see that none of the amendments were accepted, as was the case the last three times.

I do not see how I could accept such a budget when we made reasonable proposals to amend it. The government constantly says no.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York South—Weston, Housing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the job-creating measures that would be implemented by today's legislation.

Let me start by saying what Lori Mathison, chair of the government budget and finance committee of the Vancouver Board of Trade, said, and I will quote it very slowly so the opposition can listen to this:

The Government is demonstrating a commitment to returning to a balanced budget in the short term, but at the same time, supporting economic growth and job creation.

Given the state of the global economy--where we are [all] seeing recessions, drops in national and sub-national credit ratings, and out-of-control deficits--we are truly fortunate in Canada to be contemplating balanced budgets, receiving AAA credit ratings, and growing our GDP.

Ms. Mathison has captured the essence of what this government has been doing.

Our Conservative government recognizes that small businesses are the engines of job creation in Canada. My wife Neena ran a small business for over 10 years. Therefore, I know the challenges that are faced by small businesses.

Today's legislation would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses. The credit would provide needed relief to small businesses by helping to defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of the emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, it is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013.

It would also increase the rewards of investing in small business and make it easier for owners to transfer their businesses to the next generation of Canadians by increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption. There would be up to $800,000 of capital gains realized by an individual on qualifying property that would be exempt from the tax.

It is no surprise that small business owners are happy about these changes. Indeed, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Dan Kelly, had this to say about these measures:

The big change for small business is the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit [...] On top of that, they've expanded the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000. That's really good news, with a promise to index it each year going forward. That will help a lot of entrepreneurs.

That was said to the CTV News Channel, in 2013.

However, that is not all.

To ensure the predictability and the stability around the EI program rates, these measures would set the EI premium rates for 2015 and 2016 at $1.88 per every hundred dollars of insurable earnings.

As announced this past September, our government said it would freeze the EI premium rates for the next three years. By doing this, the government would be promoting stability and predictability for employers and employees. It would also leave $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in 2014.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about other measures in the budget. Indeed, as today's legislation clearly shows, our Conservative government is squarely focused on creating jobs, economic growth and securing Canada's long-term prosperity.

It has been with the help of the Canada economic action plan that Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among G7 countries during the global economic recession and throughout the recovery.

Canada has created over one million net new jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. This is the strongest job creation record in the entire G7, by far. What is more, Canada's unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008 and remains below that of the U.S.

That is why both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 countries in years ahead.

However, as we have repeatedly said, Canada's economy is not immune to economic challenges from beyond our borders. We have been, and will continue to be, impacted by the ongoing turbulence in the U.S. and Europe, among our most important trading partners. That is why economic action plan 2013 focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and for the future.

Indeed, the key task for all countries is to balance efforts to support job creation and economic growth while respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets over the medium term. That is exactly what we have been doing in Canada. Last week, as confirmed by the government's annual financial report, we are on track to balance the budget in 2015. Let me repeat that for the opposition. We are on track to balance the budget in 2015, while eliminating wasteful spending and ineffective government programs. In fact, the deficit last year fell to $18.9 billion, down by more than one quarter; $7.4 billion from the deficit in 2011-12; and down by nearly two-thirds from 2009-10.

Most importantly, we are doing this without raising taxes. In fact, we have cut taxes over 160 times since forming government. That has reduced the tax burden on the average family of four by $3,220. Taken together, this fiscal management has resulted in Canada having a net debt-to-GDP ratio of 34.6% in 2012, the lowest level among the G7 countries, with Germany being the second lowest at 57.2% and the G7 average at 90.4%. All of this has been done by this government's strong management of the economy.

Despite the fearmongering by the opposition, this has not changed. Canadians can rest assured that the health and safety of workers is very important to workplace relations. The health and safety of workers is a key priority for the government. That is why today's legislation would allow more oversight around the enforcement of occupational health and safety standards.

While I have the floor, I want to say this. As has been announced, we are in negotiations now to complete our free trade agreement with the European Union. Having the NAFTA agreement, the European Union agreement and waiting for the TPP to come along, as well as the economic partnership with India and other countries, Canada is poised to have markets opened to it. The business community all across this country will be able to take advantage of this free trade agreement. By signing all of these economic trade deals, we are poised to go into unprecedented market availability for our businesses. What does that mean? It means, jobs, job, jobs. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said, it is jobs, jobs, jobs. That is the key priority of Canadians.

This government has done this through its budget implementation and trade deals, all opposed of course by the NDP and the Liberal Party. The NDP, thank goodness, has never had a chance to work on our economy. Otherwise, it would be the last. I am very happy to be associated with a government that has very strong control of where our economy is moving and is meeting the aspirations of Canadians so they can have jobs, jobs, jobs, not just now but for future generations.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the OECD. I am glad that he did because the report last week from the OECD said that Canada has seen a rising gap between seniors who are falling into poverty and those who are doing okay.

The OECD reported just last week that a comprehensive study on global pensions by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development showed that Canadians over 65 years of age are relatively okay compared to most others. There is one exception, which is that the average poverty rate for those 65 and older has grown to 7.2% during the last number of years. In other words, the poverty rate for seniors has gone up and the government is looking at attacking pensions.

I wonder if the member could explain his rosy disposition over there vis-à-vis the real economy and the seniors who are being hit hard.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has done more for seniors than anybody else has done since the Liberal government.

We have a dedicated minister addressing the issues of seniors. We have a dedicated minister doing that. As a matter of fact, since we formed the government we have created a pension split. We have done everything possible for seniors. I agree with the member that seniors are the ones who built this county and are why we are here today.

When I speak about this rosy picture that we are talking about with this government, it has all been built on the hard work of the seniors who, I want to tell the member, work very hard and have Conservative values. They also look for balanced budgets. Their values are what the government is espousing.

I can tell the member that this government will always stand for seniors.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many different things I could take exception to in terms of what the member has said in his presentation on the bill.

Let me focus on his last answer. He said that the government stands with the seniors and tries to give the impression that they are doing well for our seniors, when in fact the government is actually increasing the age of retirement for our seniors from 65 to 67. That is the government's intention.

We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, many different stakeholders and professionals saying that it is just not warranted; it is not necessary. However, this is something that the government is plowing ahead with.

Instead of being a cheerleader for the PMO and the Prime Minister, I am wondering if the member would be able to clearly indicate to the House how increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67 is going to help seniors, particularly in terms of dealing with issues surrounding poverty and so forth.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member that I am no cheerleader for the PMO. I am telling exactly the facts of what is happening out there in the economy.

Under the member's government, handling the economy was a disaster. That is why the Liberals are sitting at the far end, and if they continue talking like this, they may be on their way out.

Let me say one thing on raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. We have a Canadian pension plan that needs to be viable. It is not only that, but today people are living longer and longer. It is their desire to work. Under the Canada pension plan, people can retire, even at age 60 if they want.

The point is that today people would like to work, and we would like them to work, because they are healthy people. I do not know what the member's problem is.

Most important, we need to address this issue so that the pension is available for future generations as well, not just for the immediate generation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech on the bill by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and I would disagree with him profoundly in virtually everything. Virtually every aspect that he raised about the bill I find great fault with.

I would like to begin by finding great fault with not just the content of the bill but the whole process by which the Conservatives are abusing our system of parliamentary democracy. Under the guise of the budget implementation act, they are introducing what is tantamount to a neo-Conservative wish list, like a catalogue for the Tea Party Republican Party. It is everything they would ever like to do rolled up into one big ball, free from scrutiny and oversight from the opposition parties and from the people of Canada.

As the representatives who represent the majority of Canadians, we will never be able to do justice to a massive tome like this. The Conservatives have stuffed 60 and 70 pieces of legislation into one. They are pieces of legislation that are not even related, things that are fiscal and non-fiscal, things that have to do with the Labour Relations Act, things that have to do with a new Mackenzie gas project.

The scope and the scale of this thing makes it so unwieldy that we simply cannot do a detailed analysis on these pieces of legislation, even though many are broad and sweeping social policy changes that we will have to live with for many years until such time as the New Democratic Party forms the government and we can restore some semblance of order and balance to the nation.

The Conservatives do not have to pack a lunch, because it is sneaking up on them. The more they abuse, undermine, and try to cut a swathe through everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy, the more motivated the general public will be to show these people the door.

I do not have time—and this is the whole point, that none of us have time—to deal in any kind of detail with any of these pieces of legislation rolled up into one. However, I will mention one, just because it offends me so profoundly, and that is the fact that the Conservatives have seen fit, under the guise of a budget implementation bill, to amend the Canada Labour Code to change the definition of what is dangerous work. You tell me, Mr. Speaker, what undermining the health and safety provisions within the Canada Labour Code has to do with the budget implementation act.

I do not know if people have had time to think this through. I can guarantee they have not, because not only are the Conservatives ramming through 70 pieces of legislation at once, but they move closure at every stage of these bills. As a result, we cannot call a sufficient number of witnesses, we cannot give it the debate it deserves in the House of Commons, we cannot test the merits of their argument with informed exchange and information to see that we are passing good laws and good legislation, as per the prayer that the Speaker reads when we open Parliament every day. That is by the wayside.

The Conservatives should explain to me what it has to do with the economy, with jobs, or with good governance generally to gut the Labour Code under that particular definition of what constitutes dangerous work, specifically as it pertains to maternal care. It is doubly offensive to me that an individual no longer has the right to refuse unsafe work if she is a pregnant mother working in circumstances that she believes may be harmful to the unborn child. That reference has been entirely deleted.

The Conservatives not only amend 60 or 70 pieces of legislation at once, they create whole brand new ones within the context of their budget implementation act. They sometimes delete whole pieces of legislation. In their last omnibus bill, they deleted a piece of legislation called the Fair Wages Act. For some reason, the Conservative government is opposed to the concept of fair wages, opposed to setting minimum wages in the construction industry on federally regulated projects.

In whose interest is it to drive down the wages of middle-class Canadian workers? We do not need our government to do that for us. There are enough economic forces out there that can affect our income. We really do not elect a government to drive down our wages, yet the Conservatives saw fit to do so, singing to some tune.

I presume it was the merit shop guy, Terrance Oakey, who seems to have a revolving door to the PMO to dictate what he seems to need in his particular industry sector.

By what pretzel logic could it possibly be argued that it is in the best interests of Canadians to gut the safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code? It is simply beyond me. Regarding the changes to EI, again, if a budget implementation act is about enabling the implementation of the budget, why does it not deal with relevant issues that may in fact stimulate the economy?

I heard my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, talking about enabling small businesses to create more jobs. If the government really believed that, we would be debating legislation that would reduce the business tax for small businesses. The Conservatives argue that they would reduce it from 12% to 11%, but in the socialist paradise of Manitoba, when we were elected, the Conservatives had the small business tax at 11%, and every year thereafter the NDP lowered it by 1%, and another per cent, and another per cent to where—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

They upped the sales tax to 8%.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette might want to tell the MPs assembled here what the small business tax is in the socialist paradise of Manitoba right now—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

It is 8% sales tax in Manitoba and 5% in Saskatchewan.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My colleague from Ottawa Centre knows that it is a big fat goose egg. It is zero. If the Conservatives would walk the talk and put their money where their mouth is and do a favour for small businesses, they would eliminate the small business tax.

It is another illusion. It is a facade.

My colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, I think, supports the idea of eliminating the small business tax. He has seen the benefit in the province of Manitoba, which we call home.

The Conservatives are cutting, hacking, and slashing the big corporate tax rate for businesses that do not need a tax break. The banks and the big oil companies are the only ones that really benefit. It is only profitable businesses that would benefit from having their income tax lowered. A business that is not showing any income and that needs the support gets nothing from it, yet the Conservatives do nothing for the small businessperson.

We could have celebrated. If the Conservatives had wanted to put a 71st detail into this budget implementation act to eliminate the business tax, they would have had the support of the NDP. However, it is disingenuous and it is misleading to lump fiscal details in with non-fiscal details in a bill that is supposed to be limited to just that.

How did we end up dealing with the selection of Supreme Court justices in the context of the budget implementation act? That alone is a subject that warrants a great deal of consideration by Parliament and by committee. We would want to deal with that at great length.

What about the selection process for new economic immigrants? We have an immigration issue finding its way into this bill. There is simply no time.

The Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act is the name of the bill that I was groping for earlier.

I see that I am almost out of time. That will be the whole sum total of time that I am going to have, as the member for Winnipeg Centre, representing 100,000-some Canadians, to comment on or provide scrutiny of, or oversight to, over 70 pieces of legislation. It is a travesty.

I do not want anybody in Canada who might be watching this to think that this is normal. There is nothing normal about this abuse of the democratic process that has found its way into these so-called omnibus bills. It is completely undemocratic and contrary to all of the principles of democracy. It offends the very sensibilities of anyone who considers themselves a democrat.

The New Democratic Party will allow proper oversight and scrutiny of the legislation that we introduce in 2015.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my friend's comments about the socialist paradise of Manitoba. Recently the Manitoba New Democratic government raised the sales tax to 8%, as NDP governments always do.

As a member of Parliament who represents a constituency that borders on Saskatchewan, I know that the sales tax there is 5%. The Saskatchewan competitive advantage continues to grow, thanks to the ineptitude of Manitoba's NDP government.

I would like to ask my friend a question. Does he support the raising of the Manitoba sales tax to 8%? Does he want to see Canada's GST raised to 8%, 9%, or 10%?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk instead about why the bill is dealing with veterans, reducing the number of permanent members from 28 to 25 on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In whose interest is it to reduce the number of representatives on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board? By what convoluted pretzel logic could the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette support a piece of legislation that has such a profoundly negative effect on veterans, of all people?

Another impact for Manitoba specifically, where we have great big beautiful buildings, is that the Conservatives completely changed the mandate of the National Research Council. They laid off hundreds of Canada's top scientists and researchers. Did we debate this in any adequate way? No, we just learned about it when they prorogued Parliament long enough to invent this neo-conservative wish list that is against the best interests of working people in every respect.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that last question and answer moment feels like question period in reverse.

My question is related to the National Research Council, which my hon. colleague from the paradise of Manitoba just brought up. I am interested in whether he would like to comment on the reduction in the number of council members for the National Research Council from 19 to 12. As he may know, the NRC is undergoing some dramatic changes at the moment. It is surprising that only five of these council positions are filled. At this time of dramatic change, I wonder if the NRC really should be consulting more and should have a larger council. In this way it would be able to consult with councillors from both a broad geographic range and from the very diverse range of technical fields that the NRC is involved in.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably agree with me that it is absolutely unprecedented for this country's scientists to be forced into a situation of protesting outside Parliament Hill, wearing their white lab coats, to object to the systematic muzzling of scientists in almost every aspect across the board.

One that comes to mind in addition to the National Research Council is the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, bordering the Manitoba border. We finally found a way to stem the damage from cutbacks by the feds when we found the Ontario government was willing to chip in some money, but then just last week, all of the scientists received their pink slips. They were all laid off.

We worked for 18 months to find alternate funding to keep it open, and the Conservatives still got rid of all of those scientists. How is the operation going to be maintained now that all the scientists have been let go?

Conservatives do not just shoot the messenger, they undermine the ability of the messenger to even deliver a message. That is how anti-science they are. It is because science might get in the way of whatever agenda is being served. It is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians when we muzzle scientists, whether it is at the National Research Council or the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to today's debate on Bill C-4. This very important legislation for all of us is the next step in our government's continued effort to support job creation and economic growth in Canada.

Since 2006, our government has been taking concrete action to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong. After all, it was our government that acted in such a fiscally responsible manner so we were able to weather the global economic storm better than most other industrialized nations. I feel as though I should remind the members of the opposition of this fact, as it is a fact they seem to frequently forget. Thankfully, Canadians remember.

Remember when faced with the worst global recession since the Great Depression, our government responded with Canada's economic action plan. This plan included investments in infrastructure and tax relief for families and was instrumental in fuelling growth and putting Canadians back to work. Since then, this has helped create over one million net new jobs, the majority of which are high-wage, full-time, private sector positions. That is the strongest job creation in the G7 by far.

Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008, and remains below that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. Indeed, the IMF and OECD both project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. All of the major credit rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA rating for the sixth straight year. The World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. This is a record Canadians can be proud of.

With that said, allow me to share with members one of the most significant factors behind Canada's economic success: keeping taxes low. Unlike the high tax the NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in keeping taxes low and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job creating businesses. In fact, since 2006, our government has cut taxes more than 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to the lowest level in 50 years.

I would like to now talk about the speech and the comments by the previous speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is an icon for the NDP. He represents the NDP's toxic view of the economy. While the Liberals have no policy and no ideas, the NDP policies are purely toxic when it comes to the economy, and the environment as well for that matter. The New Democrats oppose free markets and free trade, two policies that have lifted the world out of economic depression time and time again. The New Democrats have no idea about how to create wealth. They are really good at spending money.

In fact, I saw a cartoon once of an NDP cabinet minister's day-timer. Monday was spend: Tuesday was spend, spend; Wednesday was spend, spend; Thursday was off for a rest; and Friday was spend, spend. That is all the NDP knows how to do. The New Democrats do not understand the concept of a sound business climate either. I hate to break it to my NDP friends, but before one can spend money, one has to earn it. What a revolutionary concept that is. It is through free markets and free trade that we create the wealth so we can support our cherished social programs. I should add that most of Canada's major social programs were instituted by Conservative governments.

I should make the point that the NDP's failed economic policies have been tried around the world. Look at Greece, France, Italy, the city of Detroit, the city of Chicago. High spending, high public sector wages and high tax drove those cities and those countries to economic ruin.

The other dirty little secret of the Liberals and the New Democrats is that they actually want people dependent on government. Through their policies, they worm their way into society and create more and more dependence on governments. That I find utterly shameful.

The situation of Saskatchewan is most instructive. Saskatchewan was stagnant under the previous NDP government. As soon as the Saskatchewan Party took over, instituting sound Conservative policies, the Saskatchewan economy took off. That is a story that Canadians are only beginning to appreciate, that Saskatchewan has gone from a have not province to a net contributor to the equalization program of Canada. If there are any Saskatchewan MPs here, they deserve a round of applause because their government in Saskatchewan has created an economic miracle in Saskatchewan by implementing Conservative economic policies.

For the members opposite, I like to quote the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who said, “The facts of life are conservative and nobody can dispute that”.

Going back to what we are doing in our budget, a small business' bottom line is significantly impacted by the cost of EI. As it stands right now, employers pay 60% of the current EI system. We, more than any other party, understand that small business is the cornerstone of our economy, creating jobs that support families in our communities. That is why we are freezing EI premiums for the next three years. We are promoting stability and predictability for job creators and workers and we are leaving $660 million in their pockets in 2014 alone. Rather than spending money on payroll taxes, it can be used by small business owners to hire more employees and grow their businesses.

Despite what the opposition would have us believe, this tax relief will help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustain business-led long-term growth. This is fantastic news for Canada's entrepreneurs, but do not take my word for it. Let us see what other people are saying.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which speaks for the small business community and which the member for Winnipeg Centre spoke about, said the move to freeze EI rates for three years will “keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy”.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association said:

We congratulate the Government on its support of job growth by reducing the burden on businesses...This move will support stable financial planning for businesses, and therefore job growth.

Lower employment costs will also encourage businesses—and particularly small business—to invest in younger workers, helping to address the critical need to develop the next generation of skilled tradespeople...

That is not all. This is what the Retail Council of Canada said:

The retail sector is Canada’s largest employer and as a result bears the bulk of the burden of paying into the EI system. This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure...As a small business owner, I applaud Minister...for recognizing that even the smallest tax relief goes a long way to helping businesses grow and thrive.

Unlike the opposition, we will not attack job creators with massive tax hikes. While we are focused on fostering growth in our economy, the NDP and Liberals are busy opposing measures that help small business and small business is the engine of growth for our society. Indeed, as a member of Parliament who represents a very large rural constituency composed of dozens and dozens of small communities, small business is what makes my region grow and thrive. I have hundreds of small businesses and I am always struck by the work ethic of these entrepreneurs who day in and day out work to make our communities better places to live.

I really hope the members opposite will change their tune and support efforts to create jobs and growth for Canadians, instead of pushing high tax schemes to kill jobs, like the NDP's infamous $20 billion carbon tax, a multi-billion dollar tax hike on jobs. Indeed, the leader of the Liberals is talking again about a carbon price. If they want to make amends, they can start right now and vote in favour of this bill.

I should note in terms of my own constituency, the Canada-European free trade agreement that was recently negotiated is a huge boon for my community. For example, Manitoba is the largest hog producer in the country. Interestingly, Canada produces some 25 million tonnes of hogs and pork every year. That is about equivalent to the increase in pork consumption worldwide. Europe is a major market for Canadian pork and this is very important for my communities, my producers and the people who process hogs in my constituency.

On this last note, I ask that all members of the House support Bill C-4. It is important that we implement these job creation measures as soon as possible.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the other side. I mean, this is a budget bill, which was an omnibus bill that was not separated. Over and over government continues to table these bills, and this one in particular has items in it that are not even related to the budget. That is extremely shameful.

Now the Conservatives are trying to tell us how good they are fiscally, but we know that is not right, it is not true, because we have the largest deficit in Canadian history under the Conservative government.

To say that people are better off because of the government is shameful. I happened to have met the other day with a veteran. He was saying that he used to get two hearing aids at the same time, but all of a sudden he now being told that he could only get one now and then had to wait six months for another one. How shameful is that at a time when the Conservatives are spending tens of millions of dollars on the economic action plan? Maybe the member could explain that, while Canadians are being denied employment insurance and their on old age security is being reduced. On whose back are they cutting?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that makes me so proud of being part of this Conservative majority government is that everything this government predicted has worked out.

When the recession of 2008 hit, our government did the right thing. It sprang into action and built Canada's economic action plan. We invested in job creation. One particular program that worked exceedingly well was the home renovation tax credit, which created thousands of jobs and helped Canadian home owners fix their homes. When our economy got back on track, we ramped spending down. Those were temporary programs.

Everything our Prime Minister predicted is coming true and next year the balanced budget will come to pass exactly as we predicted. We will be the envy of the world in terms of our fiscal situation.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's speech. It seemed to me to be one of those absolutist Conservative speeches. He is very confident in what he believes in, and good for him. I am also glad he likes to read the cartoons so he knows what the other parties think.

In the spring, the Liberal Party tried to amend the previous budget implementation bill, Bill C-45, to extend the small business hiring credit and increase the maximum threshold from $10,000 to $15,000. I guess we should compliment the government's legislation when it is time to do that. I agree with what the government has done in Bill C-4. It rejected the Liberal amendment earlier this spring, but it has decided to take the Liberal idea and implement it in Bill C-4. I guess the Conservatives thought about things over the summer and decided that what the Liberals were calling for was the right thing to do, and so I commend the government on adopting that Liberal idea.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question there, but I thank my hon. friend for his kind words. Again, in all seriousness, good ideas should be looked at and implemented wherever they are found.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and talk about his moose hunting expeditions. I credit him for that this year.

I have a very quick question with regard to the importance of balanced budgets to his constituents. It is something our government strove for in terms of seeing Canada's long-term economic prosperity.

We understand we need to be good stewards with our money in Ottawa. Could the member speak on the importance of this to his constituents and how it is an important part of this legislation?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and, yes, I am a member of the underground moose hunting economy for sure.

In terms of balanced budgets, it is critical for our country. For Canada, it means that no matter what economic storm comes at us, we will be able to react like we did in 2008 with Canada's economic action plan. If a household has paid off all of its credit card bills and mortgage, no matter what happens economically, that household will be able to look after itself, which is the position Canada is in now. Thank goodness for that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's speech. It is as though we are living in a parallel universe. The people I have talked to are worried about the fact that funds for social housing are disappearing, that child and family poverty in parts of our country have not gone down, that people are working two and three jobs just to feed their children and that student loan debt is increasing. Municipalities have been calling on the government to invest in infrastructure, whether it is sewer, water or roads.

With respect to the environment, over the last couple of weeks we saw Canada being castigated on the world stage for its grim record on greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus any of the other initiatives we might be taking around prevention and mitigation. Our former leader, the late Jack Layton, used to say that we needed to talk about the fact that it was fine to fix the roof, but it did not do us any good if the foundation was crumbling. I would argue that the foundation in Canada is crumbling under the government's watch.

With regard to Bill C-4, the NDP is opposing it both on process and content. This is just like the three previous omnibus budget bills, C-38, C-45 and C-60.

Bill C-4 would amend 70 pieces of legislation. It contains two entirely new acts, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board. In talking about this, I want to refer to the process for one moment. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to thoroughly review legislation that comes before us, to call witnesses and propose amendments. We are not able to do that in this current democratic deficit climate.

I want to quote a couple of people who have commented on the government process with regard to omnibus bills.

In iPolitics, former finance officials Scott Clark and Peter DeVries stated:

Budget vagueness is a troubling trend. Vagueness and obtuseness have featured in successive budgets, with details provided in the omnibus budget bills. The real budget has now become the budget omnibus bill. This undermines the credibility and transparency of the budget and requires much more diligence in assessing budget proposals.

Andrew Coyne stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention—shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not—it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

I could not agree more with Mr. Coyne.

The challenge here is that time after time we have heard the government get up and say that the NDP has voted against X. What it does not say is that it was an omnibus budget bill that would change several different pieces of acts and regulations. Perhaps there were pieces of the legislation that we agreed with but also pieces we could not agree with. Therefore, we do a balancing act. We take a look at the overall public good, then we determine whether we will vote for or against. Unfortunately, with the way the government acts, we largely end up voting against its omnibus budget bills because we do not see them as being in the public good overall.

I want to highlight some of the changes proposed by this legislation. As I mentioned, it will amend or repeal 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers into the hands of the minister. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council. It reduces the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It pushes ahead with the Conservatives' ill-advised $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored ventured capital funds and allows for three directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to be non-Canadian residents.

Many of the changes that proposed deserved separate legislation so we could have had that kind of thorough review. Instead, we have a bill that was rammed through and presented to three different committees in very limited time frames. Any amendments that were proposed by the official opposition or the opposition parties were rejected out of hand.

That is not good governance. That is what the Conservatives claim they stand for in this country: good governance, accountability, and transparency. None of those three are true.

I just want to touch on the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just one moment, another officer of Parliament who has been under attack by the government. He has been forced to go to court to try to get documents to demonstrate what kinds of savings are being proposed by the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% reduction in GDP. This is a significant decline in economic growth.

That leads me to the smoke and mirrors games played by the Conservatives. An article from November 13, on Global News, indicated that the government had“sat on more than $10 billion in funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect in 2012-13 through a slew of programs in dozens of departments”.

The federal government held on to more than $10 billion it was expected to spend in 2012-13, with almost half coming from two departments, according to recently published financial documents. These were funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect...including the Senate Ethics Officer, disability and death compensation at Veterans Affairs, and weather and environmental services for Canadians at Environment Canada.

I want to touch on one particular part of this fund, and that is Transport Canada. I do not know where most members live and whether the municipalities where they live are suffering the kinds of infrastructure deficits many of our communities are suffering from. Many of our communities have aging infrastructure, and this is a deficit that is being passed on to future generations, because we have refused consistently over decades to provide the federal contribution to updating and upgrading the infrastructure.

Interestingly, Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, had the most trouble spending its budget.

In 2012-13, that department was responsible for almost $1.6 billion of Transport's overall $2.5 billion lapse, according to the Public Accounts....

Within Infrastructure Canada, a large chunk of the lapse in 2012-13 came from the Building Canada Fund, an $8.8 billion project announced in 2007. The project was set up to support national, regional, and municipal projects related to public transit, green energy and drinking water, among other priorities.

Last year, the two components of the funds—the “major infrastructure” and “community” components—were together slated to spend more than $2.2 billion. Only $1.1 billion made it out the door.

That is shameful. If that is the way the government is going to move toward balancing the budget, it is balancing the budget on the backs of our communities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggested, in a review of the supplementary estimates, that the government has been unable to spend approximately $10 billion of the budgetary authorities provided by Parliament over each of the past three years. As such,

Parliamentarians may wish to seek clarification regarding why this level of unspent money remains so high, what measures will be undertaken by departments and agencies to ensure that spending directed by Parliament occurs, and whether all of the $5.4 billion sought in these supplementary estimates is actually required.

That is just one example. I just want to close by saying that child poverty is not even being tackled in this budget. I want to point to the grim record in British Columbia, where child and family poverty has simply not been tackled. There is absolutely a federal government role in this, and I would actually encourage members in this House to support my Bill C-233, which proposes a poverty reduction plan. The federal government can take some leadership.

I have just a couple of numbers here. B.C. had a child poverty rate of 18.6%, the worst rate of any province in Canada using the before-tax, low-income cutoffs of Statistics Canada as the measure of poverty.

By any measure, I think each and every one of us in this House would agree that children should come first and that it is time for the government to actually demonstrate leadership by putting in place programs and services that support our families and our communities.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might have had the opportunity last week to meet with the folks from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The member spoke at length about the infrastructure challenges Canada faces but neglected to talk about a truly amazing achievement of our government that won wide praise throughout the municipalities in my riding. I would like the member to comment on the response by municipalities in her riding with respect to our dedicated gas-tax-sharing revenue for municipal level infrastructure. In our last budget, we locked that in and have indexed that important sharing with that level of government to address their infrastructure needs in the future.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I have met with municipal councillors and regional districts. It is a little different in British Columbia in that we have regional districts.

I spoke to them about infrastructure spending, and one concern that was raised, as I pointed out in this Global News article, is that the government announces the money, but it actually does not spend it. If it does not spend it, if it does not get the money out the door, it does not actually help the bridges, roads, waste water treatment plants, or water treatment plants.

If the government is going to announce infrastructure money, it should make sure there is an adequate process in place to submit proposals in a timely manner, adequately assess them in a timely manner, and then cut the cheques. That is what needs to happen. It is fine to announce the dollars, but they need to be spent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is about how the bill does not necessarily deal with budget issues.

This is of critical importance, because we have seen an assault on democracy in the House of Commons ever since we have had a Conservative majority government. It is a different approach of trying to bring legislation in through the back door by using a budget bill. It is a very sneaky way of doing it, but, most importantly, it denies the opportunity for members of Parliament to provide due diligence. It prevents bills that should be stand-alone bills from going to committee and having third reading and so forth, thereby, I believe, ultimately not allowing for the proper attention to be given to what should be a number of pieces of legislation. That is why Bill C-4 is such a destructive force on democracy in Canada.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, we are seeing an erosion of the trust of Canadian citizens in the process. As I mentioned, when 70 different pieces of legislation and regulations are jammed together into one omnibus bill, it does not allow adequate oversight.

If the government actually had confidence in the legislation it was proposing, it would propose stand-alone legislation and allow us the opportunity to bring witnesses forward, but it limits the time, limits the number of witnesses, and limits the ability to have oversight. It makes one wonder if it is actually afraid to hear criticism and afraid to have people turn their attention to the bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a lot of emails from my constituents with regard to this particular bill. One was from Murray Gore, who wanted me to ask the question of why the government is going about it the way it is. He wrote:

This bill would water down the definition of “danger” in Part II of the Canada Labour Code to the point it will become the weakest law in the country regulating the right of workers to refuse dangerous work without reprisals from their employers. It will lead to more workplace deaths and injuries in federally regulated industries.

My question to my colleague is this. People are very concerned, especially workers who are being forced to work in dangerous places. Can the member comment on that?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member and I are both from British Columbia, and although they were not federally regulated industries, we saw a spike in deaths a few years back in the logging sector. There was some attention brought to bear, and through working with the workers, WorkSafeBC, and the employers, there were some changes made.

What we see here is a regressive step. What we should be doing with federally regulated employment is strengthening workplace safety to ensure that workers have the supports in place that ensure they can go to work and go home safely. It is also a benefit to employers. There are all kinds of things that happen in a workplace when there is an accident.

This is a very unfortunate move on the government's part. The government claims to stand up for working families, but it is hard to believe that statement when it does these things that do not protect the workers and do not protect the workplace.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-4. It is a real privilege for me, not only to speak to it but also to tell my colleagues on the other side that there is good news within this piece of legislation. It is good news on a number of fronts. It is good news for Canadian families. It is good news for Canadian workers.

We have a lot of naysayers on the other side of the House, people who criticize the work that our government has done. There have been a lot of folks saying that more should be done. It is interesting. They want to see a smaller bill. Then they want to include a whole number of additional measures within the bill. It is always a contradiction when we are dealing with the other side.

We listen to the complaints from the other side, but there are some folks who have some expertise when it comes to finance and when it comes to world finance. I think it is important that we listen to them.

We know that there are organizations, such as the OECD and the IMF, that have passed judgment on our government's work and on the efforts that we have undertaken to protect Canada's economy. They have, again and again, praised, not only our government's initiatives, but our finance minister, who has brought forward these initiatives.

We know that there are folks around the world who are watching what Canada is doing and who are seeking to replicate it in their countries, as well.

We are seeing significant benefits as a Canadian population, things that are hitting home in communities across this country. When we look at what has resulted from the work that our government has done following the great recession, we know that there are over a million net new jobs that have been created as a result of the efforts of our government. Specifically, within that million jobs that have been created, over 90% of them are full-time jobs and 80% of those are in the private sector. Therefore, our government's initiatives to bring forward changes have freed up business to create jobs, to create opportunity.

We often talk about these big numbers that often just flow off our tongues but do not really have an impact, I do not think. However, every job is meaningful because it impacts the person who has that job.

Most important, at this Christmas time, we know that many of these jobs that have been created impact families. Families, of course, are one of the most important building blocks of our communities. Having a job makes a world of difference, especially as we approach this Christmas time. To know that our employment rate keeps rising, that the unemployment rate keeps dropping, that more and more families have the necessary means to get what they need to have in order to support their families is great news. It is something that I wish the opposition would spend more time recognizing and spend more time giving credit for. Because I think that we, as parliamentarians, need to be concerned, first and foremost, about ensuring that families have jobs to ensure that families are supported in those mechanisms. This bill would go a great distance to continue that great effort.

I think it is important to reflect on the past. I think it is important to recognize that Canada's track record, when it comes to the economy and making these changes, did not just start yesterday. Many of these changes and these initiatives we have undertaken started nearly eight years ago when our government first got into office. We started to prepare for the possibility of a rainy day.

In the first number of years of our government, we paid off $37 billion of debt. That was surplus. We recognized it was important to reduce the debt of our country, so we paid off $37 billion of the Canadian debt. Any family knows that in order to prepare for a rainy day, if money comes in from a windfall or from any mechanism, the most important thing to do is to pay off any debt. That is exactly what Canada did.

As a result, Canada was praised during the great recession. First, we were prepared for the possibility of that, better prepared than any other of the G8 countries. We also saw that Canada was able, then, to put money into the economy. We were able to support initiatives across this country to help reduce the impact of the global economic recession.

Obviously it was something that was beyond the borders of this country that caused the great recession, but people across this country were feeling the impact of the recession. Therefore, to immediately start flowing out money in an initiative to support local communities and job creation was absolutely essential.

It is important to note that in 2012, the great recession had come and many governments had put a lot of money into their economies to support initiatives to lessen the impact of the recession. Canada had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 34.6%. That was the lowest in the G7 and the second lowest was Germany. It had 57.2%, so a significantly higher debt-to-GDP ratio.

To give some scope of what this meant in terms of our fellow members of the G7, the average debt-to-GDP ratio within the G7 was 90.4%. If members compare 90.4% to Canada's 34.6%, they will recognize, as all Canadians have recognized, that Canada was in a better spot than most other countries. However, Canada has continued to lead, because we will be the first within the G7 to move from a country that continues to run deficits to being a deficit-free country.

Our Minister of Finance has continued to lead and ensure that Canada reaches that point of being deficit-free in the coming months. No other country can boast that. No other country can boast the debt-to-GDP ratio. However, we are not going to sit here and boast. We are going to continue to do the work that is necessary to ensure that we never fall back, that we never fall behind.

We hear many calls from the opposition benches to engage in risky spending schemes. They say it is just a billion here or several billion there. The NDP had plans to bring forward a $20 billion carbon tax and we know that the Liberals have all kinds of interesting plans, including their efforts to raise the GST. We know on this side that it is important for a government to remain constrained to the dollars that come in, not simply to drag in more money from Canadians.

We believe it is important to continue to support families. It is important that families are not taxed to death. As a matter of fact, as a father of three young kids, I had an interesting conversation the other day. My daughter, who is seven years old, told me she does not think Santa Claus is real. She thinks that Santa Claus is her mother and I. It was awkward but I told her that mom and dad help out Santa Claus.

Families across this country are finding it easier to help out Santa Claus because the average family of four is getting $3,200 back that they were not getting eight years ago. As families prepare for Christmas, they recognize that our government has put over $3,200 back into their pockets so that they can support their families and can continue to help out Santa Claus at this time of the year.

The budget bill is our effort to continue to have an environment in Canada where we have opportunity, hope, prosperity and jobs for all Canadians. More importantly, when it comes down to the family level, it means more prosperity and more ability for families to support those who are most important in their lives, such as their kids, and to contribute to the local communities we live in.

I think it is important at this time of giving for the opposition to recognize that the bill is an important step forward to ensure not only that Canadians have jobs, but what that means at the family level as well.

Bill C-4—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about how the Conservatives are putting money into families. He talked about his three children. I have two children, too.

The Conservatives' record speaks for itself. They have accumulated over $100 billion in debt that my kids and his kids will have to pay. That is their record.

My question to the member is this. Who will pay for the mismanagement of the Conservatives that has taken place over the last six years?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize what the Liberal and the NDP plans are in contrast to what the Conservative plan is.

I have been here for the last nearly eight years. There has never been an initiative brought forward by the opposition benches that would reduce taxes or that would work to pay down debt. We have seen consistently, time and time again, that any time our government has engaged in any spending plan, the opposition benches call for those spending plans to be more robust. They want to spend more. They want to take out more debt, and they want to ensure that future generations are saddled with that debt.

Our government has put into each family, the average family of four, $3,200 per year in tax savings. This is important. This is real money. The opposition has voted against every single initiative that would see dollars go back into the hands of families. That is unfortunate.

The opposition has also called for higher debt and more debt for future generations. I will stand on this side of the House and defend our initiatives to reduce debt so that future generations do not have to pay for the decisions and the desires of the other side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit much, saying not more debt when the government inherited a billion dollar surplus and turned it into a billion dollar deficit, on an annual basis. I take exception to that. The hon. member talked about jobs and he talked about plans, but then there is reality.

There was an interesting story in the Hill Times last week. A comparison was done. This is a reality check for the member. It is 93 months since the Conservative government has been in office. The number of Canadians with full-time jobs increased roughly 8.9%. That is 93 months. Compare that to the Paul Martin-Jean Chrétien governments, in the 93 months prior to 2006, full-time jobs increased by 17.1% overall. The reality speaks for itself.

My question related to the budget is this. Why do the Conservatives have to sneak so much other legislation into the budget legislation in order to get their legislative agenda passed? Why not give it the respect it is entitled to and introduce separate pieces of legislation on the very important issues that are being presented in this particular budget?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, the Martin government, was well known for not getting anything done. Our government recognizes that Canadians want stuff done, so it brings forward initiatives like those found in the bill.

My colleague from the Liberal Party claims they created more jobs. He references the Hill Times. I will reference organizations like the OECD and the IMF. Those are somewhat more legitimate on economic issues. They have praised Canada consistently. What Canada has done following the greatest recession outside of the Great Depression is remarkable in comparison to any other G8 country.

If my hon. colleague has any advice when it comes to reducing taxes for Canadian families or reducing the debt, I would like to hear it, because that would be the first time we have heard any advice on those two measures from a member of the Liberal Party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this bill. Ultimately, I am disappointed. Just before we had the questions and answers, we had the government House leader stand in his place and once again bring in this tradition of time allocation and preventing debate in the House of Commons, which I would attribute to the Conservative reform majority government mentality.

It is somewhat disappointing that the government only sees one way to pass through its legislation, and that is through time constraints. There has been an assault on democracy by the majority Conservative government like no other in the history of our nation.

What we are debating today is Bill C-4, which deals with a wide variety of other pieces of legislation that have very little to do with the budget. We are talking about changes to the Supreme Court. We are talking about changes to the Labour Code. We are talking about changes to immigration. We could argue that all of these should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. We should be highlighting this aspect of the debate today on Bill C-4.

In the last three budgets and budget supplementary documents that we have seen, the bills we have been presented with have been massive pieces of legislation. The government has used the budget to try to get past numerous other aspects of law that should have been stand-alone pieces of legislation. The Conservatives know that.

I have a quote. It is from someone who would have been the leader of the Reform Party at the time, and now he is the Prime Minister of Canada. How quickly things have changed. I will quote what he said in the days when he was in the opposition. He said:

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.

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

That bill was but 100 pages. It was nowhere near as profoundly huge as the three budget bills that the Conservative government has brought forward. The arguments that the then-Reform Party leader was using back then apply today. The government chooses to continue on.

I have heard other members talk about “the tradition of the House”. This is no tradition of the House. If anything, full credit goes to the PMO. Is this the only way that the PMO feels it can pass legislation?

When we talk about other forms of bills that the ministers are allowed to introduce in a proper fashion, what do we see? Time allocation. The Conservative government has brought in over 50 motions of time allocation. What does that mean? It means that there have been 25 hours of House business just on bell ringing alone, not to mention the half hour debates and questions and answers that precede the votes themselves, and the voting time that follows. Imagine the hours and hours that have been wasted because of the Conservative government's determination that the only way to pass legislation here is to bring in time allocation.

The Conservatives have failed, and they have failed miserably, in that the government House leader is unable to sit down with opposition House leaders and come up with agreements on how and when bills, whether they are budget bills or not, should be passed.

I have been a parliamentarian for over 20 years. I have sat down with government opposition leaders, albeit at a different level, and with government House leaders and opposition House leaders in the past, and I have seen the way it should work.

This Conservative majority has demonstrated no willingness to make that happen. Today we are talking about a budget bill. The Conservatives are giving their standard lines. They get the gold star. The PM's office must have someone who is assigned the responsibility of handing out the gold stars every time members go to those speaking lines, that spin, about jobs and prosperity.

Let us remember those commercials and the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of tax dollars spent to promote the government's bills. At the end of the day, Conservatives can be critical of The Hill Times or the stories that show the reality that the government has not done as well as it proclaims it has in regard to job creation.

How many times have we heard the government say that it is going to have surplus budgets? Reality is quite different. The Conservatives took a surplus budget, and this was before the recession kicked in, and they squandered that surplus budget. They turned it into a deficit budget. It did not take them long. They do not have a history of getting Canada's books out of budget situations. In fact, it is quite the opposite. When has there been a Conservative prime minister who was actually able to take a deficit and turn it into a surplus?

Members talk about social programs and say that it was the Conservatives who brought in the social programs. Whether it is Canada's pension program, the OAS, or the guaranteed supplement programs, those are all Liberal creations. They are the ones who brought them forward. Whether it is health care or unemployment insurance, it was the Liberal Party of Canada that brought them forward. We recognized the value of social programs, even if it meant working with other levels of government, which is something the current government is not very good at.

There were even constitutional issues that had to be overcome to bring in employment insurance programs. It was not easy. However, we will find that there are a number of programs today because of the way Liberal governments in the past ensured that the values Canadians hold so dearly were acted upon.

We are concerned about the state of finances. The member talks about tax breaks. The Liberal Party of Canada has been arguing for tax breaks. I do not know where the member is coming from. There have been over one thousand tariff increases. It has been the Liberal Party, day in and day out, talking about those tariffs and some of the taxes put on Canadians.

What about small businesses? Small businesses are the ones generating the economic activity that is creating employment in Canada. The best social program is a job. We should be doing more. We are glad, to a certain degree, that the Conservatives have taken us up on some of the small business tax breaks we have suggested. However, they were Liberal ideas.

When the members stand to speak to Bill C-4, they are limited. The government House leader has indicated that tomorrow we can anticipate whether we are going to get another hour of debate to complement the few hours we have already had, even though we have 308 members of Parliament. However, there is a huge bill before us, and it is not possible to address all the different issues in the bill. That is the reason I find it so difficult to even consider. We have to take it in its entirety when it comes to voting on the bill.

This bill is an assault on democracy. It does not do what it could do in terms of economic activity, in terms of addressing the middle class.

It is going to be the Liberal Party of Canada going forward that is going to be there for the middle class. We believe, at the end of the day, that we need to make a difference and provide hope. That is something we are prepared to do well into the future.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this member was gracious enough to stand up and ask me a question when I gave a speech earlier in the House, so I want to return the favour.

The member talks about the Conservatives squandering a surplus. This is Liberal revisionism. I want to ask the member a question. We paid down $37 billion—let me repeat that number: $37 billion—on our national debt from 2006, 2007 and 2008.

By what definition could this member possibly suggest that paying down $37 billion, to the lowest level of national debt in 25 years in the pre-recession period, is squandering a surplus?

Furthermore, I would like to know if the member would have balanced the budget, which will be balanced very soon, in fact by 2015, by slashing transfers to the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, all we have to do is look at the books of the Minister of Finance. It is very clear that when the Conservatives inherited the Liberal Party's books, Paul Martin's finances, there was actually a surplus.

Well before the recession hit, we were in a deficit situation. That is in fact the reality. Even the government's financial documents will clearly show that. The member seems to be in denial on the issue, but that is in fact the reality.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that the Liberal member talks about the fact that they represent and fight for the middle-income families. This was a government that basically put in place the 2% funding cap on first nations education. We saw the demise of a lot of funds under the EI program.

How could he as a member of Parliament answer that? Did the government actually do that? Did it impose a 2% funding cap? Did the government actually take away a lot of the funding in the EI program? Did it, in turn, put through omnibus budget bills?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member is what we call cherry-picking certain issues. I could respond by doing likewise. I have been accused of doing a bit of cherry-picking myself at times. I acknowledge that.

I can say that it was the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party that killed the Kelowna accord. That would have done more for the first nations than any other negotiated agreement. It was the NDP deciding to get rid of the Liberals and voting with the Conservatives.

What about child care? How many people of the middle class would have benefited from an enhanced child care program, something that was there and was being put into place? Again, the New Democrats voted against that in support of the Conservatives.

Even when we come up with good solid social programs, quite often what we find is that the New Democrats, for some bizarre reason, do not like to support good, solid social Liberal ideas and will vote with the Conservative Party. It is somewhat mind-boggling when I see that.

I would ask that particular member, when she gets the opportunity, to maybe address those two major shortcomings of her party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we now have what appears to be a new practice that did not exist under previous administrations, being two omnibus budget bills a year.

That is what happened in 2012, with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and that is what is happening this year with Bill C-60 and Bill C-4. It means that every single budget is followed by a omnibus bill, which in the last two years has comprised 800 to 900 pages each time, of multiple separate acts. The Canadian Bar Association made the point on Bill C-4 that this reduces the ability to have proper hearings and scrutiny on each of the component parts of the legislation, and it violates parliamentary practice.

I wonder if my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the member's comment and maybe add to it.

We need to recognize that had this been a stand-alone bill, it would have come into the House, there would have been a second reading for good debate, there would have been a standing committee to allow stakeholders and Canadians to contribute, there would have been a third reading debate and then there would have been votes wrapped all over that.

We are talking well over 100 pieces of legislation combined.That is a four year legislative agenda in many ways that has been lost because of the government using these budget omnibus bills.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

The proposed act will implement key measures from economic action plan 2013 as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate economic growth and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Our government remains focused on the number one priority of my constituents and of people right across Canada, which is jobs. The measures contained in Bill C-4 reflect that priority and include support for job creators such as: extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers; freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of jobs creators and workers in 2014 alone; increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexing the new limit to inflation; expanding 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 for waste; measures to close tax loopholes and combat tax evasion; modernizing the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery; improving the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery; and phasing out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

As our government has made clear, while Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, we are not immune from the challenges beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent.

By implementing the measures from economic action plan 2013, our government is helping to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians and grow Canada's economy.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 demonstrates our government's continued strong support for British Columbia through record federal transfer support for hospitals, schools and other critical services. Totalling over $5.9 billion in 2013-14, this transfer support represents an increase of nearly $2 billion since the former federal Liberal government.

Already there has been unprecedented federal investment in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, in Surrey and into British Columbia communities under this Conservative government impacting nearly every aspect of the lives of hard-working families.

We are making a real difference in the everyday lives of Surrey residents. In total, our government has spent over $1.56 billion on local projects since 2006. This includes the new RCMP headquarters, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Surrey Library, among others.

I have personally made dozens of federal funding announcements totalling over $40 million. Some are the result of the economic action plan, while others are through the Pacific gateway project of the building Canada fund.

Regardless of where the money comes from, it is resulting in local jobs, local opportunities and local facilities for my constituents and Surrey residents. It is all about helping hard-working families, helping the unemployed, seniors and youth in our communities.

In recent months, I have had the pleasure of delivering over $250,000 for the Surrey YMCA, over $110,000 for the Surrey Sport and Leisure Complex, nearly $180,000 for the Newton Wave Pool, over $200,000 to improve water quality at four Surrey community facilities, $350,000 to aid Sophie's Place and protect child victims of crime and nearly $400,000 for 42 projects to allow for the summer employment of students.

It is all about improving our communities, creating jobs, and stimulating the economy. Bill C-4 contains measures that would not only create jobs but would also keep government spending in check so that we can return the budget to balance.

Budget 2013 has our government on track to balance the budget, on schedule, in 2015-16. From 2006 to 2008, our government paid down almost $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's federal debt-to-GDP ratio to its lowest level in nearly 30 years. This placed Canada in a very strong position to weather the global recession. When the recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run temporary deficits to protect the Canadian economy, and that plan worked, with over one million net new jobs created since July 2009.

At the same time, we committed to return to balanced budgets over the medium term. We ended temporary stimulus as planned. We controlled government spending. We eliminated wasteful and inefficient spending.

Budget 2013 announces further saving measures that will total $2 billion by 2015-16, including examining spending to ensure that government operations are managed efficiently, reducing travel costs, standardizing government information technology, closing tax loopholes, and improving the Canada Revenue Agency's compliance program to reduce tax evasion.

Canada's fiscal position remains the envy of the G7. Economic action plan 2013 reinforces our position and ensures that our economy is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

As recently confirmed in the government's annual financial report, we are right on track to return to budget surplus. That is good news. In fact, the deficit last year fell to $18.9 billion, down by more than one-quarter from the deficit in 2011-12 and down by nearly two-thirds from 2009-10.

Our government is acting prudently and decisively to ensure that Canada's economy creates good jobs and sustains a high quality of life for Canadian families. With economic action plan 2013, our government remains squarely focused on the number one priority of Canadians, with a forward-looking plan to create jobs and to grow the economy in British Columbia and across Canada.

Under our plan, Canada will also return to balanced budgets in 2015, and federal taxes will remain at the lowest level in 50 years.

Budget 2013 builds on our government's solid record of achievement, a record that includes unprecedented funding for Surrey infrastructure, lowering taxes over 160 times, and lowering the average family's tax bill by over $3,220. It is a good budget for Canada. It is a good budget for British Columbia, for Surrey, and, of course, for my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the last number of years an increase in seniors' poverty in Canada. We saw in the report from the OECD just last week that seniors' poverty under the current government has actually gone up.

I would like her comments on how she sees this budget helping seniors when there are cuts to programs to help seniors, and veterans in particular, and when the forecast is to increase the age of eligibility for OAS.

Finally, most seniors are finding it really difficult to get the basics met, in particular with the cost of medicine. There is nothing in this bill on helping with the cost of everyday life for seniors for things like health care. I would ask her to comment on that, the OECD report, the fact that seniors are being squeezed, and the fact that the government is looking at increasing eligibility for OAS.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would let the member know that our government does understand the importance of seniors' needs. That being said, our government also understands the importance of a strong economy and balancing the budget, and the Conservative government has always worked hard to grow the economy and support and create jobs to help Canadians across the country prosper with the help of our economic action plan. Canada has emerged out of the global economic recession with one of the strongest economies and the highest job-creation record among the G7 countries. That is something to be very proud of, and I am proud to be part of this government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the economic action plan on a couple of occasions, which is great. I am sure the PMO will be glad to hear that.

The question I have is in regard to the labour standards that are being proposed to be changed. Does the member have any thoughts that she would like to share with the House on that aspect of the bill?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of Canadian workers and of course employers. This includes Canadian health and safety regulations that are both supportive and very clear so that workers and employers do not abuse them.

Over the last 10 years, more than 80% of refusals to work have been determined to be situations of no danger, even after appeals. By clarifying the definition of “danger” with the amendment to the Canadian Labour Code in Bill C-4, workers and of course employers would be better able to deal with health and safety issues under the internal responsibility system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells that there are many measures in this budget that I would want to support: things that go after tax cheaters, technical amendments, changes to the lifetime capital gains. There are things there that actually relate to budgets and could be voted on.

Would the member not agree that it would have been preferable for the House to have those parts that are not related to the budget, such as changes to the Canada Labour Code health and safety provisions and changes to the Immigration Act, dealt with properly and separately so that we could assess them on their own merit after proper review and study?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was not paying much attention to the speech that I delivered earlier or she would not be asking that question.

Our government is on the right track. Since 2006 our Conservative government has worked hard to ensure that taxpayer money is used very effectively and efficiently. Due to our fiscal responsibility and debt-reduction measures, our government is on its way to balancing the budget in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents.

What is less pleasant is the fact that in just two and a half years, this is the third time I have spoken to an omnibus bill. It has been a different bill each time, unfortunately. I think this situation illustrates the recurring problem that keeps resurfacing with this government.

It is also difficult, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier this afternoon, to choose a topic to discuss. I will try my best because my constituents have concerns about many of the provisions in the bill.

The first, and the most interesting, is the issue of Supreme Court justices. Of all the things that have nothing to do with a budget implementation bill, I think that the easiest one to focus on is the proposed changes to the process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

It is even more problematic in this case because it seems to be a response to a process that the government bungled from the outset. We saw how difficult this process was, particularly after Justice Nadon appeared before the committee. Then we have the Minister of Justice saying that he wants to propose these changes.

I think that it is important to take this opportunity to point out that the hon. member for Gatineau sought the unanimous consent of the House—which was obviously refused—to move a motion outlining the federal government's legal and constitutional requirements regarding the selection of Supreme Court judges and, in this case in particular, justices from Quebec. The process must be followed and the criteria must be met, but it does not seem that that was the case.

Not only did the Conservatives fail to abide by these criteria, but now they are proposing changes to them. What is more, the Conservatives decided to include these changes in a budget implementation bill, which is completely ridiculous and absurd.

All of the points I just made show a blatant lack of respect for Quebeckers, particularly the people in my riding. This is something that we strongly disagree with. It is one of the main problems with the bill. It is an issue that many of my constituents have raised since Bill C-4 was introduced in this House.

Another problem that affects Quebec in particular, since it is something unique to Quebec, is the labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. The Conservatives plan to do away with the tax credit in this budget implementation bill.

Let me be clear. Although these funds are called workers' funds, they are an important economic driver not just for workers but also for businesses and the community.

I would like to speak about a very relevant example in my riding of Chambly—Borduas. This summer, as usual, I attended the launch of entrepreneurial projects by young people from the Maison des jeunes des quatre fenêtres youth centre in Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

Throughout the summer, these young people start and run a business. They sign contracts, manage budgets and look for work within the community, whether it be mowing lawns, working in seniors' residences or painting fences. These young people do all sorts of work for the community and clearly all of that costs money.

I was intrigued—if that is the right term—to see labour-sponsored funds listed as sponsors. I told the chair of the youth centre's board of directors that this was a good example of how labour-sponsored funds give back to our communities and to Quebec society.

This is another example that shows that the Conservative government is not taking into account Quebec realities and does not understand how important these measures are to Quebec communities.

They make a positive and important contribution.

We must therefore condemn this budget measure and the budget implementation bill. That is very important for Quebeckers. We sent postcards to the people in my riding inviting them to comment on and express their opposition to this measure. We received hundreds of responses, maybe even a thousand. In the last budget bill, people also opposed the botched EI reform. Again, the people of Quebec protested to express their opposition to this measure. This is a misguided measure that has been imposed on Quebeckers. Obviously, Quebec is not the only province that has been harmed, but I am focusing first and foremost on my community, which was also affected.

There are many other measures, but we also have to address the question of process. A number of my colleagues have also raised this issue. I spoke about the procedure for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. This shows how this bill includes everything but the kitchen sink. The same thing happened with Bill C-38 and the omnibus bill introduced last fall. All these elements are extremely problematic. Instead of having a healthy debate and addressing all the items in the bill, we can only speak for 10 minutes—20 minutes, if we are lucky . We can debate the bill at the second reading and third reading stages. Obviously, there is also an issue with the committees. The time available for committees to study bills has been severely restricted. We are starting to get used to this, although we certainly do not want to. The members' speaking time is rather limited, which makes it rather difficult to address every item.

I would like to talk about something else along the same lines. In fact, I am running out of time—which illustrates my point—and that is exactly what we take issue with. Before I run out of time, I would like to criticize the changes made to the Canada Labour Code. It is absolutely unacceptable that the government is making changes to the working conditions of so many people, including in the public sector, through a budget implementation bill. This is an unhealthy way to operate, and workers have been critical of this approach. Last week, I met with several young people from the Canadian Labour Congress who were representing a number of different labour bodies. Those young representatives commented on the measures. The omnibus nature of the bill limits our ability in committee to hear testimony from people like these young representatives. It is tough for legislators. Unfortunately, things do not change. The members across the way say they want to focus on the economy, but when we read the bill, it is clear that it is not just about the economy. In fact, there is little mention of the economy. The bill is mainly about changing the foundation of our social systems. I think it is important to speak out against this. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the debate, the government has been turning a deaf ear.

In closing, I would like to say that even when it comes to the economy, the government clearly lacks judgment. It is making cuts and reducing services. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that even though the government is cutting services, including services to Canadians, it is still spending just as much money. I think that says it all when it comes to how this government is managing the economy. Instead of talking about the economy, the government has chosen to talk about other things.

Unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government uses omnibus bills? It puts everything in a budget implementation bill and, in the end, it becomes a bill about unions, safety, and so on.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. I feel as though this bill is really discordant. Some of its elements are acceptable, while others are not.

What the Conservatives are proposing here is discordant and confusing. In short, they are not allowing any real debate, and this is an affront to democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is what I have been trying to say, eloquently or not. This is the third time I have spoken out against this method, so it is becoming harder to find ways to say the same thing without repeating myself.

As my colleague mentioned, this bill contains all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the budget. This seems to be a way for some Conservative ministers to find solutions to problems without truly addressing the challenges.

For example, the Minister of Justice wants to make changes to how Supreme Court justices from Quebec are appointed. Instead of addressing the issue properly and fixing a botched process, the government chose to hide it in an omnibus bill.

We are seeing the same sort of thing from the President of the Treasury Board. He lacks respect for public sector workers. So many negotiations were not conducted in good faith. For example, the negotiations with the diplomats were very difficult.

Even though there are problems with the process, rather than sitting down with these people, having a serious conversation and proposing solutions in a bill, the government is trying to hide these measures in an omnibus bill. That is the problem with this process, and the NDP opposes this way of doing things.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I read into the record earlier the fact that Transport Canada, under the infrastructure program, had lapsed $1.1 billion. What we know in this particular budget is that it is not dealing with the fact that there are infrastructure deficits from coast to coast to coast, whether they are bridges, drinking water, sewage treatment plans or roads.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this omnibus budget bill simply does not deal with the realities that face Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

That is exactly the problem. Earlier, I heard a Conservative member talk about the FCN delegates who were on Parliament Hill last week. Those people said that the Conservatives are taking steps in the right direction, but that there is still a lot of work to be done.

I have a good relationship with municipal officials in my riding. They have criticized the lack of infrastructure funding for their towns, and also for the entire region, on many occasions.

Just look at the Champlain Bridge. Today the Minister of Infrastructure patted himself on the back for cutting three years off the construction time. What took him so long to get to that point? Why are we facing this crisis?

This government, which calls itself a good manager, has shown no leadership and is a poor manager. Trying to hide all these things in an omnibus bill just makes the situation worse and prevents us from properly debating the issues.

Nevertheless, we will continue to raise these issues, as did my colleague to some extent, because this is unacceptable. The Champlain Bridge situation is completely unacceptable to my constituents.

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Resuming debate, I will recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the Conservative Party's 2013 budget, especially since my colleagues and I have worked very hard to give Canadians the best possible financial plan as part of the federal budget.

The budget focuses on what is really important to Canadians. It gives Canada the means to stay the course while we focus on Canadians' priorities, namely economic growth, job creation and fiscal balance.

I especially want to point out the significant financial support in the budget for infrastructure across the country. I am referring in particular to measures such as the gas tax fund, which benefits my riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Our government has proposed a 10-year funding commitment through the community improvement fund, the new building Canada fund, and the renewed P3 Canada fund. This would build on significant infrastructure funding delivered since 2007 and should be highlighted as we discuss the budget.

The new building Canada plan would mean stable, long-term funding for important projects, such as roads, bridges, water, waste water, recreational facilities, and other important community infrastructure. This would represent a total of more than $2.7 million across my riding each year through the federal gas tax fund alone.

Since being elected in 2006, I have listened carefully to my local mayors and their councils. Local infrastructure, particularly roads, is a top priority within my riding for the people of my riding.

Our Conservative government has extended, doubled, indexed, and made permanent the gas tax fund. These improvements provide predictable, long-term funding for our municipalities. It helps them build and revitalize local public infrastructure while creating jobs and long-term prosperity.

I recently had the honour of announcing projects that were carried out in my riding through the federal gas tax fund, in the communities of Hawkesbury, Russell and La Nation.

These municipalities are very pleased with the results. With our resurfaced roads, residents and visitors will enjoy better traffic flow and increased safety in the region for a long time to come.

In a riding like mine, which hosts visitors and tourists for festivals and special events, sustainable infrastructure offers some solid economic advantages that are very important to growth.

I am very honoured to continue serving as the member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell in this 41st Parliament, particularly during this time of growth. My constituents are eager to see the budget implemented, as it means continued growth and prosperity for them.

The opposition has consistently voted against the implementation of our budgets. They have sent a clear message that they are not listening to the voices of hard-working Canadians. They have voted against our budget measures in the past and will likely vote against this one, even though our track record is one of economic growth and sustainability, which is important to all Canadians.

Bill C-4 clearly outlines our government's commitment to businesses, which, I might add, create jobs and are a driving economic force in many rural communities, such as mine. I hope the opposition will note that we have committed to extending the hiring credit for small businesses, which are the real job creators. The hiring credit assists employers with a tax credit of up to $1,000 to help cover the cost of hiring new workers. This gives them the opportunity to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. We would extend the hiring credit because of its success.

Our economy is improving, thanks to our economic action plan and measures such as the hiring credit. It is not just businesses in my riding that would benefit. In fact, it is estimated that 560,000 small businesses across Canada would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013.

Across my riding, people are also concerned about employment insurance and its sustainability. They are concerned about the effectiveness of the program. These are legitimate concerns that our government has recognized and would address through budget 2013.

Allow me to explain that in these challenging economic times, our federal government has focused on strengthening our Canadian economy and on job creation. The encouraging news is that since 2009, our economy has created more than one million net new jobs. Ninety per cent of these are full-time jobs, and 75% are in the private sector.

Unfortunately, a number of Canadian businesses are having a hard time hiring enough Canadians, even though our employment rate hovers around 7%.

As a result, businesses are using the temporary foreign worker program to bring qualified people in from other countries to fill their employment needs. Nevertheless, many jobs that could be filled by Canadians remain vacant, and that is why the government must ensure that they are given priority for these jobs.

In order to increase job opportunities for Canadians, our government took the initiative to change two important programs, as we explained in our budget: the temporary foreign worker program and the employment insurance system.

With respect to the temporary foreign worker program, we have adjusted some of the criteria to improve the system. Businesses will need to make a greater effort to hire Canadians. The only acceptable job language requirement is now French or English and businesses must pay a fee of $275 per position requested.

With respect to employment insurance, Canadians on EI are now expected to accept suitable employment opportunities within their local area. The highest weeks of earnings are now used to calculate EI payments. “Working While on Claim” has been implemented to encourage Canadians to accept some available work while receiving EI benefits provided that they are looking for other work. Additionally, a link between the temporary foreign worker program and EI is being implemented to better connect Canadians to available jobs in their local area.

In essence, these changes will mean more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. We are equipping Canadians in their search for work and adjusting regulations to ensure they can gain more money than before as they search for full-time employment.

That is not all. Our government recognizes that we are still living in an uncertain global economic environment. This is why we have committed to maintaining a sound fiscal position. Responsible fiscal management is necessary for the sustainability of our public services and ensuring low tax rates for future generations.

Our federal government will continue to restrain spending growth without cutting transfers to Canadians, including vulnerable persons such as seniors, children and the unemployed. We will restrain growth without cutting transfers to other levels of government in support of health care and social services. Our record clearly speaks for itself in that regard.

In Ontario alone, for example, our government has increased federal transfers, which includes health care, by more than 200% since 2006. That is over $8 billion in increase. This is tremendous and unprecedented, yet the opposition would have Canadians believe we are cutting support for crucial health care needs when in fact we have increased this funding to record highs.

We are committing to improving services and achieving efficiency and we will do this while keeping taxes low and enhancing the integrity of the tax system. As a result, the deficit is expected to return to a balanced budget in 2015-16, which will be another tremendous achievement for our government.

The budget is excellent news for the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and for all Canadians. It sets us on the right track towards economic prosperity.

I assure the House that we thought long and hard before making our decisions. We made our decisions carefully, after considering the priorities and well-being of Canadians. I urge the opposition to support this bill so it can be passed quickly.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise. I would have asked a question, except I have some issues I can pose to the entire Conservative caucus as opposed to any one individual member.

I want to start off by addressing the comments of the previous speaker about reaching a balanced budget by 2015. That is going to be much easier for the Conservatives because last year, as we understand it, there were $10 billion allocated in the budget they did not spend. There were people who were expecting monies, heritage and other places that was not spent. In other words, the Conservatives broke promises to people, which does not come as a great surprise. Therefore, hallelujah, they are going to announce that we have this money to put toward the deficit, so it is more important to meet this one target than it is to follow through on their commitments to Canadians and Canadian organizations.

I sat on the finance committee for a period of time through the last omnibus bills and all of the what I would call nothing short of craziness happened at committee as a result of the fact that so many things had been piled on top of the other that actually belonged, in our opinion, in other committees. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are doing it again.

Of the last bills that came before that committee, Bill C-38, was the biggest one with which I was involved. It changed the Navigable Waters Act, the Environmental Assessment Act and all kinds of things that a person outside this place would ask what it had to do with the budget. The fact was it did not. It was just a tactic on the part of the government to jam things together to get it through as fast as it could, to keep it from being at committees where it could receive the proper scrutiny by members and the witnesses who could bring the expertise before the committee to fortify the situation.

Before the prorogation, we were dealing with Bill C-54 about the not criminally responsible. Some of the witnesses who came from the health community said that nobody in the psychiatric community was asked about that bill. All of this is symptomatic of what is happening with the government in the sense of not wanting to hear from anyone, MPs or anyone else.

My view and the view of the New Democratic Party is that committees are there to make bills better. We are there to help the government. The government brings forward a bill and we have a critique of it and recommendations, which are called amendments, never see the light of day because they are voted down at committee or motions are passed at committee to limit the time we have. If we do not meet that time allocation, anything that has not been voted on is deemed to have failed. Therefore, we could have a list of 25 good quality amendments and Conservatives will not even listen to them.

That anti-democratic aspect limits the ability of the sincere efforts of the House to try to improve legislation in a way that is just baffling. How in the world can Conservatives justify shutting out information, even if it is not from us? Information from the public or from experts in any given field relative to the budget or relative to those things that have been piled into the budget, how can they shut that down without giving it any consideration?

It makes us wonder what is behind the agenda. This is not new. As I said, it happened with Bills C-38, C-45, C-60. Other speakers today talked about the fact that all of those bills had some blatant mistakes that successive bills had to correct.

I am troubled again by the fact the Canadian Federation of Municipalities warned the current government and the previous government about a deficit in infrastructure to the tune of somewhere between $175 billion and $200 billion that needed to be taken care of now. Look at the situation with the bridge in Montreal, and we understand how desperate it can get really quickly.

It looks like some interim work has been done to repair the bridge and get the traffic flowing, but stepping back from that, we have almost $200 billion elsewhere in our country that deserves support. I believe the Minister of Finance has said that there is $800 billion of dead capital that businesses are holding onto for a couple of reasons. There is some sensibility to what they are doing because in 2008 they had trouble getting money from the banks. We had the lowest interest rates practically in the history of our country, so why was the government not taking 10-year bonds and partnering with the business community to start addressing some of the infrastructure needs?

In my community of Hamilton, we are near desperate on sewage. I hear of figures somewhere close to $200 billion of a deficit on Hamilton sewage. Basements of houses on certain streets in Hamilton flood every time there is a serious rainfall. They cannot even get insurance anymore. It is very clear for us.

The previous speaker made reference to temporary foreign workers. The figures I have may not be precise but they are certainly close. Two or three years ago we had roughly 240,000 new immigrants to Canada. They have support here. They have a sponsor who is responsible for all of their costs for 10 years, so there is no liability to us for them. However, in that period there were 241,000 temporary workers.

The temporary worker program was initially put in as support for the farmers. There was lots of work Canadians did not want to do and farmers needed help, and that program was originally set up to bring them in. Then all of a sudden, certain aspects of the business community woke up to the fact that they could pay temporary foreign workers less money and they would not have obligations to them. By the way, because they are here on a temporary permit, if they do not do exactly what they want, they get to go home really quickly. People from other countries come here. They are very dependent on money to help their families back home. It is a very insecure situation and they are being abused by the government and employers in Canada. That is shameful. There is no other word for it.

From my perspective, to hear the Conservatives talk about some modest change, I would love to have seen that at the immigration committee, to talk about temporary foreign workers and to look at that program in-depth, to step back from it and make some suggestions to help with that, but that opportunity was not afforded to us.

Going a little further on this, Bill C-4, as previous omnibus bills, piled together amendments to over 70 laws. One of them is the Public Service labour relations employment board act. That is a new addition. Another one is the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act.

Why do we need a new act for labour relations when we have had labour relations in the country between the public service workers and the government for many decades? Why do the Conservatives suddenly need to change that? If we do need to change it, why is it not done through the appropriate department and the appropriate committee rather than a budget bill? It sounds like somebody is up to something. If I were a worker, with the number of cuts there has been to the public service workers already, I would be a little nervous just about the title of that bill.

Contained in Bill C-4 are very vicious anti-worker and anti-veteran measures. I never thought I would stand in the House of Commons in our country and say our government has anti-veteran policies.

The Conservatives have made changes to health and safety protection for workers. My time is running out and I have not even started my speech, but this is part of the give and take in this place. The last speaker spoke about some things that drew my attention to it, but if I have to close, I am certainly proud to close on defending veterans.

There is a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. We have seen day in and day out in the media of late where the ombudsman has spoken out in defence of veterans saying that they are not getting the health care or the protection they deserve and there are numerous budget cuts to that department. That is shameful. One thing Parliament must stand for is the veterans of our country.

This is an anti-worker, anti-veteran bill and it is absolutely shameful.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the statements and submissions made by the member. I certainly appreciate his input into this process.

I do want to clarify a comment he made about the temporary foreign worker program not having ever been studied. The member needs to do a bit more work in terms of his research if he is going to make statements like that. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for approximately five years, I can say that the committee studied the issue of temporary foreign workers on a regular basis. It reviewed the issue of temporary foreign workers. It accessed a policy and regulatory review of the temporary foreign worker program. I spent countless hours travelling across this country listening to small business and businesses in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia right across to British Columbia. There is substantive and very aggressive review of the program done on a regular basis at the committee level, within the ministry, and across the country.

I would like to give the member the opportunity to acknowledge, whether he agrees or disagrees with the direction the government takes, that the review takes place and that he clarify his comments.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if members listen to the tone of my voice they will know that I definitely have a cold which, as a result, is causing a bit of a distraction.

I do agree with the parliamentary secretary that there has been a review. I should have said that there had not been an effective review relative to the problems that have been raised.

For the continuation of this program, I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that from the indications coming to us, there is more work to be done. I see the parliamentary secretary is nodding his head. Again, I would be quite satisfied if his committee were to look at this and review it. That is the point we are trying to make: it should not have been part of a budget bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Although he has a cold, he was on point and very clear.

We are used to seeing this government move to pass omnibus legislation and push through any piece of legislation in an omnibus bill. The proof is that we have a bill before us that will correct the mistakes made in using this approach. We know that this bill does not give Canadians the right to a healthy and safe workplace. However, in the NDP, we are convinced that no worker should have to jeopardize his or her health and safety to be able to work.

Does my colleague not think that this bill will put all powers related to health and safety into the minister's hands?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the health and safety legislation of this country was put together through tripartite negotiations among government, employers, and labour. A consensus was reached, often after fatalities and after very serious issues with respect to industrial-related diseases.

All of those things that have brought us to this stage of protection for workers are crucial every day. I do not know if the House is aware, but a worker is killed in Canada almost every day of the workweek. Roughly 300 workers are killed a year. Anything that could potentially impede that should certainly not be in a budget bill.

If it is deemed urgent that we talk about that issue, the human resources committee should look at it and study it in depth, because if we are going to make changes, we should be including all three players at the table when we discuss it.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, our Conservative government's plan for securing Canada's future.

This economic action plan focuses on the things that matter to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. In budget 2013, we are connecting Canadians with available jobs, helping our manufacturing and business sectors succeed in the global economy, investing in research and innovation, and supporting the building blocks of this great nation: families and communities.

What I would like to focus on specifically today in this budget implementation bill are our efforts to support job creators, streamline systems, close tax loopholes and prevent tax evasion, and demonstrate respect for taxpayers' dollars.

Bill C-4 covers a broad number of acts of Parliament, so what I intend to highlight in the relatively brief time I have to speak are some aspects of this bill that stand out for me and will resonate with Canadians.

Let me start with the lifetime capital gains exemption. The lifetime capital gains exemption exists to reward Canadians for investing in small businesses and makes it easier for the owners to pass their businesses along to their children.

Our Conservative government believes strongly in supporting small business people and entrepreneurs, and that is why we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption by $50,000. It will be effective for the 2014 tax year and it will increase with inflation each year after that.

We understand that it is important to reward hard work, allow Canadians to keep more of their own wealth, and support family businesses, and that is what this measure accomplishes.

Now let me talk about the accelerated capital gains allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

Bill C-4 will modify the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment. The capital cost allowance regime under the income tax system can be accelerated for some clean energy generation equipment. To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and clean energy equipment, our Conservative government is expanding the biogas production equipment that is eligible for inclusion under this regime.

I believe there is a bright future for clean energy in Canada. Measures like these are paving the way for a better future, one in which we will rely less on antiquated technology and will move into an era of cleaner energy.

These measures will expand eligible waste to include pulp and paper waste, winery and distillery waste, and separated organics from municipal waste. This measure will also expand eligibility under the tax regime to include all types of cleaning and upgrading equipment used to treat eligible waste.

Now I would like to speak about restricted farm losses. Canadians understand that farmers feed our communities and play an important role in the food security of this country. We honour their hard work and we give them all the support they deserve.

That is why our Conservative government is increasing the restricted farm loss limit to $17,500 of deductible farm losses annually. We realize the sacrifices farmers make to work their land and we understand that for reasons beyond anyone's control, production will not be the same from year to year. That is why we have taken this measure.

At the same time, Bill C-4 will carry an amendment to clarify that taxpayers' other sources of income must be less than their farming income in order to take advantage of the full farm losses deduction.

Our Conservative government aims to protect farmers from unexpected losses. We are taking this measure to ensure that the bulk of these resources are aimed at those farmers for whom farming is the bulk of their livelihood.

I would also like to speak about software for the electronic suppression of sales.

We know that the best way to get ahead is to work hard and play by the rules, but unfortunately some people in our society feel they can cheat the system with impunity. The vast majority of businesses in the country are run by honest and hard-working Canadians, but for those very few people who have decided not to pay their fair share, we are introducing criminal offences and monetary fines under the Income Tax Act that are specifically aimed at combatting tax evasion software. This software is designed with one intention in mind: to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion. People who use electronic suppression of sales software would be subject to any of a number of new penalties.

In terms of administrative monetary penalties, anyone who uses electronic suppression software would be liable for a penalty of $5,000 for the first use and an additional $5,000 for any subsequent use. If a person possesses or acquires this illegal software, there would be a penalty of $5,000 for the first offence and a fine of $50,000 for any subsequent offence.

Of course, in this bill we reserve the toughest measures for those who have decided to manufacture and sell these illegal products. It is more than just unscrupulous to make money from selling a product that allows people to engage in tax evasion, thereby skewing the playing fields for all businesses. For a first offence, the developer or the seller of such software would be fined $10,000; for a subsequent offence, this would rise to $50,000.

In terms of criminal offences, the possession, use, acquisition, manufacture, development, or sale of this illegal software by a person could be dealt with on summary conviction, which would entail a fine of between $10,000 and $100,000 or a prison term of up to two years or both. If there is a conviction on an indictment, the fine would be between $50,000 and $100,000 or a prison term of up to five years or both.

This may seem excessive to some, but when talking with business people in my riding of Calgary Northeast, which is of course the hardest-working riding in Canada, they will say that when some business people cheat the system, it creates an uneven playing field for everyone, especially those who choose to work hard and play by the rules. If we ask our business people to play by the rules and they do so, then we have a duty to protect their interests from those who would lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead.

Now I would like to talk about the hiring credit for small businesses in 2013, which brings me to another portion of our government's budget bill, Bill C-4.

In budget 2011, our government announced a temporary hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000 per employee. We did this under the realization that small businesses drive growth in our economy and provide substantial amounts of employment across Canada. In a time of global economic uncertainty, we know that supporting small businesses is essential. The hiring credit provides financial relief, offsetting the costs of hiring a new employee for a small business.

In 2012, we extended this hiring credit again. Now we remain in a time of economic uncertainty. Despite the fact that Canada's economy is on track and improving steadily, we have to remain vigilant about market forces outside our control. It is for that reason that we intend to extend the hiring credit for small businesses again this year.

Finally, I would like to talk about the temporary foreign worker program and how our Conservative government is streamlining the temporary foreign worker program.

Our changes involve giving the program the ability to electronically administer and enforce the temporary foreign worker program. This would include the use of electronic signatures, enabling secure online payment for the LMO process and eliminating the need to retain large amounts of paper.

I am personally pleased that we are taking this step. Streamlining the temporary foreign worker program would allow small and medium enterprises in Canada to hire workers more efficiently going forward. This is essential to our economy.

In closing, I call on members of the opposition parties to support Bill C-4 and implement this budget as quickly as possible. As I mentioned earlier, Canada's economy is on the right track. Let us support it.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I will be taking the floor soon, I will come back to some aspects of the speech we just heard.

That said, I would like to have the member who just spoke explain something to me. When the Conservatives took office, Canada had a surplus of $26 billion. However, as of today, they have managed to transform this surplus into a deficit, which is now $62 billion. When they came to power we had a trade surplus, and now we have a trade deficit.

How does the member explain this?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to hear from the member, who has never supported any trade in this country, nor has his party. Speaking of trade, this is the government and the party that has signed the most free trade agreements in this country. This is a government whose focus is negotiating and completing more trade agreements, because we believe that free trade agreements create jobs, bring employment to Canada, and make Canadians prosper.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we heard past speakers talk about the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. When the budget was released in the spring, it stated:

Today's budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities. We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges....

This is also a budget that delivers real gains for Canadians.... [I]t will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy.

As I know in the Yukon, because of the gas tax funds, indexed and now made permanent, our communities are able to project and plan for their own future needs and destinies. The City of Whitehorse, as an example, is receiving nearly $7 million in gas tax funds. Smaller communities are receiving half a million dollars to invest in important infrastructure.

I wonder if my colleague could share some of the experiences of his communities that receive gas tax funds. What are his comments on their wise investments and on the comments by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already answered the question, in a way.

In Calgary Northeast and in the city of Calgary itself, it is very well received that this is the government that took decisive action. This is the government that made this gas tax fund permanent, and this is the government that indexed the gas tax to inflation. This government believes that the real people on the ground are the municipalities and councillors who know the issues and where the bucks should go. We are making the gas tax permanent so that they can make their long-term plans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite and I am not surprised that the Conservatives are still proclaiming loud and clear how good they are in economics.

However, I have a question for my colleague opposite. The Auditor General revealed that the Conservatives had lost $3.1 billion. Nearly six months later, they still do not know where the money has gone. What is worse, the debt continues to grow. The deficit in 2012-13 was almost $19 billion.

How can my colleague claim that the government is good in economics?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that the member opposite was listening to my closing remarks. I urge her to listen to what Catherine Swift, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said:

In a poll of the CFIB's members, the tax credit was chosen as the most popular measure from the last budget.... Everybody looks at that and says, “Well, a thousand bucks isn't much, but every little bit helps.” We know it was meaningful.

Hopefully my colleague from the other side has heard that.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this issue today on behalf of the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The sad thing is that I have to give this speech against a backdrop of time allocation and restriction of debate. For the 58th time, the government is limiting the time we can take to discuss the important measures in the budget.

I would like to read a quotation I found that goes like this:

For the government to bring in closure and time allocation is wrong. It sends out the wrong message to the people of Canada. It tells the people of Canada that the government is afraid of debate, afraid of discussion and afraid of publicly justifying the steps it has taken.

Who said that? The former minister of Public Safety.

I should also point out that the government wanted to prorogue Parliament for a month to rework its policies. I have nothing against that. I think the government's political agenda could use a drastic overhaul. The government asked for an extra month to revamp its whole agenda. Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is the same old, same old. The more things change, the more they stay the same on the other side of the House.

As for the budget, that too is just more of the same. This is another omnibus bill that does not meet my constituents' needs and does not offer the transparency Canadians are entitled to. The Conservatives failed to recognize the mistake they made with their previous omnibus budget bills. For the fourth time, they are doing their utmost to rush major changes through without adequate study by Parliament. The really astonishing thing is that they are doing it despite the fact that some of the provisions in this bill are there to fix mistakes that the government made by rushing the previous budget implementation bill through the process. That is a real shame, but that is what they are doing.

To put the cherry on top of the sundae of mediocrity, this is not the first time the Conservatives have used one omnibus budget bill to fix a previous one. One might think that after the first time, they might have taken a step back, taken a deep breath, reflected a bit, and decided not to repeat the same failed approach. One would think that they would have learned from their mistakes and would have gone in a different direction. Sadly, this is not what the government did in this case. No, it stared failure in the face, and when its mistakes were apparent, it decided to double down and continue its secretive ways.

This is not an approach that builds confidence among our constituents in our government institutions. Given the PMO's growing scandal involving the other place, one might think that the Conservatives would jump at the chance to build some confidence among Canadians, but no, it has not.

One thing that concerns me about the bill is the amendments to the Supreme Court Act. Some people might be wondering what the Supreme Court Act is doing in the budget. They are not alone. One does not have to be an expert on constitutional law to know that these two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Why are these amendments being included in this bill?

The government made another legislative blunder when it appointed Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court. Mr. Nadon worked for 20 years in the federal courts but never in a Quebec court, as stipulated in the criteria. This should not have been a problem. No government has ever made that mistake before. However, once again, the Conservatives thumbed their noses at these criteria. It is a bit like the Conservative government's appointment of a senator from Prince Edward Island who is still not eligible for a provincial health card because he is not considered a resident of that province. However, that is one of the basic criteria a person must meet in order to become a senator. Whoops. That is another story that I will perhaps have a chance to speak about another time.

In the case of Justice Nadon, the government should have admitted that it made a mistake and appointed another judge from Quebec who meets the criteria, as it did in the case of Justice Wagner last year. Is that what the government did? Unfortunately not. On the contrary, the Conservatives decided to charge ahead with their appointment and then try to fix their mistake by quietly slipping amendments to the Supreme Court Act into the current budget bill, while inviting Quebec to challenge the appointment before the courts.

The Supreme Court is a non-partisan institution that should unite Canadians, not divide them. The Conservatives have found a new way to cause division, though.

I am very concerned about the government's approach. This unilateral action is not going to resolve the problems raised by Quebec with regard to its representation on the Supreme Court, nor is it going to encourage the public to trust the government's ability to govern in a responsible and effective manner.

I could go on for hours talking about the flaws and the problems with the bill, but I will save some for my colleagues in the official opposition to talk about.

The Conservatives prorogued Parliament and told Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume so that they could reset their policy agenda. However, the bill before us is a clear sign that the Conservatives are stuck in the mud, with more of the same tired agenda that has failed to address the real priorities of my constituents and all Canadians.

We have a word for that in my Cree language: Wa nay ta siuch.

It means someone who makes a mistake. However, there is also Wa nay ta siuch.

It means that they do not know what they are doing. That is what is happening here.

Canadians deserve much better than what the Conservatives are offering, and as such, I cannot support the bill. I cannot support the Conservatives' attempt to evade scrutiny by this Parliament and all Canadians. I am proud to oppose this budget and its implementation bill, unless it is changed and corrected.

It is not too late for the Conservatives to see the light and finally address the real priorities of Canadian families by creating quality, well-paid jobs; ensuring a secure retirement; fostering opportunities for young people; and making life more affordable for families.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to seize this opportunity, this chance, to get this right. Change course and work with us to make a budget bill that will truly help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the last bit of my hon. colleague's comments was that we should “change course”.

I wonder if he thinks we should change course on meeting the needs of the north, including $890 million in transfer payments that go into the Yukon Territory to allow it to shape its own future and destiny. I wonder if he thinks we should change course on the $600 million investment in the housing first approach we have taken, or if we should change course on the largest and longest infrastructure project in Canada's history, or if we should change course on what Canadian colleges are hailing as a great investment in post-secondary education in those institutions in our country.

I wonder if the member would want us to change course on the permanence and indexing of the gas tax fund, which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said is a wonderful achievement allowing Canadian municipalities to determine their own fates and futures. I wonder if he wants us to change course on a renewed P3 plan, incremental goods and services tax rebates, and the lowest tax burden in over 50 years.

I wonder if he would like us to change course on all those things, when third-party endorsement of the 2013 budget has been the best we have ever seen in the history of budgets released in this country.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

Like him, I represent a riding that is considered a northern riding. I completely understand his comment regarding the specific needs of ridings like mine. The change I am proposing relates to the fact that I have a hard time understanding many things about this government.

Consider, for example, the trade deficit we currently have. We went from a $26-billion surplus to a $62-billion deficit. I have a problem with that, because we could be doing more for northerners.

I am responding to the member, and he is leaving.

Over the last six years, the public debt has increased by over $100 billion. This government is responsible for the largest budget deficit in Canadian history. I have a problem with that, and that is what I want to change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that Conservative members stand up, whether in their speeches or their questions, and the first thing they go to is the spin given to them through the Prime Minister's Office, that this is all related strictly to the budget. One of the things we need to recognize with Bill C-4 is that even though it is a budget bill, it incorporates substantial changes to many different pieces of legislation. As a direct result, what should have been stand-alone pieces of legislation are not being given the type of debate and oversight that they should be given.

My question for the member is related to the unfortunate fact that the government has brought in so much other legislation through the budget bill. Would he like to give his opinion on what he feels is right or wrong with regard to bringing in that legislation through the back door of a budget bill?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the problem with this kind of omnibus bill is that we do not have the opportunity to debate these important issues, not to mention the time limits that are being imposed on debate.

Accordingly, not only can we not debate all of these legislative changes separately in committee, but we even have time restrictions imposed on our debates here. I find this tactic undemocratic.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of clauses 471 and 472 of the economic action plan 2013, no. 2, which would add declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act. These declaratory provisions have been introduced to clarify the criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. In particular, the intent of these provisions is to clarify that an individual who was at any time a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province would be eligible for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. This would remove any doubt regarding the eligibility of accomplished judges of Canada's Federal Court for appointment to the Supreme Court.

Normally, the purpose of legislative amendments is to enact new provisions or to amend existing provisions to change the outcome of the provisions they replace or amend.

By their very nature, the proposed declaratory provisions will specify the correct interpretation of the law since its enactment. Basically, the wording reinforces the meaning of this law and makes it easier to understand.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently explained the impact of these declaratory provisions. In its 2013 ruling in Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd., the court stated the following:

The interpretation imposed by a declaratory provision stretches back in time to the date when the legislation it purports to interpret first came into force, with the effect that the legislation in question is deemed to have always included this provision. Thus, the interpretation so declared is taken to have always been the law...

In accordance with the purpose of a declaratory provision, clauses 471 and 472 of the bill confirm the fundamental requirement that judges must fulfill to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. According to the current wording, these provisions specify that, the clauses authorize Federal Court justices to be appointed to vacant positions representing Quebec in the Supreme Court of Canada, provided that they have at least 10 years standing as members of the Barreau du Québec.

Consequently, former and current members of the Barreau du Québec will be treated in the same manner as former and current members of the bar of any province. The purpose is to have uniformity and equality for all provincial bars.

The Government of Canada is of the view that there is no doubt that Federal Court judges are eligible to fill any vacancy on the Supreme Court. This view is shared by former Supreme Court justices, the Hon. Ian Binnie and the Hon. Louise Charron, as well as the noted constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg.

During its study of clauses 471 and 472, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also heard evidence from Professor Benoît Pelletier, who was supportive of the government's position. The committee of the other place heard from the former Supreme Court justice, the Hon. Michel Bastarache, who also agreed with the government's interpretation.

Former Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs and constitutional expert Benoît Pelletier, was very clear about the interpretation:

The interpretation that I believe prevails, or should prevail, when examining the spirit of the provision, is that, essentially, it is sufficient to have been a member of the bar for 10 years. But, one might not be a member today. It would not make sense to interpret the Supreme Court Act as disqualifying from the outset all justices of the Federal Court. It is an interpretation which, in my opinion, does not hold up.

It should be no surprise that so many leading experts agree with the government's view. As the Minister of Justice noted in his remarks to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding these very provisions, Federal Court experience is a strong asset for any candidate to the Supreme Court precisely because the Supreme Court regularly hears appeals from decisions of the Federal Court.

As the members of the House are well aware, judges of the Federal Court have served and continue to serve with distinction on the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the Honourable Robert Décary, former Federal Court of Appeal justice, recently said, in the October 25, 2013 edition of La Presse, that by suggesting that Federal Court justices with civil law training do not have the civil experience required by section 6, does not take into account the increasing interdependence of Quebec, Canadian and international law.

I know that none of the Federal Court judges who have been appointed to the Supreme Court to date were appointed as members from the courts of Quebec. However, Federal Court judges ought not to be treated differently and excluded from consideration for appointment to the Supreme Court simply because after their many years of practising law in Quebec, they joined the Federal Court bench.

In keeping with the principle of bijuralism, the Federal Court justices must regularly interpret the Civil Code of Quebec when they apply federal laws in areas such as tax, copyright and bankruptcy in deciding matters that arise from Quebec.

However, despite the weight of expert opinion, some have continued to question the eligibility of Federal Court judges for appointment to the Supreme Court, particularly as members of the court from Quebec. In order to resolve this critical issue as soon as possible, the government has referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the meantime, Bill C-4 was determined to be the quickest method of clarifying the Supreme Court Act to guarantee that Federal Court judges can be considered in the process of filling upcoming Supreme Court vacancies, the first of which will arise next year. These declaratory provisions clarify, without making substantive changes to the law, that individuals with at least 10 years at any bar in Canada, including the Quebec bar, at any time during their career would be eligible to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. Enacting these provisions would ensure that the Supreme Court would have the benefit of Parliament's declared intent of sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act when it renders its advisory opinion on these reference questions that have been put to it.

For these reasons, I am opposed to the amendment to delete clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind anyone watching at home that we are debating this bill under time allocation. This is the 58th time that this Conservative government has limited the time we have to debate its bills in the House. I think it is shameful that the government is limiting our ability to represent our constituents in this way.

I would also like to remind the government that it increased taxes last year, which hurts the people I represent in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. It increased taxes on hospital parking fees. This means that the families who want to visit sick loved ones at the hospital in Saint-Eustache have to pay more for parking. That is completely unacceptable and backwards. Could my colleague speak to that?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time seeing the connection between that question and my speech, but as soon as Justice Nadon is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he will be able to quickly focus on all of these kinds of issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. He might have heard the previous questions that I put to the government on this, regarding the size of the bill and the amount of other forms of legislation that are being changed.

My question is related to just that. I wonder if the member would be able to reflect on some of the changes that are included in the bill, which will have a fairly profound impact on labour standards here in Canada, and some of those changes in immigration, if he is in a position where he could provide comments on those issues.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the bill may be large in its scope but the Government of Canada deals with many different issues, and all changes will be in the best interests of the people of Canada.

The government gets its mandate, its democracy from the people of Canada. This is why we are moving forward with the bill, to make sure that we create prosperity and jobs, and that Canadians all benefit from a greater quality of life.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on two things.

We have heard the opposition criticizing time allocation. I have been here for most of this debate, and I have seen some of our members stand in the House to present the government's position and not even be asked a question. Debate needs two sides of a position, and the opposition has not engaged in questioning.

To move on to something more salient, could my hon. colleague comment on the hiring credit for small businesses and the estimated $225 million in job creation that small businesses will be able to make, or the estimated $660 million in 2014 when we are dealing with the EI premium rates?

I think those are two excellent investments, excellent ways of making sure that workers and job creators are able to reinvest in the things that they know are significant in helping employ people and helping spur growth in this country.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member sees that the mandate of the government is to create jobs and prosperity, and to stimulate the economy.

It is through the will of the people via the election of this government that this takes place. Obviously small businesses are the heart and engine of the economy through the labour of their many owners. They create many more jobs and feed many more families. Prosperity is always accomplished when the government stays out of the way of hard-working Canadians and they have the liberty to spend their money as they see fit, because they can judge better than us.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-4, an act to implement measures contained in budget 2013. The bill fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class in Canada and those wanting to join the middle class.

For the past 30 years, governments of all stripes have been elected and re-elected in Canada on a similar economic platform: fiscal discipline; investment in infrastructure, research and skills; openness to trade; and tax competitiveness. Middle-class Canadians and those wanting to become part of it supported this agenda because they were promised it would create shared prosperity; but this has not happened. While the economy has more than doubled in size in the past 30 years, middle-class incomes have increased by only 13%. If we do not solve this problem, Canadians will eventually withdraw their support and we will all be worse off as a result.

Canadians who have lower incomes have an even greater stake in the well-being of the middle class. Today, Canadians feel it is more likely that they will fall from the middle class into poverty, rather than rise out of poverty into the middle class. The bill does little to help the economy and to create jobs. In fact, the so-called job measures in the bill are just a continuation of the status quo, which simply is not good enough. My riding needs jobs, and our young people need jobs.

Previously the government introduced a jobs training program, shortly after the last budget, but the program is still not running because the government forgot to talk to the provinces. Therefore, there is no jobs training program. While the government spent millions of dollars advertising the program, I repeat, there is no program. This is a government that invests money in self-promotion, but does not “get the job done” when it comes to putting in place the kinds of measures to create jobs and good training to help close the job skills gap.

The only indicator that has grown apace with GDP for the middle class is household debt. Middle-class Canadians are rightly worried about their finances as they face record levels of personal debt, amounting to $1.66 for every dollar of disposable income. They are struggling to make ends meet while interest rates are low and are rightly concerned about what will happen in the future if interest rates start to rise.

One of the driving forces behind this accumulation of household debt is the financial subsidization of adult children who cannot yet make it on their own. These young people are unable to pay rent and are forced to live at home. In fact, 43% of Canadian families have financially subsidized young people who have lived for extended periods of time at home with them because they cannot make ends meet. Sadly, young Canadians have been left behind during this so-called economic recovery. That is, they still have 225,000 fewer jobs than before the downturn.

I saw the lack of jobs for young people first-hand, day after day this summer. I had university graduates who came in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. I had grandparents who came on behalf of their grandchildren, the first in the family to graduate from university and college, asking why they had fled their country of origin to come to Canada, the land of promise, so their children could have an education. Now they have education and they still do not have a job.

The people in my constituency need jobs, and I have worked hard to get them jobs. In fact, I obtained funding for a completing the circle program, a $500,000 jobs program in our community. I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into jobs programs. We follow up with them to make sure their job searches are going in the right direction, and while they search, we help them with food, clothing and whatever other supports they might need. We should all remember that we have seen a 31% increase in food bank usage since 2008. At critical times, I have personally bought bedding, food, furniture and medicine.

Therefore, it was particularly hard to hear from service providers that federal funding was being cut for job and training programs in our Etobicoke North community. My community depends on these jobs programs. We cannot afford to have them shut down. That is why I contacted the minister's office. I hope this will be rectified.

What I was looking for in the budget, first and foremost, was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have 308 pages, with 472 separate clauses amending dozens of different pieces of legislation. It is another anti-democratic omnibus bill meant to limit debate and ram through as much unrelated legislation as the government can get through Parliament.

Once again my constituents are saddened by the fact that this is an omnibus bill with multiple sections that were deserving of full and proper hearings in committee and full parliamentary scrutiny.

While Conservative members claim, based on their talking points, that omnibus bills are nothing new, it is only under the current Prime Minister that we have seen omnibus budget bills that top 200 pages. The 2010 omnibus budget bill was almost 900 pages. In 2012, the Conservative government started a new practice of putting forward two omnibus budget bills. Canadians will remember Bill C-38, the 400-plus page omnibus budget implementation bill, which sprung sweeping changes on our country, affecting everything from employment insurance, environmental protection, immigration, old age security to even the oversight that charities receive. None of these changes were in the Conservative platform. They were rushed into law by “an arrogant majority government that's in a hurry to impose its agenda on the country”.

One newspaper stated that omnibus bills are:

...political sleight-of-hand and message control, and it appears to be an accelerating trend. These shabby tactics keep Parliament in the dark, swamp MPs with so much legislation that they can't absorb it all, and hobble scrutiny. This is not good, accountable, transparent government.

Canadians should remember that in 1994, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, today's Prime Minister, criticized omnibus legislation, suggesting that the subject matter of such bills is so diverse that a single vote to the content would put members in conflict with their own principles and that dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent the views of their constituents on each part of the bill. The right hon. member is now using the very tactics he once denounced. It is a shame that he changed his tune when he was elected to the highest office in the land.

There are similarities among the government's omnibus bills. Over and over we see, for example, increasing ministerial discretion, reducing objective criteria, and removing agencies and boards. Canadians should be deeply concerned by these similarities in different omnibus bills and by yet another of the government's end runs around the democratic process.

For the people of Etobicoke North and for young people across Canada, Bill C-4 offers very little. My constituents and Canadians need better and deserve better.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments. She is certainly a sincere and caring member of Parliament for her riding.

What is interesting is that she is representing a party that is pushing its support for the middle class but has club privilege, whereby if people simply make a small donation of $100,000 they can be part of that club privilege and can get their picture taken with the current leader of the party. That hardly smells of middle-class care and concern.

I do want to read a comment that we got from a college in respect to job training, because the member did mention a lot about job training. It states:

This budget sends the clearest message yet that colleges are the best catalyst for job opportunity in this country. We applaud the federal government for making these commitments at a time of fiscal restraint....

I wonder if the member would comment on what she is hearing in her riding from colleges and industry about the job training plans that we are putting forward. I know in the Yukon, our investment in budget 2013 for the Centre for Northern Innovation in Mining singled that college out as a key driver for jobs and growth in our territory, as well as the Aurora College in the Northwest Territories. I am sure she has experienced the exact same thing with colleges in her riding.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, colleges, universities, and training are important. They are fundamental drivers, but if our kids, our students, cannot get jobs afterwards, it is a problem.

I had students come to my constituency office every day this past summer. They have been out of school for two years. They have been out of work for two years. The system is not working.

I will give an example. We had a lady looking for help. She was in agony due to an ear infection that had raged for three weeks. She had pus and blood running down her face. The sad reality is that she could not afford antibiotics because she could not find a job.

I have MS patients begging for help because they cannot afford their drugs, which are $25,000 to $50,000 a year. Instead of taking them daily, they are taking them once a week.

My question is: How many more stories are there out there? The bill does not get the promised jobs. We are 225,000 jobs short for our students.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 35 years, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, the income of 20% of Canadians—the richest—has increased, while the income of the other 80% of Canadians has decreased.

How does the member explain that? What would she do differently from what her party has done in the past?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we actually had a poverty-reduction strategy. We are fighting very hard for incomes and equality.

The hon. member asks me one thing I would do. It would be to feed our children in school. There are 169 countries that feed their children every day. Some have had national breakfast programs for 50 or 60 years. Canada does not.

In Toronto, we feed over 180,000 children every morning in our city, because 42% of elementary school students go to school hungry and 62% of secondary students go to school hungry. Hungry children cannot learn. It can affect long-term development and it can affect their achieving their full potential in life.

We need a national breakfast program in this country.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to contribute to the debate on Bill C-4. It is a very comprehensive piece of legislation and goes a long way toward keeping Canada at the level it has already achieved, not by Canada's standards but by international standards, which is the number one place to do business in the world.

That is remarkable. Canadians are not used to being number one. We are kind of modest people and have kept quiet about that, but the reality is that being number one in the world is no small task and did not happen by accident. It happened because of very deliberate actions. The actions we have taken over the last number of years since the great recession in 2008 have put us in this position, and our position is unique.

I go to Washington to deal with my counterparts in the U.S. legislative arm on a continuous basis, and they ask me all the time what it is that Canada has done. In fact, we have been dubbed by some people in America as “the miracle to the north”. They want to know what it is that Canada has done that has brought us to the position of being named by the IMF and the OECD as the number one place to do business in the world, the place with the greatest opportunity over the next number of years to do business.

Creating a million jobs since the recession is no small task. That is a very large number, and very significant. How did that happen? How is it that we rate number one?

The reality is that we have made, let us say, four broad strokes of fundamental change in direction from the direction that our opponents would have taken in Canada.

First, we lowered taxes. We did not increase them. In fact, we lowered them some 160 times, which I will talk about in a minute. Second, we shrank the size of government; third, we freed up the private sector; and, fourth, we have gone after international markets.

I will break those down, because they are rather significant if they are lumped together as a direction and formula for success. All of the G7 countries are looking at similar things to do, but they are having a difficult time doing them.

Let me begin by talking about shrinking the size of government.

Shrinking the size of government is not an easy thing to do. In fact, it is very difficult to do. We went through every department, making certain that if we could do something better as a government we would try to be more efficient in doing that, and we lowered the cost of doing business in Canada so it would put us on a track to make certain that we can compete in the world. It is worthy of note that before the recession, when this government got into power in 2006, we paid down some $37 billion going into the recession so that the debt to GDP ratio was considerably lower at that time. Since that time, we have grown so fast that our debt to GDP ratio has not been compromised. In fact, it is interesting to note that we were at 34.6% in GDP in 2012. Some people would say that is just a number, but let us look at Europe.

We just signed a free trade agreement with Europe. The number one driver of the economy in Europe, let us say, is Germany. Germany's debt to GDP ratio is 57.2%, but the average of the G7 is over 90%. We are almost three times less than the average in terms of debt to GDP ratio.

Are we in good stead? There is a reason for the OECD and the IMF to say that Canada is doing very well, and it is because we have been disciplined as government.

On top of that, when I speak with my counterparts in the United States and tell them that we are forecasting balanced books by 2015, they say they just fought a debt ceiling crisis in October and they are going to have to do it again early in the new year. They say the big debate is about how much more money they can borrow and have printed.

Canada is not printing money. We are creating jobs and opportunity for the private sector to create the prosperity that Canadians deserve and should have as a country, and we are actually achieving that.

This is considerably different from what our counterparts across the way would have done. In fact, the NDP has said that it would have brought in a carbon tax and increased taxes on everything from—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Soup to nuts.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes, soup to nuts. I suppose we could say it that way. They would raise the taxes on absolutely everything.

As for the Liberals, if we want to know what a party is going to do, we should look at what it has done. When the Liberals were in power, they said they balanced the books. Yes, they did, on the backs of the provinces, health care, and social services. It is one thing to say we are going to balance the books; it is another thing to say we are going to balance the books by lowering taxes, not raising them, and by making certain that the transfers to the provinces are not impeded. In fact, we are increasing those transfers.

Let me talk about taxes for a second, because that aspect is rather significant. We have cut taxes over 160 different ways during that time period, providing an extra $3,200 per average family of four. People who had a job in 2008 and still have the same job now are paying that much less tax. That is very significant.

In the business sector, small- and medium-sized businesses are the ones that are really creating the jobs. We have lowered the taxes for them as well, from 12% down to 11%, but on the corporate taxes, we went from 28% over the years down to 15%. We even kept lowering those taxes during the recession. That takes a lot of leadership and a lot of understanding of what drives the economy.

Do members realize that with the taxes now at 15%, we are bringing in more corporate revenue to the federal government to deal with all the social services and all the issues that we have in lower-income brackets than we brought in at 28%? That is an amazing statistic, but it is very worthy of note in looking at what has actually happened with regard to lowering taxes.

We lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. It is very significant. Everyone who buys anything in this country is realizing the benefit from that. This is no small feat.

What does the corporate tax being at 15% do to us? We are creating lots of growth because of the competitive advantage we have with our largest trading partner. The corporate tax rate in America is 35%. That is compared to 15%; no wonder businesses are coming back into Canada. We saw that the headquarters of Tim Hortons, as an example, went to the United States because of the tax advantage. Then they came back. Why? It is the same reason: the tax advantage.

Those are the kinds of things we are seeing right across the entire spectrum in the private sector.

I said that we shrank government. We lowered taxes, which is very significant. What else did we do? We freed up the private sector, and that sector is what is really creating the jobs. We brought in a piece of legislation saying that for major projects, it would be one project, one review, at two years maximum. Those are phenomenal opportunities for the private sector.

We have lowered the red tape some 20% to 30% right across the board. Can we do more? Yes, and we absolutely have to do more when it comes to freeing up the private sector. I have had American counterparts tell me that they can go in and do one-stop shopping for projects and get approval. It is not that they are compromising on the approval but that they are doing it in a more streamlined way. We have to do more than that because we are not there yet, but we have certainly come a long way.

Freeing up the private sector to capitalize on the opportunities that we have in some of our trade agreements becomes very significant. That is the fourth thing that we did. We not only freed up the private sector to compete, but then we went after international agreements so they could compete and capitalize on free trade agreements, such as the one we just signed with the European Union. It is the largest, most comprehensive free trade agreement ever signed between any two countries anywhere in the world.

Members may ask where that came from. Is NAFTA not the largest free trade agreement ever signed in the world? Well, it was at the time. Our opponents disagreed with that, and even today they disagree with NAFTA. It is amazing. That is so, even though it created 40 million jobs, and even though the GDP of the three countries of Mexico, the United States, and Canada, which were at $7.6 trillion at the time of signing, have gone to over $17 trillion today. That could not have been realized when they signed the agreement. No one would have forecast that kind of growth. Everyone just said that it was a good opportunity for more trade, but nobody would have put all the pieces together to say that collectively we would raise our GDP and raise opportunity and prosperity in our three countries to that degree.

I would suggest that the same thing will happen with the European free trade agreement. Europe actually imports some $2.3 trillion a year. It is amazing how much more we can capitalize on that.

This does not happen by accident. Pieces of legislation like this take real leadership. Real opportunity for Canadians is what we are looking for. We are saying that these will get us to success, and that is true.

Before closing my remarks, I want to say that our greatest threat in Canada and in this room should be looking at what happens when these principles are not followed. The United States has gone down from a AAA rating to a AA. Heaven forbid that it ever goes to an A rating, which would compromise it all because of a lack of leadership. We need to stay the course.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague is mistaken when he accuses the NDP of wanting to impose a carbon tax.

What the NDP is actually proposing is a cap and trade system with regard to the price of carbon, an approach that can be found on page 32 of the Conservatives' 2008 platform. Unfortunately, I see that my colleague has changed his position.

I would however like to quote a figure that may surprise him. I am sure that my honourable colleague will be surprised to learn that his government is going to raise taxes for Canadians by almost $8 million over the next five years with budget 2013 alone.

Why does the Conservative government want to increase the burden on middle-class families?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question coming from my colleague across the way. I do not know where she has been when we lowered taxes 160 different ways during the period of time since the recession.

I have been watching very closely. I have been in this House all that time. I have yet to see NDP members stand in their place to support the tax reductions that we have created in this country. It is the absolute reverse position that they have had in this House. They have never supported a reduction in tax.

We are not just talking about it; we have done it, in 160 different ways. That is not just lip service. That is actual action, and it is what we have done.

However, lowering taxes was not the only goal. The goal was to create jobs and opportunity for the private sector and the people of Canada, and that is what we have done. That is what this House should be very proud of.

Even if I were on the other side and knew I had to be in opposition, I would at least sit there, be quiet about it, and accept the thanks for putting Canada in the number one spot in the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not mind picking up on the jobs argument that the member is proposing and asking him to comment on an area in which the government has not done well, the whole area of the manufacturing industry.

To cite a specific example, in the province of Manitoba, the aerospace industry has provided good, solid, quality jobs for many hundreds of Manitobans over the last number of years. Then, when Air Canada had a situation through which we lost our overhaul capabilities, the government stood back and did absolutely nothing. Even though there is a commitment in the Air Canada Public Participation Act to maintain those overhaul maintenance jobs in the city of Winnipeg, the government did absolutely nothing.

He might not necessarily know the details of that specific example, but for the many families that were directly affected, it hurt. It hurt Manitoba's economy.

Perhaps the member would provide some comment in terms of how he believes the current government is addressing the manufacturing industry and the hundreds and thousands of jobs that have been lost in that area.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to.

The member may be right on the specifics of the aerospace aspect, but I can say that supporting the auto sector going through the great recession and the kinds of problems that manufacturing had at that time is something every member of this House actually voted on and had the opportunity to vote on. We all voted for a piece of legislation that increased the opportunity of subsidizing our auto sector, a manufacturing sector. At that time, it was a significant number of dollars. I think it was around $8 billion.

I did not think we were ever going to get a nickel of that back, to be perfectly honest. It was one of my more difficult days in this place. I was wrong, thank goodness. The manufacturing jobs actually were sustained. The auto sector came through the recession fine and is doing better now than it was even before the recession.

Also, some of the trade agreements that we have in place will give opportunity for manufacturing around the world. We are going to be supporting manufacturing, and that is going to increase because of our low cost of doing business in Canada. We are starting to see us being able to compete with even some of the Asian countries when we look forward to manufacturing jobs. We have a great opportunity in this country because we provide conditions for the private sector to win and to compete internationally. When we do that, those businesses will grow Canada into the kind of prosperity that we deserve.

I do not believe we have even come close to reaching our potential, but we are headed in the right direction. As long as we keep going, we will stay number one in the world and surpass all expectations.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, for two main reasons. First, is the content and the second is the process.

With respect to content, this budget implementation bill impacts much more than the Conservative budget. This is an omnibus bill. The word “omnibus” is derived from the Latin and it means “for everything”.

The Conservative government has thrown practically everything into this omnibus bill, as is its habit. This is the fourth omnibus budget implementation bill. This omnibus bill would amend 70 laws or regulations in one bill. That is a massive amount of content. How is a member of Parliament, how is an opposition expected to thoroughly analyze and study all the amendments in this one bill, especially with the introduction of time allocation? I will come back to that in a moment. That particular Conservative tactic deserves a few special moments.

The content in this omnibus bill ranges from changes that got health and safety protection for workers to reductions at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to gutting the National Research Council. Hundreds of our country's top scientists and researchers have been laid off or muzzled. They cannot speak their minds. They are not free to outline their research or their findings. Why? For fear of retribution, that is the answer. They cannot speak for fear of losing their jobs, for fear of being blackballed, for fear of being blacklisted.

Now with Bill C-4, the Conservatives are cutting nearly half of the positions at the National Research Council and giving more power to their hand-picked chairman.

Mr. Speaker, a question is, “Have I lost you yet?” The content goes on and goes on. This omnibus bill also includes two entirely new bills, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund bill and the public service labour relations and employment board bill. This omnibus bill repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

Have I lost you yet, Mr. Speaker? This bill pushes ahead with a tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. This omnibus bill even gives new immigration powers to the minister. Bill C-4 allows the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to create a requirement that foreign nationals wanting to enter or remain in Canada as permanent residents must be issued an invitation from the minister, or must express their interest to the minister through an expression of interest.

Have I lost you now, Mr. Speaker? Do I sound like I am all over the place? I should sound like I am all over the place, because I am all over the place. More specific, the Conservative omnibus bill is all over the place with everything in it but the kitchen sink. The tabling of such a wide-ranging bill in such a short time frame undermines Parliament.

Why does this omnibus bill undermine Parliament? It denies MPs the ability to thoroughly study the bill and its implications. That is the short answer.

I want to move on now from content to process.

Earlier today the Conservative government introduced time allocation on Bill C-4. With this motion, the Conservatives have shut down debate 58 times since the election in the spring of 2011, 4 times alone since the opening of the new session. The Conservatives are setting records, the worst kind of records.

The Conservatives rushed the bill through the House at second reading in order for the finance committee to start studying it. However, the finance committee was busy with pre-budget consultations so it took almost three weeks before it could start studying the bill.

That is the Conservative process. Then what happens when the Conservatives rush a bill through the House? They make mistakes. The government is using its omnibus budget bills to fix mistakes it made in previous omnibus budget bills.

What would this omnibus budget bill do for the Canadian economy? Let us see. Despite what the Conservatives claim, it eliminates thousands of jobs. It cuts direct program spending. It weakens GDP growth. The Conservatives told Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume this fall so they could reset their policy agenda, press the reset button. Only they missed the reset button, or ignored it entirely and they hit the carry on as if things were normal button. Only the Conservatives are not normal. They are so far right they have lost sight of the Canadian way of balance between development and the environment, balance between industry and regulation and balance between health and safety and profit.

The Conservatives claim the economy is their flagship. That is what they boast most about. To that sentiment, I quote Michael Harris. He is well-known in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador for his writing and for his journalism, but he is known just as well here on the mainland. He says:

The PM and his government are not good managers. The nauseating repetition of the claim that the Tories know what they’re doing with the country’s finances will not make it so. They've pissed away more money than Madonna on a shopping spree—a billion on the G8-20 meetings that put a dent in the world’s Perrier supply and little else. They just plain lost $3.2 billion and the guy in charge over at Treasury Board is still there....They are such good fiscal managers that we now have the highest deficit in our history.

Over the last couple of decades, or more, the median wage rate has hardly changed.

Let me make another point on omnibus bills. This omnibus bill, as I said earlier, would amend 70 laws or regulations. As conservative commentator Andrew Coyne has pointed out:

We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch....There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet.

It will not be long now before a Conservative MP stands up in the House and rips into an opposition MP for not supporting a particular piece of legislation, when the legislation the Conservatives are ripping us for was likely contained in an omnibus bill and it was that omnibus bill that the opposition MP voted down. It is an insane Conservative circle. This government stuffs as much non-related legislation into an omnibus bill as possible to get as much passed, to get as much by Canadians as possible.

Conservative MPs stand in the House day after day and sidestep or outright ignore pointed questions on scandals, on abuse and on government itself, but Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are paying attention. Canadians are paying attention. The deception is sinking in. We will work tirelessly on this side of the House to ensure Canadians do not forget these massive omnibus bills or the non-answers. We will work tirelessly to ensure they do not forget the government's undemocratic and un-Canadian ways.

Jack Layton once said that the moment one was absolutely sick and tired of repeating a message, so tired that one could not possibly repeat it another time, it was only then that the message would sink in, that it was getting across. I will never tire of spreading the truth about Conservatives and their agenda.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on my hon. colleague's advice, I should remind him and all members of the House that it was the electorate of Canada that chose a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government that is caring for long-term growth, jobs and economic opportunity in our country.

I would encourage that member to pay attention to the diverse number of third-party endorsements that budget 2013 got from the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and colleges, particularly in my riding, from the Yukon College's Centre for Northern Innovation in Mining. We had Habitat for Humanity celebrate investments made in 2013. The Canadian Press rave reviews about housing investments, job opportunities through colleges and working opportunities.

Surely my hon. colleague has roamed around his riding celebrating the many infrastructure investments that have been brought to Newfoundland and Labrador through the permanency and indexing of the gas tax fund and how much money has been brought into those communities, which those municipalities asked for and which this government delivered. Their investments are directly related to the investments we have made for key projects in those communities. Has my hon. colleague addressed those?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take the member up on a couple of points he began with.

He described the Conservative government as “strong” and “stable”. I would never use those adjectives to describe the Conservative government.

The Conservative government is so weakened by scandal, such as the Senate scandal and the scandal in the Prime Minister's Office, and it is so weakened by non-answers that it has not become “strong” and “stable”, but absolutely ineffective. The business of our country is practically at a standstill because of scandal and because the government is so far from strong and stable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. He referenced to how massive the budget bill was and all the other legislation that was within it. I concur with him on those comments.

The question I have is related to the budget in the sense that health care is one of the greatest expenditures that provincial governments have from coast to coast to coast. There is a need to ensure that there is stability in funding. In fact, there was an agreement, a health care accord, which was reached among the premiers and the Prime Minister, which will expire in 2014. There needs to be a lot more discussion between the federal government and its provincial counterparts to renew that agreement.

Would the member provide some comment on the importance of the federal government working with the provinces to get some things done related to budgetary actions?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question in terms of the importance of the federal government and provincial governments working together. However, one thing we have seen again with the Conservative government and the Prime Minister is the absolute unwillingness to sit down to meet with provincial premiers. He just will not do it.

On health care, it is one of 70 pieces of legislation contained within this omnibus bill and so it is very hard to comment on just one piece of legislation.

On this side of the House, we recognize how critical it is for the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister to speak with the provinces, but that is not happening. That will change in 2015.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to add my comments to the debate.

Two years ago, Canadians elected our government and gave it clear instructions: create jobs, grow the economy, keep taxes low and balance the budget.

Canada has faced challenging times, and we have faced tough decisions. I am very pleased to say that we have made the right choices for Canadian workers, businesses, families, and communities.

The results of these choices are clear: debt is low, and deficits are falling.

Our economic action plan has made Canada one of the top economic performers in the G7, both during the recession and throughout the economic recovery.

Here are the facts.

Since July 2009, the worst point in the global recession, Canada has created over a million net new jobs, 90% of which are full-time, with nearly 85% in the private sector.

With Canada's continued economic growth in the third quarter, this is the ninth consecutive positive quarter, another sign that our economy is on the right track.

The unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years, and it is significantly lower than it is in the United States, a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades.

For the sixth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the soundest in the world.

The federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years.

We have achieved positive results for Canadians, but we are under no illusion that our work is finished. The global economy remains fragile, with growth in advanced economies somewhat slower than expected.

In addition to the threats to the Canadian economy that lie beyond our borders and beyond our shores, I am concerned about the potential threats to the Canadian economy from within our own nation, such as the threats from the leader of the NDP. As if imposing a $20-billion carbon tax was not enough, the leader of the NDP has another multibillion-dollar tax hike he wants to impose on Canadians. He just recently reaffirmed his plan to take billions of dollars, each and every year, out of the pockets of Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses to fund big, bloated government schemes. This NDP tax hike would target job creators, especially small and medium-sized companies, the engine of economic growth. With a nearly 50% increase in their tax bills, it would be devastating, particularly at a time of global economic uncertainty.

Canadians know better. That is why Canada's economic action plan actively pursues new trade and investment opportunities, particularly with large, dynamic, and fast-growing economies.

Our government recently reached an agreement in principle on the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement. That agreement will add the equivalent of 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy.

Economic action plan 2013 focuses on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth, while balancing the budget by 2015.

During the recent great recession, our government took the necessary steps to safeguard our economy, our families, and our jobs. Indeed, it responded quickly and effectively in January 2009 with Canada's economic action plan. It included investments in infrastructure and tax relief for Canadian families. It was instrumental in getting Canadians back to work. At the same time, we kept government expenditures under control.

However, unlike previous Liberal governments, we have not and will not cut major transfers to Canadian families or to other levels of government in order to balance the budget.

That is possibly the most important factor. We all remember the mid-90s, when the previous Liberal government reduced the deficit, yes, but did it on the backs of health care and education for our children.

Instead of our Conservative government taking that approach, we have set clear targets to bring down the deficit and return to a balanced budget by 2015. Our government will also not engage in a risky spending scheme.

Our government does not want to be involved in risky spending schemes. It will not impose a $20 billion carbon tax or increase corporate taxes.

Indeed, our plan to return to balanced budgets is working. Just as our government tackles debt, we are also tackling expenditures. We are reducing the size and cost of government to ensure that taxpayers get value for their money.

We must always find a way to add value to every dollar of Canadian taxpayers' money that is spent.

In addition, we are trying to target, and are doing so very effectively, a lot of tax loopholes. We are addressing aggressive tax planning, clarifying tax rules, combating international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, and improving fairness. When we ensure that everyone pays his or her fair share, it keeps taxes low for all Canadian families and businesses and thereby improves the incentive to actually work, save, and invest in our Canada.

Overall, measures taken by our government since budget 2010 will result in ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion, and our government will go further, enshrining in law its successful and prudent approach to balanced budget legislation.

Just as Canadian families know that they cannot prosper by continually spending money they do not earn, this is how we are managing the Government of Canada. Our Conservative government believes not only in keeping families strong but in keeping people employed. That is why Bill C-4 would deliver a three-year freeze on employment insurance premiums, delivering tax relief for small-business owners and the workers they employ.

I have a number of citations from people, such as the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who have applauded these efforts and say that this is exactly what is required for the Canadian economy. Indeed, Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada, commented in exactly the same way. I want to share what Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

...an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada's entrepreneurs and for their employees. This move will keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.

I could go on with a number of these. The freeze will help attract foreign investment in Canada. It will help create jobs for Canadians and will foster long-term economic growth.

It will encourage job creation and economic growth, which will generate long-term prosperity for all Canadians.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to all Canadians. I encourage all members of the opposition parties to vote in favour of this important measure, Bill C-4, which will leave more money in the hands of the average Canadian.

Of course, we have adopted many other measures that will create jobs, encourage economic growth and generate long-term prosperity for Canada. However, I do not have time today to list them all today.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague with interest. I want to ask one question, but first of all, let me mention that this is an omnibus budget bill, which has so much in it that one questions the democracy of this approach.

The member mentioned deficits and the government's low-taxation plan and low-deficit plan. I have to point out that the government is responsible for the largest deficit in Canadian history.

The member also talked about private sector job growth. Could she tell me how the government has created these jobs and what sectors these jobs are in?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are two points to this query I would like to address.

First is the much maligned omnibus bill. My husband and I have always run our family's budget as an omnibus bill. If we do not have money left over at the end of the year, we know we have failed. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to be as responsible as average Canadians are with their finances.

Regarding deficit reduction, I have some very specific facts. I would remind the hon. member that his party maligned the Conservative government of Canada when, at the very start of its tenure in government, before the economic crisis, I might add, we paid down $37 billion of debt, which gave us the flexibility to respond to what was required when the crisis hit, and it made us the most successful country in the G7.

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

I, too, was quite interested in the member's speech, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate her enunciating some of the principles that are in the economic action plan for this year.

It seems that the opposition members, regardless of what is in a particular budget, will say either that the government is not doing enough, or, as in this case, that the government is trying to do too much.

We live in a much different world. We had the financial crisis and the subsequent great recession, the largest recession we have seen in North American history since the Great Depression. I hope members appreciate that this member is trying to bring out some of the points that are important to helping to bring us forward.

Would the member enunciate some of the policies she is in support of in the bill that matter to her riding?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in my riding, and I share this with a lot of my colleagues, the backbone of Winnipeg South Centre is all the wonderful families in the area. Many of those families are running small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of job creation for our Canada.

I am so very pleased that we are not only in the process of creating jobs but are in the process, with Bill C-4, of ensuring that those small business entrepreneurs, whether they own a phenomenal Italian grocery store or a Subway, would reduce, with this proposal, their costs of EI. More important, or equally important, the workers at all of their stores and all of their enterprises would pay less for the next three years.

We are ensuring that there will be stability. We are ensuring that there will be the ability for families to spend money on other things too.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have here an ad that you might find interesting. I will read it to you.

For sale: Charming Parliament with river views, located in a hard-working country populated by responsible citizens with a still partly intact international reputation. Note to buyer: some renovations are needed.

That is basically what the Conservatives are saying with Bill C-4. They are sending the message to Canadians, and to the world, that this House is now useless, since the decisions of its members are no longer subject to debate. Need I remind the government that debate and information are essential to the survival of democracy?

Let us face the facts and ask ourselves this question: what is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? Information, checks and balances, and meaningful representation are some of the necessary components of a democracy. I may be repeating myself, but just as we did with the three budget bills, we are opposing Bill C-4, because of both its content and the process used by the Conservatives.

Bill C-4 contains a wide range of complex measures that deserve further study, which we do not have the time to do here, because we are once again under a time allocation motion. Introducing bills of this magnitude with such a broad scope and allocating so little time to consider them undermine the work of Parliament by preventing members from thoroughly studying the bill and its implications.

We will then be criticized for voting against Bill C-4. Once again, the Conservatives are trying to keep Canadians in the dark and change a large number of laws without holding actual consultations.

When the Conservatives introduce over 70 legislative amendments in a document of 300 pages, and many of these changes have nothing to do with the budget, it is only reasonable to ask questions. At this stage, we have the obligation to ask questions. I will not dwell on the details of this bill because that would be virtually useless, given the short time allotted to us. Indeed, I wonder whether the members opposite have had time to read the bill that they are voting for as a block.

The process that is being used here is rather worrisome. For example, what about the concentration of power this bills bestows? Many provisions of this bill grant more power to the minister, who will do what he likes in any case. This is a strong trend that we have seen with the amendments to the Labour Code and with health and safety issues. The minister makes the decisions, but who is he to make those decisions alone?

Among other things, this bill will make it more complicated to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. Canadians should not have to work in conditions that pose a threat to their health. This type of decision is easy to make for a minister who works in a comfortable office. He should go work as a logger for awhile and see what kinds of hazards some Canadians face at work. Personally, I am well acquainted with those hazards.

We also see this trend at the National Research Council of Canada, where the government unilaterally eliminated the positions of many world renowned and experienced researchers. Do not worry. The Conservatives will compensate for it by appointing a stronger and more arbitrary president.

I seriously wonder how the Conservatives can run a country without science. On what information are they basing their policies, when there is no consultation, no science, no census and no debate?

Unilateralism has no place in a democracy, and Canadians are well aware of that. They know better. Let us suppose that the Conservatives truly believe that they are omniscient and that they do not need to hear the opinions of others, even experts.

What will happen once the bad guys take power? That is not just hypothetical. Imagine the situation. Canadians would find themselves in a very bad position.

Now imagine that all Canadians believed in a polluter pay principle for the Mackenzie gas project. What will they think of the fact that the Conservatives have now done a 180 on a position they themselves advocated? That is troubling.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, budget implementation bills from 2012 to now will cost over 67,000 Canadian jobs and shrink the GDP by .57%. Is that the kind of economic progress the government wants for this country? It is not what my constituents and I want.

Workers have the right to work in safe and healthy workplaces. People have the right to economic policies that meet their expectations. That includes a healthy environment, secure and well-paid jobs, respect for veterans, an effective fight against tax evasion, and more.

The Conservatives say that they have created a million jobs, but how many of those jobs are part-time, minimum-wage jobs? We will not fall for that. The government cannot solve all of those problems and many others with a wave of a magic wand. The House is here for another purpose: debate.

When I visit people in my riding, they ask why there are so many closure motions. I tell them that the government makes those decisions and that we always vote against closure. We always lose those votes though. We have to make use of the privilege we have of being in the House. Elected representatives have to be allowed to talk about all of the issues and bills that come up in the House.

Omnibus bills are catch-all bills that the government puts all kinds of things into and calls it a day. The opposition's votes are basically wasted because the Conservatives have a majority.

I believe that people in my riding and across Canada want to hear their members of Parliament debate bills here in the House and in committee.

When we come back to the House at the end of January, we will have to debate bills. I hope that this is the last time the government will impose closure until October 2015.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a rhetorical question in my colleague's remarks when she asked how many of the jobs that have been created are part time. There was an implication that most of the jobs that have been created are somehow part time. I would like to remind my colleague that Canada has created over one million net new jobs, 90% of them are full-time jobs and 85% are in the private sector.

It is important that, when we are sharing information in this House with Canadians who may be watching, we get the information accurate. I would like to confirm the fact that 90% of these jobs are full-time jobs and 85% are in the private sector.

I would like to ask my colleague why she would be opposed to the government's record of job creation.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am not opposed to job creation.

The question I asked earlier in my speech is one that I hear from people in my riding. The Conservatives are telling us that they have created jobs, but my constituents do not see them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus a question on the budget. However, I would also quickly make reference to the fact that we are not happy, and I have said this before, that there is so much legislation brought forward through this particular bill.

Having said that, I want to emphasize what I believe is a serious problem, something the leader of the Liberal Party has done time and time again with regard to the issues facing the middle class today.

I would challenge the member to reflect, as many of us have, on the impact it is having, in terms of things such as young people. Today we have more and more young people living at home with their parents. It is an affordability issue. They are not able to go to university and rent apartments, as they have in the past. We have more young adults living at home because of the economic circumstances.

The middle class has been hit very hard over the last number of years. I wonder if the member would provide comment in terms of how the middle class has been disadvantaged over the years of the Conservative government.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is there still a middle class? Its income has been dropping from year to year and these people are getting fewer and fewer services. It is true that young people are living with their parents for longer. However, I remember knowing people who lived with their parents because it suited both them and their parents.

However, it is true that we need to create jobs with good salaries and good work conditions, and we do not want people to work in dangerous conditions. Our young people need work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant speech.

We are debating a bill today under time allocation. With this bill, the government will eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to set the premium rate. This Conservative government is once again trying to centralize things and give more power to the ministers.

Could my colleague talk about power being centralized and dialogue being cut short, and also about how they talk here in the House?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I am speechless about employment insurance. We should be working for the people who pay into employment insurance. Very few people are receiving employment insurance benefits anymore because it is getting harder and harder to meet the eligibility conditions and requirements.

I hope that people are not having a harder time qualifying for employment insurance just so the government can pay down the deficit, as we have seen with the Conservatives and the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today with regard to Bill C-4, because there is a part of it that pertains specifically to my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. That is under division 7, clauses 239 to 248, which deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks. I am sure my friend from the Green Party will be listening intently to that.

I want to provide some context with respect to the Dominion Coal Blocks, which most members are probably not familiar with, and how we got to where we are and why we are proposing a divesting of them.

Back in 1897, the Dominion Coal Blocks were created through the Crow’s Nest Pass Act, which allowed for the railways to come in from Alberta to British Columbia. However, they had to provide something back to the federal government in return. They provided a fairly large swath of land in southeastern British Columbia, which gave the rail lines the opportunity to come in. Those lands were acquired by the federal government in 1905. As a result, they were largely underutilized and have supported limited forestry operations and recreational activities since that time.

We know the Dominion Coal Blocks have a huge potential regarding metallurgical coal, which in common terms is the steel-making coal, used vastly around the world for a number of things.

There are two lots in discussion here, those being lot 73 and lot 82.

Lot 73 is located between Sparwood, British Columbia, and Hosmer, British Columbia, to the east. It is a section of land of approximately 2,000 hectares. It contains a very rich resource of metallurgical coal. Some would argue it has as much as 75 million tonnes of metallurgical coal. Others would say it is even higher.

Lot 82, which is located south of Fernie, British Columbia, in what is referred to as the Flathead Valley, poses a bit of a different issue, not only for the federal government but for the Province of British Columbia and municipal and regional governments.

I am glad to see the federal government has considered splitting lot 82. It is a sizeable lot of 18,000 hectares. The southern part of lot 82, which goes into the Flathead Valley, will be protected from natural resource extraction, which I think is a great move by our government, because what it does do is protect the integrity of the Flathead Valley, one of the most precious resources in all of Canada if not North America for its water and forestry resources, as well as a number of wildlife. The greatest habitat of grizzly bear in all of North America is within the Flathead range.

On the other hand, the other part of lot 82 would allow an opportunity for natural resource extraction, should there be an availability for it. That is a great opportunity as well.

This bill being moved forward would give the federal government the opportunity to divest itself of both lots 73 and 82. It is a great opportunity not only for the federal government but also for the extraction industry to move forward with some great opportunities with respect to metallurgical coal.

I will list some of the opportunities available not only through the Dominion Coal Blocks but also through the great resource we have in the southeast corner of British Columbia, of which many members may not be aware. In the southeast corner of British Columbia there are five coal mines. On average we export 27 million tonnes of metallurgical coal per year around the world. We are the second largest exporter of metallurgical coal in the world and the largest exporter in North America. To provide some context, the average price for metallurgical coal is around $150 a tonne. Each car of coal is worth about $15,000, which equates to about $11,200,000 worth of metallurgical coal being extracted out of the Elk Valley per day.

What the Dominion Coal Blocks would do is extend the life of the opportunity for coal extraction within the Elk Valley. The opportunity for any coal company to come along and potentially extract coal, especially from lot 73, is huge.

What I do appreciate, not only from the federal government but also from the provincial government, is that the inclusion of first nations has been paramount in the discussions with regard to the Dominion Coal Blocks and they have been included from the get-go. The Ktunaxa Nation has been a partner in this right from the onset. They understand the value of natural resource extraction, and they have also become a partner with Teck Resources with regard to the opportunity for profit sharing.

I think there are some great synergies that we can see here, with the federal government, with the provincial government and with municipal governments in the areas, where we have satisfied the opportunities for the environment in the Flathead Valley. We have satisfied the opportunity to work diligently and closely with first nations, and we have satisfied the opportunity to divest of some land we have held since 1905. It is time to divest and allow natural resource extraction to continue on in the Elk Valley. Also the federal government would have the opportunity to sell off some land that, for the most part, it would not be able to utilize.

I just want to come back to clause 241 within C-4, which says:

Nothing in the Crow’s Nest Pass Act, in the agreement mentioned in that Act or in any covenant in the instrument conveying the Dominion Coal Blocks to His Majesty in right of Canada operates so as to limit the power of Her Majesty in right of Canada to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks, or any part of the Dominion Coal Blocks or any interest in them, in any manner and on any conditions that Her Majesty in right of Canada considers appropriate.

I think that is a great way to explain to people that this government has dealt with this in a very efficient manner, a very fair manner, and everyone at the table seems to be happy with how we are going to move forward.

In closing, I just want to say that the coal industry in Canada is a vibrant industry, especially in southeastern British Columbia, and that Dominion Coal Blocks would bring a lot to this, extending the life of many of the mines in the Elk Valley. We are looking forward to the day when we can say the Dominion Coal Blocks would be used for natural extraction, especially in lot 73, and in lot 82, we can say we preserved the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech made by the member opposite, who is from British Columbia. He did a fine job of detailing the issues surrounding our natural resources. He spoke about coal and other resources.

I fully agree that there are resources available; however, we must have the means to develop them in a responsible and scientific manner.

Bill C-4 is an attack on the National Research Council of Canada because it eliminates nearly half of the agency's positions and gives more authority to the president, who was chosen by the government.

Does my colleague think that firing hundreds of scientists and researchers will help develop the natural resources in his riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say, with regard to the coal extraction in the Elk Valley, in the southeast corner of British Columbia, that we use science to the utmost to ensure that we properly extract, to ensure that waste rock is put away in an environmental manner and to ensure that all wildlife is protected.

I believe that, in the southeast corner of British Columbia, we are an example of how a lot of the natural resource extraction around Canada, around the world, could better be utilized.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important that every so often we re-emphasize exactly what Bill C-4 would do. It is a Conservative majority government that has made the decision to bring in vast amounts of legislation through the back door of a budget bill, independent pieces of legislation that should stand alone. That, ultimately, has been an assault on democracy here inside the chamber. We are not being provided the opportunity to debate many aspects of the legislation.

The member just made reference to one very minor issue, but an important one. At the end of the day, there are so many other issues that will not be voted on separately, that will not even be debated because of this majority government mentality of sneaking legislation through the back door of a budget bill. I wonder if the member might want to reflect on all the lost discussions and debates that will not take place because of the majority government's attitude, which is disrespectful for the process here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear a question in there. However, I am sure that if the member had read the bill, especially in regard to the Dominion Coal Blocks, he would see that it has everything to do with the budget, because what we would do is divest a property we have held since 1905. We are about to create some synergies for the federal government, and that is what it is all about.

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

Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last chance I have to speak to this bill, because of time allocation, I want to correct a few things that the member for Yellowhead said. I cannot find any reference to any study anywhere that says Canada is the best country in the world in which to do business. The World Bank lists Canada as number 17 on the list of best countries in which to do business, with Singapore at the top. The most recent OECD report from November 2013 says, “The pause in the economic recovery since early 2012 has continued...”.

I want to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for bringing to light this very important part of Bill C-4 that should never have been in an omnibus budget bill. The Dominion Coal Blocks lands and the incredibly important ecological significance of the Flathead Valley, its potential as a national park and its connection to Waterton Glacier International Peace Park all require separate study by a committee to ensure that those ecological values are protected.

However, I thank the member. It is in his riding. He has spoken forcefully about the need to have ecological protection built into the disposition of these lands. I would ask if he would not consider a conservation covenant to run with those lands to ensure they are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member would know that in parts of the lower Flathead, including lot 82, we do have an agreement between the State of Montana, the Province of British Columbia and the federal government, with regard to ensuring that no natural resource extraction occurs in the Flathead Valley. That is already in place.

As for places to come and work, where we have a vibrant economy, the southeast corner of British Columbia is doing very well with coal extraction and metallurgical coal, and I invite anyone to come and see it someday.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, in September of this year, Moody's reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

That is because we have a Prime Minister and the best Minister of Finance in the world who keep their hands on the tiller and make sure we have one of the greatest economies on this planet. That is no accident. It is because we have a government that looks to this, and we make sure that all Canadians benefit from it.

Moody's Investors Service's report stated that Canada's AAA credit rating:

....reflects a large, diversified economy as well as sound macroeconomic policy management.

Standard and Poors has also once again confirmed our government's AAA credit rating and highlighted in its report our stable and credible policy-making and a highly resilient economy even in the face of a fragile global economy, which yet remains. However, because of our Conservative government's, our Prime Minister's and our Minister of Finance's attention to this detail, Canada remains one of the strongest economies on the planet. Its report also touted high investor confidence and, in particular, our continued openness to trade as reliable indicators of Canada's future economic success. This endorsement follows our recently announced agreement in principle on a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union.

That trade agreement would make Canada one of only a few developed economies to have preferential access to two of the world's largest markets, the EU and the U.S., which together represent more than 800 million consumers and almost half of the global gross domestic product. I know my riding of Etobicoke Centre would benefit greatly from this trade deal because there are huge implications in it for Canada.

Our government's number one priority remains the economy, because that is the unwavering focus. More than one million more Canadians are working now than in July 2009, the best job creation record of the G7 industrialized countries.

It is my pleasure to speak to the second budget implementation bill. By implementing the measures in the economic action plan 2013, our government is helping to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, and grow Canada's economy.

Measures in the economic action plan 2013 No. 2, aimed at spurring job creation and economic growth, include extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers; increasing and indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption, to make investing in small business more rewarding; expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; and freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

The economic action plans will be introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; closing tax loopholes relating to character conversion transactions, synthetic dispositions, leveraged life insurance arrangements and other schemes, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share; and extending, in certain circumstances, the period during which the Canada Revenue Agency can reassess a taxpayer who fails to report income from foreign property.

We do respect taxpayers' dollars. We modernized the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery, which meets our promise of eliminating red tape and unnecessary burdensome administration to get a lot of these things done. We are improving the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by also expanding electronic service delivery. For example, electronic signatures will suffice, whereas previously wet signatures were required, which increased the burden on people to actually get to the offices and do it. Now we have made it much easier to do all of these things online.

We are also phasing out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

All these measures ensure that Canada is on the right track for economic prosperity. I think most of the world would agree with that.

I would like to further expand on a measure I just mentioned: freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years. Falling unemployment over the recovery means that the EI operating account is on track to return to balance, and the premium rate increases previously projected are simply no longer necessary.

Earlier this year, on September 9, our government announced it would freeze the employment insurance premium rate at the 2013 level of $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings for 2014, and additionally that the rate would be set no higher than $1.88 for 2015 and 2016.

What does that mean? It means that by doing, this the government is promoting stability and predictability for employers and employees. Also, it is going to leave $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in 2014. That means businesses and their employees, for example, in my riding of Etobicoke Centre, will keep more money in their pockets, which is great news for our local economy, especially for our small businesses, of which I have many in my riding. This measure also establishes that the premium rate for 2017 and onwards would be set according to the seven year break-even rate setting mechanism. This will ensure that EI premiums are no higher than they need to be to pay for the EI program over a seven year period.

Another measure that will help businesses in my riding is the hiring credit for small business. Small business is the engine of job creation in Canada and in recognition of the challenges faced by small businesses across the country, budget 2011 announced a temporary hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 per employer. That is significant. The 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 activities. Indeed, the hiring credit was so successful that it was extended in 2012.

While the Canadian economy is improving, the global economy remains fragile. In order to support job creation, clause 135 would amend part IV of the Employment Insurance Act to extend and expand the hiring credit for small business in 2013. By doing this, an employer whose premiums were $15,000, increased from $10,000 used in the 2011 and 2012 hiring credit for small business, or less in 2012, would be refunded the increase in their 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012, to a maximum of $1,000. This, again, would put more money into the pockets of small businesses.

It is estimated that 560,000 small businesses will benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million in 2013. That is significant. This means that businesses and their employees, in my riding of Etobicoke Centre in particular, will be keeping more of that money. That is great news for our local economy, especially those small businesses all across Canada that will benefit from this.

Economic action plan 2013 also confirms our government's intention to create a new and innovative expression of interest immigration management system that would allow employers, provinces and territories to select skilled immigrants from a pool of applicants that best meet Canada's economic need. The expression of interest model is a new electronic, fully automated, application management system for economic immigration to Canada that would establish a two step immigrant application process, introducing the concept of the stand-alone expression of interest pre-application stage followed by an application by invitation only to the best candidates only. Candidates would complete an online form to express their interest in coming to Canada and provide information about their skills and experience, which would determine their eligibility for entry into the EOI pool. Pool submissions can be ranked, sorted, searched and top candidates would be invited to submit an application for permanent residence, which could be processed in an expedited manner.

A new expression of interest division would be added to IRPA that would allow for a stand-alone pre-application stage as a first step to immigrating to Canada under certain economic programs. In addition, the division would include broad provisions outlining the process of EOI, the required information sharing measures, as well as measures enabling a role for third parties, provinces and territories, as well as employers, under this new system. This would allow Canada to bring the best and brightest to our country, not only because we need to have sustained immigration, but also we need people who will come to our country, work closely with us, contribute to the tax base right away and make contributions to Canada within a short time of arriving.

In the past, the economic action plan has greatly benefited seniors. My riding has the eighth highest demographic of seniors in the country. These people have contributed so much to building our country and have in fact laid the foundations that all of us walk on. That is why we have done more for seniors than any other government. Budget 2011 enhanced the guaranteed income supplement, investing more than $300 million per year to improve the financial security and well-being of more than 680,000 seniors across Canada. Budget 2011 increased the budget of the new horizons for seniors program from $40 million to $45 million annually.

There are so many good things to talk about in this budget, but I will summarize by simply saying that clearly our government is on the right track. We have a Prime Minister and the best Minister of Finance in the world who have managed it deftly. They have been praised by all of their peers around the planet. We have one of the greatest economies in the G7 and we will continue to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives usually have an ally in the Conseil du patronat when it comes to labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

However, Yves-Thomas Dorval, the president of the Conseil du patronat, has criticized the fact that the federal government does not seem to have done an impact study before making its decision. It is generally very close with the Conseil du patronat, but the government did not even talk to the Conseil before making this kind of decision.

Did the Conservatives consult anyone? If so, whom? I do not want them to tell me that they invested $1,000 for small businesses, because we suggested an investment of $2,000.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before any of this comes out and before any budget is released, we do extensive budget consultations. In fact, every member of Parliament, as many of my colleagues here do, should have pre-budget consultations within their ridings as well, not only with local stakeholders but organizational and business group stakeholders, chambers of commerce and many others who feed in. We take those comments and submissions and we produce them, support them and provide them to the minister for his consideration within a budget bill. That happens on a regular business. We always consult.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments in regard to changes in immigration. As much as I would have welcomed the opportunity to see that come to the House in a different form, such as separate legislation, it is important for us to recognize the provincial nominee program. When I was on the immigration committee, I was a very strong advocate for trying to deal with ways in which we could look at expanding the program because of the success. Nowhere in Canada has it been more successful than in my home province of Manitoba.

Specific to that program, does the member believe provinces, such as Manitoba, that have done well with the program should be allowed to retain the number of certificates that they have been able to issue out? As the demand grows from other provinces, there seems to be a push to try to take the certificates away from the province of Manitoba.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I served on the immigration committee with the hon. member and he was hard working and contributed valuably to that work.

We work very closely with all provinces in their provincial nominee programs and all provinces have their specific unique needs. The minister works with his colleagues very closely and it has been one of the most successful programs in Canada for being able to allow provinces to select and choose the immigrants who they need for their local and provincial purposes.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good things in this bill, but there are also a lot of problems.

One of the biggest problems is that it is another omnibus bill. It is impossible for the public to absorb and assess the content of this bill. It is even impossible for parliamentarians to do so, and that is our job. That is what we are elected to do.

Nevertheless, the Conservatives continue to move forward with their undemocratic ideology and introduce these massive bills.

I have a question for the member for Etobicoke Centre, who just spoke. Does he honestly think that this bill should contain a provision that takes away a pregnant woman's right to refuse work conditions that would be harmful to her baby?

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre has only about 30 seconds left to answer.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can address that in 30 seconds, that was pretty broad.

However, this government is the most democratic in history. As we said earlier, we have let the most number of private members' bills pass since 1972. We have had the most free open votes. We have nothing to answer to that whipped party for democracy.

As I said earlier, we have consulted with all kinds of stakeholders. We on this side have actually managed to read the budget and if those members need help, I am prepared to assist.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-4 today.

On November 7, I was at a book launch of the Right Hon. Joe Clark, the book entitled How We Lead: Canada in a Century of Change. Incidentally, I recommend reading it. That evening I met Larry Rousseau who is the Regional Executive Vice President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

We exchanged comments about this bill. I mentioned that Bill C-4 was explosive. It was a play on words and I am happy to see that he agreed and he picked that expression up because he used it in a text that he had published in The Huffington Post on November 23, but he also used it in a number of meetings the following week.

He told me on the Wednesday following, November 13, that he and the Public Service Alliance of Canada would be organizing a series of meetings to brief public servants in this town about the impact of Bill C-4 and that they would invite all the MPs from the area on this side of the river and the Outaouais to attend these meetings.

I attended the four meetings that were held on that Wednesday, where hundreds of public servants came to express their real concerns with the bill, which is now before us, and the contents of this omnibus legislation, specifically in terms of its far-reaching changes to the legislation that governs the federal public service and also workers that fall under federal jurisdiction through the Canada Labour Code.

The bill essentially does blow up a number of public service rights that have been acquired over the past half century, starting in the sixties when the prime minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, granted the federal public servants the lawful right to strike within “un cadre législatif très utile”. They are almost going to lose that.

In a very summary manner, I will say what Bill C-4 would do to this.

First, it would give the government the ability to define essential services in a way that was not done before. Before that, there was a mechanism where both parties, the employer and the employees, could present their arguments and the body that rendered the decision was respected. However, now this law essentially gives that authority entirely to the government.

Unions will no longer have the right to arbitration, yet it is a very important tool that has often been used to settle disputes. Now arbitration will not be an option unless 80% of the members do a job that is considered essential.

Once again, the government is giving itself the right to very easily control a union's ability to use arbitration. It is taking away the essential right to a negotiation tool that works well when the parties cannot come to an agreement.

Even if unions manage to win the right to arbitration, the government has also changed the conditions that arbitrators can use. They can only refer to the government's financial situation or recruitment and retention issues in the public service.

Everything else that could be considered before will now be taken away, including the responsibility of arbitrators to evaluate—as part of a broader, Canadian context—the situation of public servants involved in the negotiations before them. That, too, will be eliminated.

These arbitration boards will no longer be independent. Basically, they will have to report to the government. In addition, the definition of danger is changing, which will affect 200,000 public servants and 800,000 other employees in Canada.

The minister or one of his delegates will be responsible for defining danger. Those are the major changes that have been made, but there are others as well. They will set us back 50 years. Gone is the tremendous progress made regarding the rights of unionized workers in Canada's public service and the workers governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Next June, the five largest federal public service unions will see their agreement expire. What I believe is happening is that the government is outrageously and outlandishly tilting the playing field in its favour so that it can come to these negotiations and essentially adopt a take it or leave it attitude.

We have seen the government do that before. It was with the provinces on the health accord. I was party to that accord in 2004. We negotiated and signed a health accord for 10 years. As we heard today during question period, it is coming to term next year. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Finance, has basically said that this is it; take it or leave it. It is not a healthy position in terms of relationships.

In terms of the federal government, we need a healthy relationship with our employees, and it would be very seriously affected by the provisions in Bill C-4. What are some of the consequences? We are looking at further erosion, certainly, of the rights and the morale of our public servants. We are also looking at affecting the delivery of services to the Canadian public. There is also a longer-term impact, which concerns a topic we have been bringing to the fore on a regular basis.

The initiatives in this bill will weaken unions. That is contrary to the common good and not in the public interest.

Let us not forget that, from 1950 to the 1980s, there was a phenomenon known as the Great Compression. During those years, the income gap shrank thanks in large part to unions. In 1951, 28.4% of Canadian workers were unionized. That rose to 40% in the 1980s, reaching 41.8% in 1984.

Since then, numbers have fallen and now stand at around 30%. Coincidentally, the wage and income gap within the Canadian population has grown.

We know that the middle class is now earning 5% less, while income levels of the super rich have risen astronomically.

I am sure my colleagues will love the title of this 2009 book by Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal. Paul Krugman is an economist and Nobel Prize winner, so we have to be careful how we attack him here. I will quote a passage in that book:

...everything we know about unions says that their new power [after World War II] was a major factor in the creation of a middle-class society... First, unions raise average wages for their membership; they also, indirectly and to a lesser extent, raise wages for similar workers, even if they aren't represented by unions, as nonunionized employers try to diminish the appeal of union drives to their workers. As a result unions tend to reduce the gap in earnings between blue-collar workers and higher-paid occupations, such as managers. Second, unions tend to narrow income gaps among blue-collar workers by negotiating bigger wage increases for their worst-paid members than for their best-paid members. And nonunion employers, seeking to forestall union organizers, tend to echo this effect. In other words, the known effects of unions on wages are exactly what we see in the Great Compression: a rise in the wages of blue-collar workers compared with managers and professionals, and a narrowing of wage differentials among blue-collar workers themselves.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I know him to be a champion of public servants in this region. We have many interests in common, including defending public servants.

It is obvious that because of its ideology, this government is predisposed to being against the state and our public servants, who are professionals.

Today we learned that this bill will lead to an increase in subcontracting. The reality is that there will be more and more subcontracting.

I am wondering if my colleague believes, as I do, that this government basically believes in privatization.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not go so far as to say that there cannot be some subcontracting if it is shown that expertise is required or is not available within the public service.

However, when the experience and the expertise exist and the government opts for expensive subcontracting, I wonder if it is justified or if it is motivated by ideology, as my colleague mentioned. Unfortunately, I believe that that is the reason for some privatization and subcontracting. While I do not want to say that subcontracting is always a bad decision, that is all too often the case.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. He basically talked about workers' rights in Canada, especially in the public service.

We have been very fortunate in this country to have always had a reliable, non-partisan public service that was, until the last number of years, able to give advice to ministers, without fear of repercussions, in a non-partisan way. However, when I talk to people within the public service in this day and age, there is a tremendous fear. It is as if they are being attacked by ministers, by the President of the Treasury Board, and by the government itself.

There are a lot of public servants in the member's riding. I am seeing a real fear within the public service, and that has to be having an impact on morale and productivity.

I wonder if the member for Ottawa—Vanier is seeing the same thing, which is that ministries clearly do not accept advice they do not agree with. They have the right to turn it down, but instead of accepting that advice as good advice to consider, they seem to turn it around and attack the public service. I think all Canadians are the losers.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad reality my colleague just described. Indeed, I have witnessed that way too often in Ottawa, and not just in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier, which I have the privilege of representing. Throughout the nation's capital, there is now a mood of fright. It is essentially a management tool, it seems, which the government uses quite extensively.

I could mention how the Conservatives proceeded in the reduction of the federal public service in the last couple of years. They were looking at reducing it by 20,000, but 100,000 people got letters essentially telling them that they could be at risk. That is a method of dealing with people that is not very sound, because it creates not only bad morale but a great deal of anxiety, and it affects the productivity of these people.

I would urge the government to perhaps change its attitude vis-à-vis the federal public service. We have a very good public service, and it deserves some respect and some management that will indeed deal with them fairly.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my hard-working Richmond Hill constituents to speak on the second economic action plan 2013 implementation bill, or Bill C-4, as we all know it.

Before I begin my comments, I would like to reflect on some of the positive results we have already achieved with our economic action plan. Many of these successes are included in my recent Richmond Hill report, which will soon be circulating throughout my riding. It notes that over one million more Canadians are employed today than at the through of the recession in 2009. It points out that Canada has the best job creation record and the lowest debt level of all G7 industrialized countries. It notes that Standard and Poor's has again confirmed our AAA rating while highlighting our stable and credible policy-making and highly resilient economy as factors behind this achievement.

The report also informs Richmond Hill residents that, as confirmed in the government's annual financial report, our country is on track to return to balanced budgets. By eliminating wasteful spending and ineffective government programs, we have enabled the deficit to fall by $7.4 billion from the year before. We remain on target to balance the budget in 2015, and a surplus of $3.7 billion is expected in the year 2015-16.

Best of all, we have done this without raising taxes or cutting transfer payments to our provinces and territories. In fact, we have done the complete opposite. We have nearly doubled transfers and have cut taxes over 160 times.

These actions have led to a federal tax burden on the average family that is $3,220 less than when our Conservative government took office. It also means that government revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product is at its lowest level in over 50 years. It is a record that is once again the best by far among G7 countries. My constituents are pleased that our efficient and effective government is putting money back into their pockets, exactly where it belongs.

I mention these things, because this track record of success becomes the backdrop to our actions going forward. Our plan is clearly working, and the implementation measures contained in Bill C-4 would build on these achievements.

For example, Bill C-4 corrects many of the tax avoidance activities that have crept into our system. It proposes measures to reduce international tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and tax planning, and tax loopholes and to clarify the tax rules. It proposes stiff new monetary penalties and criminal offences for persons who evade taxes by using electronic suppression of sales, or ESS, software to falsify sales records. It also provides penalties for persons found to manufacture, develop, sell, process for sale, or offer for sale ESS software.

Tax evasion and avoidance entails a real fiscal cost to governments and taxpayers. It is unfair to businesses and unfair to individuals who play by the rules. Our government will not tolerate tax cheats. Canadians want integrity in the tax system, and the proposals in Bill C-4 would deter this type of activity.

I am also pleased to highlight some of the additional job-creating measures in Bill C-4 that the good people in my riding of Richmond Hill, such as the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce, are very pleased about. For example, the Employment Insurance Act would be amended to allow the employment insurance premium rate to be frozen at 2013 levels for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016. This one measure would save Canadian businesses over $660 million in 2014 alone.

Going forward, it would ensure that EI premiums were no higher than they needed to be to pay for the EI program. Rates would be set according to a seven-year break-even rate-setting mechanism. This would ensure that EI premiums were set no higher than necessary over that seven-year period.

By enacting these changes, we are promoting stability and predictability for employers and employees.

We believe that small businesses are the engine of job creation in Canada. In budget 2011, to help stabilize that sector and recognize the challenges they face, we instituted a temporary hiring credit for small businesses of up to $1,000 per employer. The credit provided needed relief for small businesses by helping to defray the costs of hiring new workers. It was so successful in contributing toward job creation and retention that it was extended in 2012 and today I am pleased to say, as we all know, that budget 2013 will once again extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses to 2014.

Bill C-4 proposes the technical requirements to make this into law. It would also enhance the credit by increasing the overall threshold from $10,000 to $15,000. An employer whose premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012 will be refunded the increase in their 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012, to a maximum of $1,000. This job-creating measure would save an estimated 560,000 small businesses in our country $225 million in 2013, which, in turn, can be reinvested in their firms.

Bill C-4 also proposes measures to eliminate the inefficient and ineffective tax subsidy in labour-sponsored venture capital corporations. Experts such as the OECD have told us that these vehicles have distorted the market for venture capital, lowered the average quality of deals and limited the supply of equity to non-traditional industries and newer companies. We heard that advice and we acted. Labour-sponsored venture capital corporations will be phased out and replaced with a new venture capital program that will do more to create jobs and economic growth in Canada. The phase-out leaves the credit at 15% when claimed for a taxation year ending before 2015, reduces it to 10% for the year 2015, to 5% in 2016, and fully eliminates it in 2017.

To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and in energy-efficient equipment, Bill C-4 proposes to expand the classification of clean energy generation equipment eligible for the accelerated capital cost allowance rate of 50%. I know many businesses in my riding will benefit from this expanded classification and this, combined with all the job-creating measures in economic action plan 2013, will help create jobs and economic growth in the great town of Richmond Hill.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada has experienced solid job creation since the implementation of our economic action plan. Today, in addition to having the lowest unemployment rate since 2008, the Canadian labour market is also experiencing a high labour-force participation rate. This means that a high proportion of the population aged 15 years and over in Canada are either working or actively seeking work. This is an indication that the unemployed are seeking work and finding it. In contrast, the United States' participation rate has declined sharply and now stands at its lowest level in more than 35 years.

In Canada, this has caused some imbalances between unemployment and job vacancies. Some Canadian firms are experiencing difficulty in hiring, including the skilled trades in sectors such as mining, oil and gas extraction, and construction. Employers are also having difficulty hiring highly skilled professionals in science-based occupations, such as engineers and architects. On the other hand, some Canadians are unemployed because they do not have the right skills for available jobs in expanding sectors and regions.

Budget 2013 takes several steps to solve this dilemma. It announced that the government will transform skills training in Canada through the introduction of the Canada job grant as part of the renewal of the labour market agreements in 2014-15. Another key step is found in Bill C-4, which through changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, would allow for the creation of a new and innovative expression of interest, or EOI, immigration management system.

I would like to conclude by saying that I could elaborate at length on the many benefits to Canadians contained in Bill C-4. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the swift passage of Bill C-4 so that Canadians may begin to reap the many benefits that it contains.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements that I find are missing from the bill in terms of dealing with economic development.

In my region, a large mining sector, we are having a very difficult time bringing miners in. One of the reasons for that, if we ask all of the northern mayors, is the issue of housing. People are not building housing stock. There is no available housing. It is just not worth people moving. They will not move if they have to spend $300,000 or $400,000 for a house in a mining town. This is happening all across the north, but it is not only in the north. We see in the city of Toronto now that the price of affordable rent is pushing people who would previously have been middle class to share and double-up on apartments.

Under the Conservative government, we do not have any plan for a national housing strategy, yet, it is affecting development. It is affecting the development of the middle class and it is causing more and more people to have to put money into rent that they should be putting into investments, savings and education.

Has my hon. colleague looked at the issue in his area in terms of the price of affordable housing becoming so difficult to afford that it is actually affecting the bottom lines of many Canadian families?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point the hon. member to the many initiatives that the Minister of State for Social Development and the Minister of Employment and Social Development have announced over recent months with respect to affordable housing. Some of those investments and announcements were announced in my riding of Richmond Hill.

Let me say this. It is not just us, the Conservatives, who are saying that Canada is on the right track. If we look at the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, they are saying that Canada will continue to be a leader in job creation and a leader in the economy among the G7 countries moving forward in the ensuing years.

We all have to work together. Once again, I would urge the hon. member, his colleagues and all members of the House to support Bill C-4 so that we can get on and get the job done for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, because the member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight an issue that is really important to all members of the House, that is the typhoon that hit the Philippines.

There were a number of requests made. One in particular dealt strictly with immigration and ensuring that we could assist those individuals who were in that disaster area and who were profoundly affected by the disaster by speeding up processing times for immigration. The other request that we put forward dealt with individuals from the affected area who are here under some form of a temporary work visa, visitor visa or study visa and assisting them by getting extensions put into place so that they would not have to travel back to that area.

I realize that this is a little bit off topic, but I wonder if the member could provide comment or an update on that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me just reiterate that our thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this horrible tragedy, I will just call it that, which Typhoon Haiyan imposed on the people of the Philippines.

The member will be pleased to know that recently in the citizenship and immigration committee, of which he was a contributing and valuable member, we listened to testimony from the immigration program manager in Manila, who spoke to us about the additional staffing, hours and resources that were put in place in the Manila office to deal with the families in the region that was directly affected by the typhoon.

As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has clearly stated, we are prioritizing those requests on a case-by-case basis.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, a second budget implementation act.

Unfortunately, I only have 10 minutes to talk about the wonderful things that are contained within Bill C-4 and about all of the wonderful things we have done as a government to not only make our economy one of the strongest performing economies in the world, certainly, within the G7, creating over one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession, but also about some issues that are more close to home, rather than the big macro issues, and some of those are in the riding of York Centre.

I am privileged and honoured to represent the wonderful people of the riding of York Centre. Many of the people who reside in York Centre are new to Canada. They come from every country around the world. We have the largest number, for example, of Russian-speaking people of any riding in the country; the third-largest number of Filipinos; and the fastest-growing Latino population. These people are coming to Canada for hope and opportunity. They are coming for the opportunity that our government has created for them.

We have created economic conditions that people can take advantage of. They can create businesses. They can be employed in jobs.

My father came from Europe after the war. He was the only survivor from his family. When I was growing up, I remember peeking out the curtains, waiting for my dad to come home every night and watching him haul himself out of the car and just really dragging his knuckles across the driveway. I really wanted to play with him. I wanted him to help me with my homework. I remember how dead tired he was. He, nevertheless, took the time to help me with my homework, to engage with me, to read to me.

I do a lot of community outreach, as I am sure many of the members do in this chamber. When I go around my riding of York Centre to canvass door to door and go to community events, I see so many people who are new to this country of Canada and who are new to the riding of York Centre. They are trying to be the best Canadians they possibly can because they have come to this country for a variety of reasons, certainly to seek opportunity but also to escape persecution and racism. They are coming here not so much for themselves but more for their kids. When I see them with their kids and with their families so engaged, I remember when I was growing up, feeling exactly the same way. I know how these new immigrants to York Centre are feeling because I see a lot of me in them.

It is wonderful to know that we have a government that is coming to the aid and having the backs of Canadians so that we have fostered an economy whereby we have job creation and we have an environment where small businesses can flourish.

Just to get down to some specifics, Canada is recognized by a number of international organizations, from the OECD to the IMF, as having the strongest economic fundamentals in place. We have these fundamentals in place because we have a plan.

When I am back in the riding, I go to a lot of schools, junior highs and high schools. I ask the kids what their plans are for the future. Everyone has a plan of some sort. Either they are going to go into public service, go into business, seek a job in IT, and so on, but everyone has a plan.

Our plan, since 2006, has been based on job creation and balancing the budgets in a way that would not require us to raise taxes. In fact, we are lowering taxes. What we have done, for example, for the average Canadian family of four, is lowered taxes by $3,200, on average. That is a lot of money for people.

For businesses, we have extended the hiring tax credit. This is going to help 565,000 small businesses in the country, so they can go out and hire more people. This will save businesses hundreds of millions of dollars so they can invest more in their business rather than giving it to the government. Now they can create jobs for people who need them. We know that we have a shortage of skilled labour in this country. People are out, seeking jobs.

Is our job complete? We created over a million net new jobs since the depth of the recession, but is our job complete? No, and it will not be complete until every Canadian who wants a job is able to have a job. That is when we know our job will be complete.

Back in 2006, we inherited an economy that was doing well. Rather than continue to spend and raise taxes, as previous governments had done, and balance our budget on the backs on the most vulnerable Canadians, as the Liberals did in the mid-nineties by cutting social transfers, by cutting the Canada health transfer, we paid down debt. We paid about $38 billion in debt, from 2006 to 2008.

As a result, we had some manoeuvrability, a cushion that we were able to use so we could inject more money into the economy when the recession hit in 2008.

We invested millions of dollars into the economy. These projects that we invested in were shovel-ready. This must be a record for government, getting that money out the door as quickly as possible and getting the projects under way. I think every project that started as a result of the economic stimulus package in 2008, 2009, and 2010 is complete. I would think that is some kind of record in Canadian history.

Our job is not finished, and our government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians. What matters most to Canadians is jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. It is not increasing taxes. It is not engaging in wild, hare-brained spending schemes, as the NDP is proposing, or legalizing marijuana, as the Liberals are proposing. We have a thorough economic plan, and it has been in place since 2006.

Our low-tax agenda has served us well. Canadians are happy to know that they are paying less tax today. Lowering the GST, for example, was a commitment we made in the election campaign; we have lowered it from 7% to 6% to 5%. That puts more money back in the pockets of Canadians where it belongs. Canadians take that money and spend it, and when they spend it, it creates jobs and economic activity. That is a good thing.

We are not proposing a $21-billion carbon tax that would increase the cost of everything, as the NDP is. We are heading into the Christmas season now, and we would be paying more for toys for our kids if we had a $21-billion carbon tax. That is not acceptable. It is unacceptable to Canadians and unacceptable to us in the government.

Another thing our government has been focused on is a very aggressive trade agenda. Since we took government in 2006, we have negotiated six additional free trade agreements. So far we have 16 trade agreements and foreign investment promotion agreements. This is a record.

We have just concluded agreement on CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. This will create thousands of new jobs. It will create employment and economic activity. It will create all kinds of activity for Canadians to find more jobs. It will open up markets in Europe. Half a billion people in Europe will now be able to access the Canadian market, and Canadian manufacturers and sellers will be able to sell their products within the European Union. This is really a good thing.

We hear from the opposition members how anti-trade they are. This is unacceptable, because trade means jobs. We know that and Canadians know that. Canadians sent us here to get a job done. They gave us a majority in 2011 based on an economic platform we put forward to them. They approved of it. They sent us here to get the job done.

As a result of our economic action plan, we have the strongest economic fundamentals of any country around the world. Our debt to GDP ratio, for example, is 35%. We have committed to getting that down to 25% by 2021, as we stated in Los Cabos at the G20.

When I go back to my riding, I see new immigrants who are working extremely hard. Many who have been in Canada for a few years are now starting their own businesses. I see that in a variety of communities, particularly in the Russian and Filipino communities. They are starting their own small businesses and they are starting to hire people. This is a wonderful thing to see. This is why they came to Canada: so they can send their kids to school and to university. It is so they can become professionals, doctors, lawyers, and members of Parliament, or perhaps one day even a prime minister of Russian-speaking descent, or of Filipino descent, or of Latino descent. That would be wonderful to see.

In conclusion, our economy policy is envied around the world. Our economic performance is a model, thanks to our wonderful Minister of Finance, who has been recognized as the world's best finance minister.

Let me conclude by saying that I hope everybody in the House will support Bill C-4 to keep our economy number one in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from York Centre, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would find this very funny, if it were not such a serious topic. One of the many things he boasted about was tax cuts worth a few thousand dollars for the average family of four. However, he is completely out of touch with reality. He is not taking into account the growing gap between average incomes and median incomes. Millions of Canadian families are unable to benefit from those much-touted tax cuts. In our study on inequality, witnesses, including the chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, demonstrated that the very rich are getting richer, and fast. Some of those much-touted tax cuts have gone to people who definitely do not need lower tax rates. I would remind the House that 0.01% of the wealthiest people have increased their incomes by more than 160%.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me why he supports tax cuts for the rich and why he wants to put more money in their pockets.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit with my hon. friend on the finance committee, where he does some very hard work. I thank him for that.

The NDP seems to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. We have lowered the corporate tax rate down to 15% in this country. What we have seen is an increase in corporate tax revenues as a result. What do corporations do when they have more money? They invest and create more jobs. That is a wonderful thing to see. That is why we have had over a million net new jobs created in this country since the end of the recession.

The NDP is concerned about more spending and higher taxation. It wants to bring in a $21-billion carbon tax, which would raise the cost of everything, including kids' toys during the holiday season. It is unacceptable that Canadians would even consider the NDP as a legitimate option when all it wants to do is raise taxes and engage in wild spending.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to my hon. colleague. He misrepresents the facts. He is misrepresenting things back to constituents. It is not right. He can say whatever he wants, but if he wants to make up facts, he should stand outside and do it outside.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Obviously that is not a point of order. Does the member for York Centre wish to continue with his response?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am fine. Thank you.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservatives stand up and speak, I am beginning to believe that the self-confidence of the Minister of Finance must be a little low. Time and time again members stand up to say that we have the best Minister of Finance in the world. That is debatable at best. I would suggest it is somewhat of an exaggeration of reality to make that sort of claim, and the facts of the matter clearly demonstrate that.

The member made reference in his speech to how wonderful free trade agreements are and that the government has moved forward on many different free trade agreements. We are very much aware of that. We have supported the free trade agreements, as the Liberal Party has in the past.

The concern I have—as would most Canadians, if not all—is the overall trade balance. When the Conservatives took government, there was a trade surplus of billions of dollars; they have turned it into billions of dollars of trade deficit.

Can the member explain why there is a deficit?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has engaged aggressively in promoting trade and in negotiating a variety of free trade agreements and foreign investment promotion agreements with countries around the world.

Our government is interested in free trade that would create jobs in this country. It is not interested in the drug trade, as the Liberals are, to promote marijuana smoking. Our government is interested in free trade for jobs; their party is interested in smoking marijuana.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not describe the speech I am going to give on Bill C-4 as being really pleasant. Indeed, I participated in the study of this budget bill as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Of course, the fact that this is essentially an omnibus bill already shows a total lack of respect for Canadians, as well as our witnesses. These witnesses were rushed and lined up on the benches of the committee room to testify to their concerns about this bill, in a very short period of time. Obviously, this also shows a blatant lack of respect for our institutions.

The Conservative government has no qualms about introducing a whole series of measures in one catch-all bill. Many of these measures have nothing to do with the budget, while others deserve serious and thorough consideration as part of separate bills in other committees.

I am therefore condemning this umpteenth disrespectful act from this government. This is something quite serious. It basically undermines public confidence and it undermines the functioning of our institutions, making them dysfunctional. The responsibility for this act and its burden fall squarely on the shoulders of this Conservative government.

We have already had to swallow this kind of bitter medicine. It is familiar to us and we try to object. Obviously, we work primarily based on facts instead of working to win at all costs, as the Conservatives do.

To top it all, the member for North Vancouver moved a motion that upon reading is so ridiculous that it would be funny if not for its tragic consequences. Basically, my colleague's motion ensured that the day for the clause-by-clause consideration of the omnibus bill, which included a total of 472 items, ended at midnight, that all items not voted on that day were deemed passed, and, furthermore, that all non-voted amendments, that is, our honest and fair proposals, the kind of proposals that deserved to be carefully considered, were deemed rejected.

Let me tell it like it is. It is not enough that the government has a majority and can abuse it utterly shamelessly. It wants a double lock on power. In other words, it is doing everything it can to make its position unassailable at the expense of our institutions and Canadians. It is even laughing at our witnesses.

The New Democratic Party tabled its amendments at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 26. There was a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance that same day from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. The committee met for three hours, during which it heard from about a dozen witnesses in two groups of six or so.

Everything happened so fast. We could not really dig into the issue, and the witnesses were unable to truly explain their positions. That was all after the NDP tabled its suggestions.

That is unspeakable behaviour on the part of the government. The government cannot give us a single reasonable argument. It cannot even say that there is any sense of urgency. I should point out that, unfortunately, we lost a month of work in the House because of prorogation. The government has no valid reason for acting that way except for its intrinsic cowardice.

The Conservatives want to win at any price and are abusing their majority in the extreme. That majority is shrinking as they lose players—we will talk more about that later. We can all watch closely as the Conservatives self-destruct and wait for the day when the government loses its majority.

I would like to comment on the omnibus nature of this bill. As a member of the official opposition, I think it is terrible. The government does not care that my colleagues and I object. That seems to be par for the course. That is unacceptable on the part of the government, but it is to be expected.

It does not make any sense for the government to turn a deaf ear to the opinions of experienced and attentive observers who also disagree with the completely unacceptable omnibus nature of the government's budget implementation bills.

In a relatively long article, after talking about how the bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention and how it fails to respect our institutions, columnist Andrew Coyne said that all we know is whether MPs voted for or against the omnibus bill as a whole. MPs cannot make a distinction between or express their views on specific parts of the bill that should have been bills in their own right.

He added that there is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet. He finds it alarming that Parliament is being obliged to rubber-stamp the government’s whole legislative agenda at one go.

In my opinion, Mr. Coyne is a credible individual whose opinion counts. When he goes that far in talking about the government, we should take notice. The only government members who are present are barely listening. It is rather unfortunate.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to quickly talk about a concern I have that is related to my role as the member for Beauport—Limoilou and thus the beautiful Quebec City.

TeraXion is expanding and over 90% of its sales are made internationally. With regard to venture capital for labour-sponsored funds, Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion said:

[For TeraXion,] the Fonds [de solidarité FTQ] was a kind of catalyst, and since January 2010...we have...doubled our sales.

For the benefit of the House, I would like to point out that during the most recent Gala des Mercuriades in Montreal, in 2013, TeraXion was given the award for export and development of international markets.

Given that Canada is losing its ability to export and many of its companies are disappearing, it is extremely worrisome that the government is working against our exporters.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard some fine statements about the economy. The problem is that we currently have almost as many unemployed workers as we did at the height of the recession in 2008. Since the Conservative government came to power, 80% of Canadians have seen their incomes drop. It is all well and good that Canada is progressing, but the more Canada progresses, the poorer most Canadians get. Obviously, as poverty increases, so does the use of food banks. Canadians are being forced to turn to charity in order to survive.

Can my colleague explain how these Reagan and Bush style policies have hurt Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

As a politician and a keen economic observer, I believe that we have been making mistakes collectively in the west for the past 35 years. The real problem is that, despite the claims from the right, and especially the far right, there has been no clear evidence of any collective prosperity linked to the withdrawal of the state, tax cuts, downsizing or the slashing of our social programs; on the contrary.

As my hon. colleague explained, it is a fact: the majority of Canadians are paying the price, especially since incomes are no longer keeping up with the cost of living. Only a fraction of the population is enjoying increased wealth, although even that increase is really slowing down. Indeed, I would remind the House that the Bank of Canada reduced its growth projections for Canada to 1.6%, which is very troubling.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started to talk about what the bill does to workers' rights. We know that some elements of Bill C-4 will violate workers' rights. There have been other bills, such as Bill C-377, which forced unions to disclose their financial information to the general public, even though this information is already provided to their members. Bill C-525 goes even further with respect to the right to organize.

Is my colleague concerned about this trend? The Conservatives are trying to weaken workers' groups and groups that advocate for workers' rights, the rights of average Canadians, of those who work hard every day. At the same time, they are giving rights and powers to the minister. Does the member share my concern?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question, because that is a very big concern.

In fact, I will focus on a very specific aspect that Bill C-4 will change. Right from the very first day that we studied this bill, an army of public servants were able to answer our countless questions, actually only a fraction of the countless questions we had.

I would like to cite a very specific example because I want to focus on the measures that will affect the public service. The new arbitration, the new powers assumed by the minister will affect other sectors of activity. With regard to the definition of essential services, the official who answered my questions did confirm that no category of workers, no public servant could be automatically excluded from being providers of an essential service. If the minister ever abused his power, litigation would be the only recourse. Therefore, this is a means of bringing the courts into labour relations. This is a very serious mistake because we should always encourage negotiation. That will absolutely not be the case with this bill, and it is setting the stage for a generalized deterioration of the climate in which working conditions are negotiated for workers in general.

I again thank my colleague for her question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak again to Bill C-4. I had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading before it went to committee.

I am happy to talk to my friend from the Liberal Party and ensure that he understands what is in Bill C-4.

What I found funny this week when I was listening was that I was speaker 69 last time and I think the speaker before me wanted to go to the vote on it, and I know we are relatively close to that again this time.

We have had a large number of speakers to the bill. It was funny that we were hearing from the opposition that we were not given enough time to speak on the bill. Then this week, I hear from a number of opposition members that we keep repeating ourselves. We keep repeating ourselves because there is only so much in this bill and everybody understands what is in it. One either agrees or disagrees with it. It is not that complicated.

The opposition says that it is an omnibus bill. Yes, it is a couple of hundred pages: 100 in French, 100 in English. Can they read that? I am not sure. I know I can and I am pretty sure my opposition members can read that much.

Anyway, I want to talk about the areas in Bill C-4, which is the implementation bill of the budget and other measures. People seem to miss the title of the bill, which does say “other measures”. Therefore, it was not just what was in the budget in the spring, but other measures that this government thought were important to bring forward and to get through the House, and I will talk a little about that.

I want to talk about the things that directly affect my riding.

The first thing I want to speak about is the lifetime capital gains exemption basically for small business. The largest employer in my riding has about 600 employees. The municipality, in fact, has about that many employees, or a bit less. The vast majority of employers in my riding are small and medium-sized businesses.

These businesses are often individually owned businesses or group owned. Very few are traded on the stock market, but there are some there, such as financial offices of different organizations in terms of credit. We have components of different larger organizations, but the vast majority are medium-sized businesses owned by small groups of individuals or individuals themselves.

Through this bill, we would increase the capital gains. Business owners could save based on the amount they could retain after they sell their business or pass it on. Small and medium-sized businesses are often passed on to family members. The sale of a business would allow for money to be left in the pockets of the entrepreneurs. They created the jobs and economic activity in my riding and have earned the right to retain earnings. It is their retirement often.

Not all businesses in my riding own their buildings or real estate, for example. Therefore, the retained earnings they would get and the savings they would make on the change to the capital gains exemption would be significant to them, to their families and to their retirement.

We often hear concern about turning a business over, whatever that business might be, because of the cost of capital gains and what would be left in one's pocket after the taxes were paid. This measure would allow for a little more to stay in an owner's pocket, which I think is very important.

The next thing I want to talk about is the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

We have the ACCA on a number of items across the country. It is part of the accounting packages that we allow for accelerated capital cost allowance. Basically, it would allow a company to write-off capital expenditures much faster than it would have been able to under normal charts in terms of expected lifespan. It is an accounting piece that would allow companies to invest in equipment and realize profits from that equipment in a much quicker manner. I am very supportive of that.

Part of it is that we have included clean energy generation and clean energy equipment that did not qualify previously for the accelerated capital cost allowance, and this does that. For companies in my riding, if they are not directly involved in the clean energy generation business but are suppliers of those businesses—for example, parts for equipment they may buy—it makes a significant difference to those small and medium-sized businesses being able to take advantage of that ACCA.

I would now like to talk about the hiring credit for small business. In budget 2011, we brought forward the $1,000 per employee small business hiring credit, and we are continuing that process through Bill C-4. This would allow those small and medium-sized businesses in my riding an opportunity to grow, to provide economic growth not just for Burlington but for Ontario and for Canada.

Growth comes in a number of ways, through sales and so on, and if businesses continue to grow, they often need more people. We want to encourage employment through Bill C-4, through our whole budget, our economic action plan, and this mechanism helps encourage employment, particularly for young people in my riding of Burlington. It is a relatively expensive place to live, and we are having an issue with young people who have grown up and gone to high school in Burlington, have gone away for post-secondary education either at McMaster next door in Hamilton, in the area or across the country, and are having a hard time finding positions to come home to in Burlington. The mayor and the city council have looked at this. The small business hiring credit would assist small businesses in my riding to hire young people and help them get started in their careers after their education.

We are doing what we can federally, as is the municipality through a number of programs, to encourage local employment for young people, particularly ones who have a connection with our community and have added to its quality of life.

The other couple of areas I would speak to are on the other categories in the bill. I am fortunate enough to be the chair of the justice committee, which I will talk about last; but first, I have also been fortunate to be assigned to the citizenship and immigration committee, which is a new experience for me. I had not been on that committee before, and this fall I was asked to sit on the committee. I have enjoyed my time there. Part of the discussion we have been having was with Bill C-4. As members know, there were a number of areas under the “other” category, and the finance committee sent those parts of Bill C-4 to those committees for further study.

At the citizenship and immigration committee, we had the opportunity to talk about two things that are in Bill C-4. One is the passport issue. I think we have done the appropriate thing. People who come into my office to talk to me about passports are somewhat surprised, and even I was surprised, that passports were under Foreign Affairs. In actual fact, we are moving it over to Citizenship and Immigration, where it is more appropriate for it to be managed, and that would make for a better system.

My final point is that the Supreme Court Act was also submitted in Bill C-4 and was referred to my committee. We had excellent committee meetings on this issue. We talked about what we are doing, moving forward, in being able to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court. It was an excellent discussion. We had a number of meetings with a variety of different witnesses, suggested mostly by the opposition, so we were able to deal with that issue and send it back to finance. I think it was the appropriate thing to do.

I am happy to answer any questions that may come my way.

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

Mr. Speaker, when public servants testified before the Standing Committee on Finance, they said that eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board is what lead to the surplus being taken from the employment insurance fund and put into the consolidated revenue fund. The government does not put a single cent into the employment insurance fund; workers and employers do. Taking that money makes it more difficult for workers to access benefits that they have already paid for.

How can the member justify that government measure?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions, and I will say hello to her sister-in-law from Burlington when I see her.

The fact of the matter is that the government looks at all programs, including EI, and we look to where there are efficiencies and effectiveness. I was not at the finance meetings to hear what the public service witnesses had to say, so I am not sure what their testimony was.

I am very proud of this side of the House, this government. When we came to office we looked at the EI program, and the member is absolutely right that EI is funded by the employer and the employee, and we set up a fund for that money to go into so that governments could not take that money and use it for general expenses, as has been the case in previous years. We set that up, and I am happy with what we are doing. It is only appropriate for EI and all programs that the government of the day look at how to be more efficient and more effective in providing the services that those programs are to provide, and I am supportive of what we are doing in the EI program.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with lots of interest to my colleague go on and on about what he considers successes but what many of us on this side would challenge. We actually led the way when dealing with an almost-bankrupt government back in 1993 as a result of previous Conservative governments, when they had an opportunity to be here.

However, I want to ask the member very specifically about the issue of the refundable tax credit for the disabled, and whether he really understands that non-refundable tax credits are only good for those people who have an income. For the somewhere around four million people who are in need of this tax credit, with all of the wonderful things the member talks about why is it that nobody was paying attention to changing that disability tax credit to apply to the people who do not have enough income and truly are deserving and need that? And why has the government not decided to make that a fully refundable tax credit and really help people who are very much in need?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually really appreciate that question from the member opposite.

First, by definition, a tax credit is to credit people for taxes paid. If they do not pay taxes, they do not get the credit. I am not sure if the member opposite knows, but there are, I believe, three non-refundable tax credits in our system now, only three. I could be corrected on that; it could be five, but there are very few.

I agree that support for those with disabilities is very important. In my home, my wife works for Easter Seals, which provides services and support to families with children with physical disabilities. I completely understand the issue, and I am completely supportive of doing what we can. I am not sure that using the tax system, making tax credits refundable or non-refundable, is the appropriate use of the system in solving the issue that the individual has brought forward.

I am in favour of having non-refundable tax credits because people need to be paying taxes to get their taxes back. There are other methods to attack other issues in all public policy, not just for disabilities.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. I have patiently been trying to listen to the gibberish that has been coming from the government benches. I think that the members are allergic to facts, so I will try to focus on some of the facts that have been misrepresented on the government's side. I will be speaking to a number of issues during my time.

I, too, had a chance to speak at the second reading of Bill C-4, and I was hoping that some of the discussion that took place in the House and in committee would be taken into account by the Conservatives to perhaps make some amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, as usual, they have failed to do that.

After the summer and the prorogation of Parliament, the Conservatives were going to hit the reset button, restart their engines and work for Canadians. Unfortunately, during the month that was lost in the summer prorogation, I do not think the Conservatives learned anything or listened to Canadians. It is unfortunate.

I think they never actually got outside of the Ottawa bubble to talk to the people in their constituencies or talk to people with real issues and real problems. I think the Conservatives never left Ottawa, because we started from the same place where we left off in June. Basically, the government has lost track of Canadian priorities.

I will tell the House what the Canadian priorities are. Canadian priorities are jobs. They want jobs for our youth, our young people who are unemployed. We have a really high unemployment rate for our young people. They want training for our young people. The Conservatives talk about hiring tax credits of $1,000, and we say let us increase it to $2,000 for small businesses so that we can get young people trained and hired by small businesses.

Conservatives will talk about how small businesses are the economic engine of the economy. I agree with them, but what have they done? They have done nothing at all. They have failed to deliver on what they are saying in the House over and over again. I have seen it over and over again.

Let us talk about other Canadian priorities. They are focused on high debt ratio for our households. That is a huge issue. Last week, I had a chance to talk with the representatives of FCM. I had a number of mayors and councillors from British Columbia come to visit me. Guess what their priorities were? Their number one priority was the housing crunch that is coming in this country, yet in this bill here, we do not see it. The Conservatives are not addressing it.

Their number two priority was money for the infrastructure that has basically been neglected by the government over the years. Infrastructure money has not been given to municipalities, so that we can have flourishing businesses, transportation to move our goods, and people on these infrastructure projects that are creating well-paying local jobs. That is not in this bill.

The FCM representatives are local people and councillors from my municipality. They are people from Vancouver and throughout British Columbia. Their third priority was rail safety. That is not being addressed by the Conservative government.

Again, I am guessing that the Conservatives never left the bubble. It is time they went back to their constituencies and talked to real people.

Real people are talking to me. I have talked to hundreds of people, and they are very concerned. They are concerned about the changes that are in this bill, particularly the safety of workers that is being denigrated in this bill. I have had a number of constituents talk to me personally, and they have emailed me too. I will quote from an email I received from one of my constituents. This is the last lines of the email:

These amendments will turn back the clock on worker health and safety and endanger lives. I strongly urge you, as my MP, to oppose these amendments, and to insist these provisions be removed from Bill C-4. These proposed changes will inevitably lead to a higher number of deaths and injuries of Canadian workers.

Guess who said that. It is a person from my constituency. I have a list of names: Narinder Gill, Paul Belanger, Shelby Carpenter, Emily Stonehouse, Gursharan Shergill, Sharanjit Grewal, Kal Atwal, Lisa Klynstra, Lawrence Cameron, and Kim Buss. There are many more emails and names of real people on the ground who are concerned about the health and safety of Canadian workers, yet the government is not addressing the issues.

I constantly hear the Conservatives talk about how they are good managers of the economy, how well they are doing, and how they are lowering taxes. During the last six or seven years, guess how much debt they have put on Canadians. It is $100 billion. I will use their analogy. That is $12,000 of extra debt for every family of four. That is their record. That is the load they are leaving for our future generation. I have two kids. They are burdening my kids and every Canadian family's kids.

Let us talk about trade. When they became the government, we had a trade surplus of $26 billion. Guess what the trade surplus is now. Actually, it is not a surplus now; it is a deficit of $62 billion. They talk about how they are going to expand trade and reach new markets, yet the record of the current government is that we have gone from a trade surplus of $26 billion to a trade deficit of $62 billion.

There was a trade committee meeting this morning. We had a representative from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives appear. I asked her if tariffs on goods coming into Canada are a tax, and she said absolutely. The tariffs on goods coming into this country are a tax on Canadian families.

The government has taken 70 countries out of a tax bracket for certain goods. That means that goods coming from those countries will now have a tariff, which, in turn, is basically a tax on Canadians. I am talking about everyday goods families use, such as clothing and spices. My family uses lots of spices. Those are consumer goods. The Conservatives talk about their consumer agenda. Their actual agenda is an additional tax, through tariffs, on Canadian families. That is their true record.

There are many other issues they had a chance to address in Bill C-4. They had a chance to create real jobs, help young families, and help working class families, yet they have failed to deliver over and over.

They had a chance to recalibrate over the summer, yet they have not listened to Canadians at all. We thought they would learn from their previous mistakes with regard to omnibus bills, yet when they returned to the House, they brought forward another omnibus bill. This is not a 200-page bill. This is a 300-page bill, and it addresses 70 different pieces of legislation. They need to break the bill up so that we can have a true picture of how it would affect Canadian families and businesses.

The Conservatives say one thing in the House and do exactly the opposite. I think the Conservatives are allergic to facts and research. The fact is that they have a terrible record on economics. They have a terrible record with regard to the deficit; they have had a $100 billion deficit in the time they have been in government. They have a terrible record on trade. They are not listening to Canadian families. They are not working for Canadians. They need to put the interests of Canadian families first and create jobs, which they have failed to do.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. At the end, he said that the Conservatives are allergic to facts. I agree with that.

The Conservatives are touting themselves as the best economic managers. I would like to share some facts about the economy specifically. These facts demonstrate that, in fact, the Conservatives are bad for the economy. There are things that should have been included in the budget bill but were not. They put everything in this bill, including the kitchen sink, but they forgot to include important economic measures.

I would like to talk about one issue in particular. Youth unemployment in Canada sits at 14.1%, or double the national average. There are a quarter of a million fewer youth in the workforce now than there were before the recession. Where is the Conservative strategy to promote jobs for youth? It is not in the bill. That is why we will be proud to vote against this bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Conservatives are concerned about their big friends: big corporations. Basically, the Conservatives have given tax breaks to big oil companies that amount to about $500 billion. That money is sitting with the corporations. I am not saying that; that is what experts out there are saying.

What have the Conservatives done for small businesses? We have called for the small business tax to be lowered. Not only that, we are calling for additional tax credits. They have offered $1,000, and we are saying $2,000. What generates jobs at the local level are small businesses.

That will help our youth. Small businesses will train and help our youth so that we can get the unemployment rate for youth lower. In this bill, the Conservatives have failed our youth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of housing.

No matter where we go in Canada, from coast to coast to coast, it is an issue. Government can play a much stronger role in providing for and supporting good, solid housing programs, whether it is housing co-ops, infrastructure, building, assistance programs for home renovations, or all sorts of retrofit programs.

What we have found is that over the last number of years, there has been, generally speaking, an unwillingness to aggressively deal with Canada's housing issues, in particular the cost of housing and creative retrofit and environmentally friendly programs that would encourage people to fix up the housing stock.

Would the member comment on that?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Thornhill has about one minute.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would she like to comment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of months ago the Prime Minister made the decision to prorogue Parliament. By proroguing Parliament, he also prevented the House from sitting for a number of weeks.

As a direct result, we now have a massive budget bill that we are expected to pass in a time-allocated way, which will prevent most members of Parliament from getting engaged in this debate, and that would be if it were just a normal budget implementation bill.

We all know that this is a massive budget implementation bill that changes numerous pieces of legislation. We have an irresponsible Prime Minister who has prorogued the session and put in time allocation. It is very disrespectful of the process of this House.

Does the member not believe that there is a better way to administer budget implementation bills and to do due diligence so that Canadians would be better served by respecting the process of the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is a little bit out of step with the majority of Canadians. He talks about wanting to debate a bill, but he spends half of his time complaining about whether or not he likes the bill.

For my colleague across the way, the bottom line is that it is not about debating the bill; it is just about how opposition members can find ways to drag down government and all that.

He has voted against every one of all the great measures we brought in, whether it is assisting veterans or keeping taxes low. We have lowered 150 taxes. At the end of the day it is really not about what is in it at all; he is opposed to it no matter what. He should get on board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I particularly commend my hon. colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for showing up earlier today to support a private member's bill to give individual members of Parliament more power and the ability to better represent their constituents.

He has done a fine job in bringing forward his own bill to ban bulk water exports, and in that spirit I ask him if he feels like joining the opinion of the majority of us on the opposition benches, who find it regrettable that the good measures he mentioned in his speech are thrown into a omnibus budget bill that includes many different elements that really would have been better served by being studied separately. They include such things as changes to the Canada Labour Code, changes to our Immigration Act, changes to the Mackenzie gas pipeline fund, and changes to the treatment of the Dominion Coal lands—in fact, selling them without having a proper hearing in this place.

I wonder if he might agree that it would be better for democracy if proper bills came forward individually.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine comments and especially for pointing out the many good things that are in this Bill C-4 that we are talking about. I am not going to repeat them. They are almost too numerous to allow following up on all of them. However, I thank her for recognizing that.

Again, in the House we do not always get everything that we want, but she and every other member here, on all sides of the House, have a chance to debate what is in this bill. At the end of the day, with all of those good things that she herself mentioned, I look forward to her supporting the bill

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are resuming debate for the hon. member for York West. I will let the hon. member know that we do not have quite the full 10 minutes that she might have been expecting, this being the conclusion of the time allocated for government orders for today.

However, I am taking more of that time right now, so let us resume debate.

The hon. member for York West.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make good use of whatever amount of time I have left, as the last speaker.

I am pleased to be on my feet again to address it. Many of our colleagues have spoken at length to various issues of a bill on which it is most unfortunate that again we have had to see closure; especially on things like the omnibus bills being passed, which are actually massive in volume. No matter how much work all of us do in this House, we can never get through it enough to find all of the bits and pieces in this omnibus bill that are nothing short of a bunch of poison pills that are going to have huge effects on the Canadian economy and on the Canadian people. However, the Conservatives have their majority and they are going to do with this what they do with everything else, which is to implement time allocation and drive it through in order to achieve their agenda and do what they want.

I am using my valuable time to speak to this issue, on the things I think are important to Canadians and things we should be talking about more. Issues like jobs, infrastructure, household debt, youth unemployment and government waste are too important to simply be lumped in with many non-budgetary measures such as court reform, which the government is hiding within the budget. They put things like court reform and other things that have nothing to do with a budget bill into an omnibus bill. They bury them in there with the hopes that nobody in the opposition will be able to find them because they are overwhelmed with the bill from the beginning anyway and do not have enough time. Normally we would have had several months here, and we are lucky if we have several days.

Let us talk about jobs first, and quality jobs, which are at the heart of any healthy and growing economy. Without adequate employment, Canadians cannot enjoy dignity and quality living, no matter what the GDP says. On this front, of course the government has clearly failed.

Too often, the Prime Minister has droned on about the GDP without giving consideration to the impact around the kitchen tables of the nation. He says the economy is growing, but the reality is that more and more Canadians are falling farther and farther behind. Instead, the Conservatives are repackaging existing programs, taking more money out of the economy and calling it an economic action plan. This budget clearly has no plan to help the middle class, and that is its first great failing.

In budget 2013, the Conservatives prioritize spending cuts ahead of strengthening the economy and creating Canadian jobs. Their latest round of spending cuts is going to hurt Canada's already-weakened economy. The EI premium hike in budget 2013 would again cost more jobs. Canada's job market has not recovered from the recession, no matter what this Prime Minister and the government say. It is even more difficult for young Canadians to find a job, with an employment rate that is five points worse than it was before the recession, so we risk creating a lost generation of youth, unable to move out of their parents' home, scarred with high debt and with no meaningful job experience. I guess that would make the government's failure to address youth unemployment the second greatest failing of this budget. However, it is a failing of which the full impact will not be understood fully for years, and that is an important point.

The current government has developed a habit of kicking a can down the road on key issues. Government is about leadership and making real decisions. Passing the bill to our children for our generations of mismanagement is unethical, short-sighted and just plain wrong.

Budget 2013 announcements on infrastructure, training and manufacturing are not enough to kickstart the economy. These are not new programs. The Conservatives are just using budget 2013 to rebrand programs that already exist. Again, the Conservatives are just kicking the can down the road.

Worse than all of this, the budget would fail to do anything to shore up the very foundation of the economy, middle-class workers. Canadian workers are the true fuel of the economy, and they have been ignored by the current government. Instead, the Minister of Finance has developed a habit of calling the banks and demanding that they increase mortgage prices. This may look great on paper, but it will only make it harder for middle-class families to make ends meet. Canadian housing prices are overvalued, and prices are now starting to drop. The minister is to blame with his risky mortgage scheme in budget 2006 that brought U.S.-style 40-year mortgages with zero down payment to Canada, and helped create the current housing bubble. Then the Conservatives had to change it, so now the only real growth in Canada's economy is the growth in household debt. Personal debt levels in Canada are now worse than they were in the U.S. before the U.S. housing crush.

Canadians are not wasteful mismanagers. They are not putting new TVs and fancy cars on their credit cards. They are putting food and rent on their credit cards.

The responsibility for this climate rests on the shoulders of the Conservatives. This budget's failure is not isolated to the country's workers. They have also turned their backs on seniors. Despite their billion-dollar ad campaign to the contrary, Conservatives have no plan for middle class prosperity. Instead, they repeatedly punish the middle-class. Conservatives taxed income trusts, wiping out billions in retirement savings, after saying they would never touch them. They made old age security harder to get by moving it up to age 67. The Conservatives PRPP scheme is a joke. It is nothing better than just something for the banks and insurance companies. Seventy per cent of Canadians have no pension, yet Conservative incompetence is making it much harder to retire with dignity. I cannot help but wonder why the Prime Minister wants poverty to be part of middle-class retirement.

The government's answer to this problem has always been trade. It has failed to note that more trade has not always been better for Canadian industry. Canadian farmers know this better than anyone. For the past 50 years, farmers have been increasing their production levels each year, only to watch their incomes fall well into negative margins.

I support trade, and so does my party. However, trade has to be on an equal and profitable footing. Trade success is more than a simple scorecard. It has to include real gains for Canadian industry and workers. Instead, the government talks big, but unlike certain goods in places like the U.S., talk is cheap. For example, the suggested Canadian retail price for an Acura, a car made in Alliston, Ontario, is $54,990, yet our U.S. friends can buy the same car for just $46,120. That is a $9,000 price differential, a price paid by Canadian families. It goes right back into the manufacturer's hands. The differential applies to every car from the Matrix to the Impala. In short, everyone has their hand in consumers' pockets and despite the government's promise to get serious about price parity, it continues to do nothing on those big issues.

Empty words will not close this gap, nor will they help middle-class families raise their families. The government has spent well over half a billion dollars on advertising, trying to buy Canadian voters with their own tax dollars. Most recently, it has spent more than $8 million to tell Canadians in rural Canada that they should not be happy with their cellphone service. Effectively, to score cheap political points, the government is using tax dollars to run ads against Canadian businesses. It calls this action on behalf of consumers.

As bad as this is, incompetent military procurement, like the $40 billion runaway F-35 costs, are draining government resources at a time when Canadians need them the most. This kind of waste is taking money from workers, students, and middle-class families, plain and simple.

I could go on with example after example of just how the government has failed Canadians, but time simply does not permit a full reading of the list. In short, this budget takes drastically reduced economic growth forecasts and magically turns them into increased revenue projections. The government is projecting a balanced budget by 2015, with an $800 million surplus, yet short of a math error, has no real explanation of how to attain that goal.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to conclude this debate. With great sadness, we will rise tonight and vote against Bill C-4.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 to 18.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the Motion No. 2 defeated.

(Motion No. 2 negatived)

The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 9 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 10 to 13 and 15 to 17.

The next question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five more members having risen:

I declare the motion deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 18.

The next question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 19 stands deferred. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 20 to 26.

The next question is on Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 28 to 54.

The next question is on Motion No. 55. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 55 stands deferred. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 56 to 84.

The next question is on Motion No. 85. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred, and the recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 86-94.

The question is on Motion No. 95. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 95 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 96. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 96 stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 97. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 97 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 98. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 98 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 99 to 103.

The question is on Motion No. 104. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 104 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 105.

The next question is on Motion No. 106. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 106 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 107 to 176.

The next question is on Motion No. 177. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 178 to 282.

The next question is on Motion No. 283. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The recorded division on Motion No. 283 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 284.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 8.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #19

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 8 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

During the taking of the vote:

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

We are now calling for the nays on Motion No. 9.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

As is the practice, I did call for the yeas. When no one else stood—

[An hon. member]

We are a long way from you here.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Sometimes it does feel like there is a great distance between us, but that aside, the normal practice is that unless there is unanimous consent of the House, once we go through the yeas, we move on to the nays. We will continue going through the nays. Are there any other nays who wish to stand and have their vote recorded as nay on Motion No. 9?

I declare Motion No. 9 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 to 13 and 15 to 17 defeated.

The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's is rising on a point of order.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow us to vote. We did not hear you call for yeas. Otherwise, we would have stood in support of the motion.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am not sure if maybe the spirit of the season has affected the chamber yet, but is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #20

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 9 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 to 13 and 15 to 17 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 14. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 18.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #21

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 14 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 18 defeated.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was caught napping that time, not literally but metaphorically, and my intention was to vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to vote yes.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There is no consent at this time.

At this point, I am going to urge all hon. members to follow very closely, because we have quite a few of these to get through, and the House might find it trying if we have to have clarifications after other votes.

The next question is on Motion No. 19. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 20 to 26.

(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #22

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 19 defeated.

I therefore declare Motions Nos. 20 to 26 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 27. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 28 to 54.

(The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #23

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 27 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 28 to 54 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 55. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 56 to 84.

(The House divided on Motion No. 55, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #24

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 55 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 56 to 84 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 85. The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 86 to 94.

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

Vote #25

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 85 defeated. I also declare Motions Nos. 86 to 94 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 95.

(The House divided on Motion No. 95, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #26

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 95 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 96.

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

Vote #27

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 96 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 97.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it you shall find agreement to apply the votes on this vote, according to the members who were present on the previous vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

The Liberals agree to apply the vote and we will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québecois votes yes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

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

Vote #28

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 97 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 98. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 99 to 103.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members present will vote no.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we also agree to apply the vote, and we will vote in favour of the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote no.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 98, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #29

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 98 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 99 to 103 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 104. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 105.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote. Conservative members will be voting no.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will vote in favour of the motion. I would like to mention that a member has left the House.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

(The House divided on Motion No. 104, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #30

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 104 defeated. I further declare Motion No. 105 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 106. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 107 to 176.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek agreement to apply the vote. Conservative members will vote no.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote. The member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier is now present.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the motion.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party is voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 106, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #31

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 106 defeated. I further declare Motions Nos. 107 to 176 defeated.

The question is now on Motion No. 177. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 178 to 282.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek agreement to apply the vote from the previous vote, with Conservative members voting no, with one additional member, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we also agree to apply the vote, and the NDP will vote in favour of the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply and will vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the motion.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party votes yes.

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

Vote #32

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 177 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 178 to 282 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 283. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 284.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek agreement to apply the vote. The Conservative members will vote no.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and the NDP will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply. We vote yes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc votes yes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Independent, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote yes.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thunder Bay—Superior North votes yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also votes yes.

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

Vote #33

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare Motion No. 283 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 284 defeated.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #34

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I wish to inform the House that, because it is getting late, the period provided for private members' business is cancelled. Therefore, the order is deferred to a future sitting.