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.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

Good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you so much for your testimony this afternoon. It's very interesting.

I, too, want to thank MP Zarrillo for bringing this motion forward.

My questions will be for the Canadian Labour Congress.

Before I start, I want to thank you for what you do for workers, as you said, Ms. Vipond, 3.3 million workers across this country. I want to thank you for your leadership and for your advocacy. I know that your past-president Hassan Yussuff has been in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay many times. We've laid wreaths together on the National Day of Mourning. I always enjoyed my time when he was here.

Our government has been an ally and friend of unions since coming to office. I remember that in 2015 one of the things I was absolutely passionate about going to Ottawa for was to fight for the repealing of Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, with our Bill C-4. I remember working with the CLC to make that a reality.

We've engaged regularly with unions and stakeholders across the country in numerous areas of our economy, from the energy workers to the building trades, and from the care economy to the tourism and hospitality sectors, all of which are critically important in my riding. We've been there to address the challenges facing these industries with government support and improvements to existing rules and legislation, such as the Canada Labour Code and occupational health and safety for federally regulated sectors.

Despite health care being a provincial jurisdiction legislated and regulated by their respective provinces, I do believe the federal government can still play a role in the hiring, the retention and the retraining of staff while improving work conditions for all.

Recognizing that health care is provincially delivered, what further opportunities do you see between unions, professional orders and employees in the care economy and the federal government to deliver quality services?

[Kristel Henderson]

Basically what this bill proposes to do is to return the sick leave regime to the negotiations process. The impact of the costs of sick leave.... Currently the collective agreements contain provisions around sick leave; therefore, there's an allotted number of sick leave days and there's a disability regime that is in place. What Bill C-4 proposed to do was to remove that and impose a sick leave regime that would impose upon the public service the new regime and disability plan, as well.

[Kristel Henderson, Acting Director, Corporate Labour Relations, Correctional Service of Canada]

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, regarding your study on Bill C-62.

My name is Kristel Henderson. I am Acting Director of Corporate Labour Relations at CSC. I am hopeful that I can provide the committee information on our workforce at CSC and our labour relations regime as it currently stands today, in order to provide some further context for your consideration of Bill C-62.

I will begin by providing an overview of the work that we do. CSC is responsible for administering sentences of two years or more in institutions of various security levels, and supervising offenders under conditional release.

On a typical day, CSC manages approximately 15,000 offenders within our 43 institutions across Canada, in addition to more than 8,500 offenders under supervision in the community.

As one of the largest departments in the public service, the Correctional Service of Canada employs approximately 18,000 staff members from across the country. Our organization's workforce includes correctional officers, parole officers, program delivery officers, health professionals, electricians, food services staff, and staff providing corporate and administrative functions at the local, regional, and national levels. Our employees work within institutions, parole offices, and administrative or headquarters areas in all 10 provinces and three territories. While some work mostly regular day jobs, others work shifts that entail long hours. Two occupational groups, for the most part exclusive to CSC, represent over half of all staff employed in operational units.

The correctional officer group, or CX group comprises 41.8% of staff while another 14.1% of staff are in the welfare programs, or WP category. This group includes parole and program officers who work in CSC institutions and in the community. The remainder of CSC's workforce reflects the variety of other skills required to operate institutions and community offices such as health professionals or corporate and administrative staff.

All staff work together to ensure that institutions operate in a secure and safe way and that offenders are effectively supervised on release, with specialized initiatives and approaches for indigenous offenders, offenders with mental health needs, and women offenders.

Our workforce and workplace directly impact the success of our operations and how we fulfil our mandate. Without a strong and professional workforce, and without a workplace conducive to its development and well-being, we would not be able to get these jobs done.

As this committee is aware, Bill C-62 would restore the public service labour relations regime that existed prior to the coming into force of certain budget implementation acts. These include those related to essential services in the resolution of collective bargaining disputes, along with the rights of bargaining agents to negotiate terms and conditions of employment related to sick leave and disability matters.

The provisions of the proposed bill support the return to the former negotiation approach to determining an organization's essential services profile. In that regard, CSC has always been committed to establishing a listing of essential positions, which promotes a profile that balances opportunities for active union involvement and manageable operational risk, and that is based on sustainable rationales.

Most positions located within our institutions and community offices continue to meet the definition of essential service in that they provide a service that is or will be at any time necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public. As a result, a re-examination of the proposed profile, where safety and security contributions can be managed through alternative approaches in the event of a strike, will be required to determine where we may be able to assume any additional degree of operational risk management. The amendments to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, as introduced by former Bill C-4, removed the choice of dispute resolution method for the core public administration and made conciliation the primary mechanism, except in cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are designated by the employer as essential.

Historically the dispute resolution method selected by bargaining agents active within CSC has been conciliation even when 100% of the positions within the bargaining unit have been deemed essential. It is expected that, should Bill C-62 come into force, bargaining agents would revert to their historical dispute resolution method. In addition, Bill C-62 also proposes to repeal a section of former Bill C-59, the implementing legislation of budget 2015.

Division 20 of part three of Bill C-59 authorized the Treasury Board to establish and modify terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave and disability regime of employees, notwithstanding the provisions of the FPSLRA, but outside of the collective bargaining process. Those provisions came into force upon royal assent, although to date, they have not been implemented by the Treasury Board.

If enacted, Bill C-62 would allow consideration of the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of CSC employees to be dealt with as part of the collective bargaining process.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.

Thank you.

[Krista Devine, General Counsel and Director of Representation, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

In terms of the impact of the essential services regime that was there, having Bill C-4 in place was deeply problematic for us. You've heard from other unions about the selection of the dispute resolution process. The designation process essentially dictates what dispute resolution process you end up in.

One of the cornerstones of our constitutional challenge related to the Border Services bargaining unit, which Minister Clement had targeted in particular as problematic. Through the legislation and through his introduction to the legislation, he targeted them in particular in terms of the level of essential services designation.

Through Bill C-4, the level of essential services designation was not challengeable before a third party. It was unilateral. It was imposed on us I think the day the legislation was passed or two days after that. I can say with great certainty that it had an impact for that group in particular, as it dictated the dispute resolution process and put into question the framework within which we would be bargaining for the next few years.

[Chris Aylward]

Certainly as I stated in my statement in July 2016, we reached an agreement with, at the time, Minister Brison, who is the President of Treasury Board, to restore our rights pre-Bill C-4. That certainly indicated to us a positive move for sure, and that's why we certainly welcome Bill C-62.

I just want to remind committee members that our members, my 130,000 fellow public sector workers as well as those of my friends in the other bargaining agents, are taxpayers as well.

[Chris Aylward, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the committee members for providing the Public Service Alliance of Canada this opportunity to meet with you on Bill C-62.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents over 130,000 federal public sector workers.

We welcome this bill that finally restores some of the balance to collective bargaining in the federal public service that was lost by the passage of the previous government's two bills, Bill C-4 and Bill C-59. Division 20 of Bill C-59 took away the collective bargaining rights of our members and other federal public service workers. It gave the government the unilateral right to amend the sick leave provisions of our collective agreements at any time. We do not consider it free collective bargaining when the employer has the legal power to impose a predetermined outcome.

Bill C-62 will also restore rights taken away through the changes that were made by division 17 of Bill C-4 of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act. These changes placed fundamental restrictions on our members' collective bargaining rights, such as those affecting designation of essential services.

The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that the right to collective bargaining is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2007, it ruled that freedom of association includes the right to collectively bargain. That freedom is also guaranteed by the Canadian Bill of Rights. When governments restrict the ability of employees to engage in good-faith negotiations, an important term and condition of their employment, they violate that freedom of association. Bill C-59 denied the right of employees to good-faith bargaining by giving the employer the unilateral authority to establish all terms and conditions related to sick leave, including establishing a short-term disability program and modifying the existing long-term disability program. Bill C-4 gave the employer the authority to override many provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, including the statutory freeze provisions that maintain the status quo while the parties are engaged in collective bargaining.

While we welcome the repeal of these sections, Bill C-62 will also contravene the charter. In January 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling on the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour's challenge to the province's Public Service Essential Services Act. The court ruled that the right to strike is protected by subsection 2(d) of the charter. It held that the right to strike is an essential part of a meaningful collective bargaining process in the Canadian system of labour relations. That ruling directly affects wording of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act that would be restored by Bill C-62. The Saskatchewan Public Service Essential Services Act contained language that allowed the government to avoid using management or non-union staff to provide essential services during a strike. The Supreme Court ruled that this act was unconstitutional because it violated employees' section 2 charter rights.

The court decision included an observation about this language by the original trial judge. He said that it enabled “managers and non-union administrators to avoid the inconvenience and pressure that would ordinarily” occur due to “a work stoppage”. He also said that it shouldn't matter if the qualified personnel available to provide the necessary services are managers or administrators. If anything, the language works at cross-purposes to making sure essential services are delivered during a work stoppage.

Bill C-62 would permit identical language to remain in the Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act. To remedy this, we ask the committee to propose an amendment to remove, from clause 9, proposed paragraphs 121(2)(a), 123(6)(a), and 127(6)(a). All three read as follows, “without regard to the availability of other persons to provide the essential service during a strike”.

The amendment to remove these proposed paragraphs is consistent with the 2015 Supreme Court decision. When both Bill C-4 and Bill C-59 were passed, PSAC filed constitutional challenges. In 2015, we, and other federal bargaining agents, also filed a motion for an injunction that would prevent the government from using its powers under Bill C-59's division 20 until after the constitutional challenge was heard on its merits.

That motion was scheduled to be heard in the fall of 2015 and then was pushed to March of the next year, in order to give the new government an opportunity to revise the previous government's position and provide instructions to counsel. At this time, both court proceedings are adjourned, pending repeal of the offending provisions that were contained in division 17 of Bill C-4 and division 20 of Bill C-59.

In July 2016, an interim agreement was reached between PSAC and Treasury Board that included measures to address concerns regarding choice of dispute resolution mechanisms, rules governing public interest commissions and arbitration boards, and essential service designations, among others. However, that was a temporary measure and we will soon be entering another round of bargaining for our members in the federal public sector. Our constitutional challenges will not be withdrawn, until such time as these sections of Bill C-4 and Bill C-59 are repealed and our members' rights restored.

I ask the committee to propose the removal of the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-62 and to expedite its passage.

Ms. Devine and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

On behalf of the three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on Bill C-62. The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour, and over 100 labour councils from coast to coast to coast. Employees represented by affiliated unions of the CLC work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all regions of the country, including the federal public service.

The Canadian Labour Congress supports the enactment of Bill C-62, although with the important amendment that I think my colleagues from the alliance are going to raise in just a moment.

We believe that restoring vital aspects of the federal public service labour relations framework to the status quo prior to the enactment of Bill C-4 in 2013, and Bill C-59 in 2015, will provide for more fair, balanced, and constructive labour relations in the federal public service. Bill C-62 will also establish a labour relations framework that is more consistent with the rights of Canadians enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Government of Canada's obligations under international law.

Bill C-62 repeals many of the regressive changes to federal public service labour relations contained in divisions 17 and 18 of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 withdrew the ability of bargaining agents to select one of two methods of dispute resolution in the event of impasse: interest arbitration or conciliation/strike. The legislation imposed a default method of dispute resolution, conciliation/strike, without any compelling rationale or negotiation with federal unions.

At the same time, Bill C-4 gave the employer exclusive rights to determine what services are essential, and how many and which positions are required to deliver those services. The role of the bargaining agent was reduced to limited post hoc consultation, with no dispute resolution mechanism established to contest any of these designations.

The legislation also allowed the employer to require an employee, occupying a position designated as essential, to be available during off-duty hours to perform all duties assigned to that position. In other words, non-essential work would be performed during a strike.

Access to interest arbitration for bargaining units where the majority of workers were designated as essential was thus taken away. Arbitration would be available to the unions only where 80% or more of the positions of the bargaining unit had been designated by the government as essential.

The legislation also altered the factors to be considered by the arbitration board in making an arbitral award. From the original five factors to be considered by the board, Bill C-4 required the arbitration board to give preponderance to just two factors: one, the necessity of attracting competent persons to and retaining them in the public service in order to meet the needs of Canadians, and two, Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies.

The second factor stifles a reasoned debate about the employer's fiscal circumstances and replaces it with the government's “desire to pay”, regardless of ability. In place of an evidence-based assessment of relevant economic factors and fiscal circumstances, the legislation effectively substituted the willingness of the government to compensate its employees at a certain level, and obliged arbitration boards to give preponderance to this factor and one other.

Finally, Bill C-59 granted the President of Treasury Board the ability to unilaterally impose a sickness and disability regime. Under Bill C-59, these fundamental terms and conditions of employment could be imposed rather than negotiated as they historically had been.

In conclusion, the CLC supports Bill C-62 with an important amendment that's about to be discussed, and the promotion of good-faith collective bargaining and respectful dialogue with public service employees. I want to emphasize that consulting and negotiating with public service bargaining agents, promoting mental health and providing support for workers, and investing in a workplace culture of fairness and respect pays off in high-quality services and lower costs to government and all Canadians.

A highly productive and motivated public service is one in which employees are supported, included, engaged, and recognized at work. Vilifying public service workers, undermining employee rights, and failing to invest in healthy workplaces represents a false economy, in my view. It leads to higher costs to government and Canadians in the form of low employee morale, a higher incidence and severity of depression and poor health, and lower levels of productivity, not to mention higher operational costs and elevated litigation risk to government.

Finally, the CLC believes that changes to labour laws must be conducted in a tripartite context, with ample study, consultation, and deliberation of the evidence, and an integral role for unions.

I want to close by echoing my colleagues' criticisms of PSECA and that egregious legislation, and also indicate the CLC support for repealing that legislation as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time, and I'd welcome any questions you have.

[Greg Phillips, President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees]

Honourable members of Parliament, we would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to appear, so that we are able to provide our opinion about Bill C-62.

My name is Greg Phillips, and I am President of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, or CAPE. CAPE represents some 14,000 public service employees. The large majority of our members are economists and social science workers who advise the government on public policy. We also represent the translators and interpreters who work every day to preserve and promote our nation's linguistic duality. Last but not least, we also have the great honour of representing the 90 analysts and research assistants employed by the Library of Parliament.

Accompanying me here today is Peter Engelmann, a partner with the law firm of Goldblatt Partners, who has a great deal of experience in labour law and constitutional law, particularly in the context of the federal public sector.

I want to start by saying that CAPE is very pleased that the government is finally taking steps to repeal Bills C-4 and C-59, the blatantly anti-union legislation that was passed by the former government. While it has taken far too long for the government to make good on the promises that were made even before the 2015 election, CAPE looks forward to seeing this bill go through the legislative process as quickly as possible in order to help restore the balance in labour relations in the federal public sector.

As you are no doubt aware, under the guise of modernizing labour relations, the former Conservative government attacked the collective bargaining rights of federal public servants on a number of levels. Bill C-4 came first and was problematic in many respects. It provided the government with undue leverage in the collective bargaining system in everything from the negotiation of essential services agreements to public service recourse procedures.

However, from CAPE's perspective, the most egregious changes were to the dispute resolution process. In particular, Bill C-4 took away the rights of our bargaining agents to choose between the arbitration or conciliation/strike routes as a process for resolving collective bargaining disputes.

In CAPE's case, it took away the right to arbitration, a process that had always worked well for CAPE and its members, and pushed them into the conciliation/strike route. In addition, the government even compromised the arbitration and conciliation processes by imposing new factors that arbitrators and conciliators had to consider when making a recommendation or award.

Bill C-59 took matters a step further and permitted the government to fundamentally change the long-standing and hard-fought sick leave and disability programs of public servants. Most disturbingly, it gave the government power to do so unilaterally, bypassing the bargaining process altogether. CAPE, along with many other federal public sector unions, felt that this legislation denied its members their fundamental rights under section 2(d) of the charter in that it did not allow for meaningful collective bargaining with regard to these key workplace issues. Therefore, CAPE actively participated in a case before the Ontario courts, which challenged the constitutionality of that legislation. Following the important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case in 2015, CAPE is confident that this charter challenge would have been successful in overturning Bill C-59 and likewise Bill C-4.

Needless to say, these changes to the labour relations scheme by the former government led to a combative and unproductive labour relations environment in the federal public service. This has been problematic not just for the members of bargaining agents such as CAPE, but for everyone who works in the federal public service. As noted at the outset, CAPE believes that it has taken far too long for the government to take these straightforward steps to turn back the clock to the labour relations system that was in place before C-4 and C-59.

The lengthy delay of over two and a half years since the election has unnecessarily prolonged this adversarial environment. CAPE is also disappointed that the bill fails to address some of the problems that have plagued the federal public service labour relations regime since even before Bills C-4 and C-59, such as the lengthy delays in getting cases to adjudication. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the government to tackle this important access to justice issue.

On a more positive note, it appears that this bill undoes virtually all the difficulties created by Bills C-4 and C-59. CAPE looks forward to returning to a labour relations system that is not perfect but is much more balanced and fair.

CAPE also notes that while Bill C-62 is amending the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, it is only a housekeeping provision to restore the procedures applicable to arbitration and conciliation that existed before December 31, 2013.

CAPE is disappointed that the government is not seizing on this opportunity to fulfill its commitment to completely repeal PSECA and to move forward with a proactive pay equity scheme immediately.

PSECA is a regressive piece of legislation that is a major step backward from the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, and it significantly interferes with the rights of federal public-sector employees by denying them human rights procedures for systemic gender discrimination in pay. CAPE is concerned that this will be another instance where there are unacceptable delays, which will prejudice its members, and we call on the government to take concrete steps as soon as possible.

Thank you for listening.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

I have a question about the coming into force of the provisions of Bill C-4. Some provisions have been repealed, but not all of them. I would like to know whether any collective agreements were finalized during that period.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

The issue of the minister being involved and named was brought in at that time on those changes in Bill C-4. Am I correct?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to follow up on a point that was raised by Ms. Harder. What was the rationale for the former government on Bill C-4? It was an omnibus piece of legislation introduced by Ms. Leitch at the time. It was a change, and in the language in the bill it named the minister directly to deal with frivolous complaints. What was the rationale used by the government for that change at the time?

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. I have heard some good feedback on this.

What struck me this morning were some of the statements made by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He is a good friend. I really respect the person, but obviously, we have different ideas. He made statements about union bosses and union leaders and about the Liberals just saying “thank you” because some of the unions were putting money in and campaigning against the Conservatives in the last election. I want to say that I totally disagree with that. The unions were campaigning against the Conservatives, yes, but they were also supporting anyone who could beat the Conservatives, and that was because they have a very bad reputation for taking away gains from labour that people have fought for all their lives, and they wanted to make sure that those people never got back in power until they got their act together and started to respect what labour could do.

We are pleased that the government is finally moving forward to repeal legislation based purely on a backward ideology that forces public servants to go to work sick and that totally undermines the principle of collective bargaining. We have to ask what took the Liberals so long to bring this bill forward. What took them so long to act? Of course, this is a question many Canadians are asking more and more often about the current government. Why are the Liberals not keeping the promises they made during the election, and why are they so slow to act or are not acting at all?

The list of broken promises is far too long to list in the time I have today, but we all know about the Liberals' failure to support electoral reform, their failure to restore door-to-door postal delivery, and the failure to keep the promise to make government more transparent. We also know about their failure to support pay equity legislation, anti-scab legislation, and measures to increase retirement security. One of their most shameful failures is the unwillingness to protect workers' pensions.

We have heard over and over again expressions of sympathy from the Prime Minister and his Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development for Canadian workers, like those at Sears Canada who have lost severance and termination pay and health care and life insurance benefits. They now face reduced pension benefits.

Canadians need and expect more than their sympathy and their shallow talking points. They need action. They need the government to change Canada's inadequate bankruptcy and solvency laws. We have shown the Liberals how this can be achieved, but still the government fails to act or move to protect millions of vulnerable Canadians. As my friend from Timmins—James Bay is fond of asking, when is the government going to put the protection of Canadian pensions ahead of Bay Street profits? It is a very good question and a question millions of Canadians would like to know the answer to.

Let me come back to Bill C-62. New Democrats want to undo Harper's anti-labour legacy and build a fair framework for collective bargaining. We welcome the introduction of Bill C-62, which would formally put an end to measures introduced by the former government. We know that the government Bill C-5 and Bill C-34, both introduced last year, have been languishing on the Order Paper since their introduction. We hope that their being amalgamated into Bill C-62 means that the government is finally ready to move forward.

Bill C-62 would reverse the attacks by the former Conservative government on the collective bargaining rights of federal public service employees, and it should be passed without delay. This bill would repeal the power given to the government to remove sick leave from federal public service collective agreements so that it could be changed unilaterally, outside of the bargaining process. The bill would also restore some of the changes to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act affecting collective bargaining, which the Conservatives had included in one of their budget implementation bills in 2013, such as those affecting the designation of essential services. New Democrats rallied against the Conservatives' agenda to curtail public service workers' right to strike. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended in December 2013 to remove the choice of dispute resolution being available to essential services.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians we would stand up for public sector workers in light of the lost decade of Harper's union abuse. Supporting this bill makes good on that promise. A respectful relationship with the public service starts with safeguards to free and fair collective bargaining, not stacking the deck in favour of the employer.

Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation introduced by the former Harper government: division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, which was an unwarranted and significant attack on the rights of public service workers.

Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential.

A key provision in the collective agreements of public service workers is sick leave, which allows full-time workers 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change this provision by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to 6, eliminating banked sick days, and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

The previous government claimed this change would have saved $900 million, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer's report, “the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the core public administration.” That means most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental costs to departments.

Under the Conservative legislation, workers would have been forced to choose between going to work sick or losing pay for basic necessities. Its legislation would eliminate all accumulated sick leave for public servants, reduce the amount of annual sick leave to 37.5 hours per year, subject to the absolute discretion of the employer, and institute a seven-day waiting period without pay before people could access short-term disability benefits.

I want to comment that, because I come from a union background. I served the union for 36 years. We had that seven-day waiting period also, and we made great gains. We proved to the company that having a waiting period of seven days would bring in workers who were sick, causing other workers to be sick, which actually caused a downturn in production because there were not have enough workers on the job to produce the machinery. Therefore, doing that was a step backward.

Both the NDP and the Liberals committed to reversing the changes during the last election. Bill C-62 would repeal the offending legislation, thus restoring sick leave provisions to public servants for the time being.

Bill C-62 would also revoke some of the more offensive Conservative legislation, including: giving government, as the employer, the right to unilaterally define essential services instead of negotiating an essential services agreement with the bargaining agent; undermining the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer; removing the bargaining agent's right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process, and undermining the workers in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring arbitrators to give priority to Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies. It also removed discrimination-based complaints by public servants from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That to me is a shame.

While we fully support Bill C-62, we also know there is more to be done to dismantle the Harper government's legacy of anti-labour legislation. Some of those measures include restoring the Canada Labour Code provisions pertaining to the rights of Canadians to refuse dangerous work. That was gutted by the Harper government, a right that everybody wants when they go into a workplace. Too many deaths have happened, and it should not be determined by the employer. The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act should be reinstated, bringing forward pay equity legislation, as well as the federal minimum wage, bringing Bill C-7 back to the House of Commons, and respecting the right of RCMP members to associate and bargain collectively.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Another important aspect of Bill C-4 introduced by the Harper government that we need to talk about is division 5, which amended the Canada Labour Code provisions dealing with dangerous situations. As defined, it narrowed the scope of what were considered situations of imminent danger. The Liberal bill provides a new definition for danger. However, it is important to make sure that the bill, which will pass in the end, properly supports health and safety officers within the process to help them refuse any work that is dangerous. At present, that can be difficult if they have to appeal directly to the Minister of Labour.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of having people to support us on occupational health and safety matters.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing a lot of rhetoric from the Conservatives today about how important the public service is and how important it is that we work with our public sector. However, another thing the previous Conservative government did with Bill C-4 was to unilaterally deem public services to be made essential, which would have effectively stripped the ability for unions to bargain in good faith with their employer, being the federal government.

With my colleague's experience in unions and being at the head of unions, can he comment on how he sees that kind of action being taken by the government, and whether it is a good or bad thing?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to stand in the House today and speak to Bill C-62, an act to amend the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act and other acts. This legislation and the subject matter with which it deals is not only important to me as a parliamentarian and a legislator, but also professionally. I was fortunate enough to spend 16 years working as director of legal resources for Teamsters Union Local 31, where I represented workers and the union in all facets of labour relations and human resources. I am well aware of the very strong need to have fair and balanced labour legislation in this country.

To that end, New Democrats are very pleased to see this legislation introduced and will be supporting the government as it moves the legislation through the House. As with all pieces of legislation from the Liberals, it is not exactly what we would like to see and it does not go quite far enough, but it definitely goes a large distance in re-establishing that balance in Canadian labour law that Canadians by a large majority want to see.

Specifically, Bill C-62 is aimed at repealing two blatantly anti-labour pieces of legislation that were introduced by the former Harper government. That was division 20 of Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The first of these, the former Bill C-59, sought to unilaterally impose an inferior disability and sick leave management system on public servants, an unwarranted, unjustified, and significant attack on the rights of public sector workers to freely and collectively bargain their benefits. Bill C-4 would have drastically changed the rules for collective bargaining within the public service, giving the government full control over union rights such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. The government would have also determined what positions would be considered essential, again, unilaterally.

The New Democrats fought vigorously against the government's attempt to introduce that legislation in the previous Parliament and we have fought vigorously in this Parliament to repeal the Conservatives' move to take those regressive steps.

To examine these provisions in a bit more detail, a key provision in the collective agreement of any worker, and in particular public service workers, is sick leave, which allows full-time workers, in the case of the public sector, 15 days per year of leave for use in case of illness or injury. The previous Conservative government was determined to unilaterally change that provision regardless of the wishes or desires of the majority of employees whose benefit it was, by reducing the number of sick days from 15 to six; eliminating entirely all accumulated banked sick days, in other words, wiping out accumulated benefits that public servants had accumulated for years; and imposing a short-term disability plan for federal public servants.

I pause here to say that many people in workplaces in Canada do have short-term disability plans. Others have accumulated sick days and each of those systems has its pros and cons. The point, however, is that in a unionized environment the way to come to a determination about what those benefits are is through collective bargaining. It is the employer and the union sitting at a table engaging in free collective bargaining and doing the inevitable trade-offs so that they come to a negotiated settlement. It is not by one side, in this case the employer, bringing down the unilateral hammer to impose its will on the other side regardless of the wishes or interests of the other side, but that is what the Conservatives did in the last Parliament.

The previous government also claimed that this change would save $900 million despite evidence to the contrary. According to the 2014 parliamentary budget officer:

...the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the [core public administration].

In practice, of course, the PBO found that most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost to departments. The punitive reason given by the previous Conservative government, that it would save money, once examined by an independent officer of Parliament, was found to be completely unsubstantiated.

I am going to pause here and just say there is something else the previous Conservative government said would save about that same amount of money, and that was the introduction of the Phoenix pay system. The Conservative government laid off, I think it was approximately 800 or 900 payroll workers across this country in the federal civil service, and instead bought a computer program that was developed by an outside private contractor. It then concentrated a much smaller workforce in New Brunswick to handle payroll issues for the entire country.

At that time the Conservatives, with their ideological mantra of privatization and smaller government said we would save money. How did that work out? Here we are, three or four years later, and the federal public payroll system is in utter chaos. Hundreds of thousands of public servants have had errors in their pay, have not been paid at all, or have been overpaid. Any time a federal public servant changes their status, whether they move up a category to fill in for someone on a temporary basis or to take a promotion, their pay inevitably gets completely confused.

We now know that it will cost somewhere in the billions of dollars to repair this colossal, irresponsible undertaking. Conservatives always try to convince the Canadian public that they are best managers of the public purse. I hope Canadians remember this. Here are examples where the Conservatives made moves, punitively, to save money that ended up costing taxpayers billions of dollars and implementing decisions that actually made the situation worse.

I am going to pause here for a moment. I want to talk a little about unionization. My friends on the Liberal side of the House are standing up and strenuously advocating for the right to unionize. I heard my friends in the Conservative Party asking what stops anybody. In this country, what stops people from unionizing is the law.

It is currently the law in Canada that employees who work on Parliament Hill are prohibited from unionizing, by law. There are certain groups that have always been prohibited from being certified at labour boards, people like articling students in law firms, interns in hospitals, and other groups. However, on the Hill, successive Liberal and Conservative governments, for decades and decades, have made it impossible for MPs' own staff to unionize.

When Canadians watch this and see Liberal and Conservative MPs stand up and say that they believe in unionization and the right to free collective bargaining, one might ask why they do not believe in that right for their own employees.

The New Democrats, in contrast, have recognized this right by voluntarily recognizing a union to represent the employees of members of Parliament here, and have done for decades. We have signed successive collective agreements that give superior wages, superior benefits, superior job force protections, and safer workplaces, because New Democrats have voluntarily extended the benefits of unionization to our staff.

I say it is time for the Liberals and Conservatives to jump into the 21st century. I call on them to repeal that law that prohibits their own employees from applying to a labour relations board and being certified.

I also want to talk generally and philosophically about different approaches to our economy, and where workers and legislation like this may fit in. It has been my experience, and it is my assertion, that the best performing economies in the world have three features. They have strong, responsible governments, strong business communities, and strong labour movements. All three of those factors come into play and I believe are key foundational elements of not only strong economies but just societies.

One only has to think of countries like Norway, Sweden, Germany, or any of the European countries that, year after year, top all metrics and measures of happiness and prosperity. When we look at what the core features of those countries are, it is always those three features: a strong democratic government, strong business communities that are innovative, and strong labour movements whose rights are respected. That is why this legislation, which seeks to undo some of the most egregious anti-labour and anti-union initiatives of the previous Harper government, is so timely and overdue.

I want to talk a bit about what this legislation would do for essential services. I think everybody recognizes that there are some jobs in society that are just so essential to the safety of the public or the functioning of our society that we accept there are some limitations put on the right to strike. However, the mechanism of determining who those people are and in what numbers is left to negotiation between the parties and, ultimately, to an independent third-party arbitrator at a labour board if there is disagreement. What the Harper government did, and what this legislation seeks to change, is that it allowed the employer to unilaterally determine who is essential and in what numbers, again tilting the balance of the management-labour relationship completely in favour of the employer and upsetting years and years of established labour tradition and law in this country.

This legislation would also fix a problem where the previous legislation sought to undermine workers by limiting the opportunity for unions to refer differences and collective agreement disputes to arbitration for ultimate resolution. All in all, I am pleased to see this legislation come forward. I am pleased to see legislation that, once again, puts some respect back into the public service so that the federal government, of whatever stripe, Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Green, it does not matter, is compelled to treat the civil servants of this country in a manner that is fair and respectful.

Many features go into a democracy. It is not just about putting a piece of paper in a ballot box every four years. There needs to be an independent judiciary, a non-corrupt police force, a free and diverse media, an informed electorate, and a professional civil service. The civil servants of this country perform an invaluable service, not only to the people of this country and the taxpayers who pay their bills, in delivering the services that people need, but they play an integral role in upholding our democracy, because governments come and go but the civil service stays. It is its job to professionally serve the government of the day and faithfully administer and execute the policies that the government, which is democratically elected in our country, may choose. Therefore, treating those employees with the upmost respect, respecting them as workers, respecting their ability to engage in normative collective bargaining in this country, is a principle that must always be respected, and this legislation would do that.

I congratulate the government for bringing it forward and New Democrats will support it wholeheartedly.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really grateful for this opportunity to talk again about the importance of the people who work for this country every single day. We have to come back to the core issue here. This is a good step in the right direction and we are happy to support the bill, but there are some definite gaps that were left out of dealing with the issues that the previous government left for so many workers across Canada.

One that is important is about safety. If we look at the Canada Labour Code, under Bill C-4, division 5 of part 3, public service workers lost the right to refuse unsafe work. When we put our faith in workers to go out and do the hard work that they do for all Canadians, we must make sure they can refuse work that is potentially very unsafe. They are the experts. They are the ones who have been doing this job. They understand what the risks are. To not give them that ability to refuse unsafe work is really devastating for workers and something that the government did not campaign on.

I am wondering if the member could share with the House why the government would not take the next step to make sure that we promote the fundamental rights of men and women in this country who serve all Canadians.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-62, which addresses a key issue for all those who believe in democracy.

The NDP has always defended workers’ rights and the rights of all Canadians in order to ensure that no one is left behind. That is why we believe it is important to continue playing an active role in this debate. Unions are the machinery that make democracy work. They took part in every struggle and are constantly coming up with innovative ideas. They have given workers a voice and a measure of power. I applaud their work and their unwavering dedication, and I want Canada to remain an egalitarian society.

Unfortunately, in the past decade, we have neglected our public servants, violated their rights, and subjected them to dramatic cutbacks and restrictive legislative measures. Today, thousands of employees are still not being paid properly because of Phoenix. Once again, as always, the NDP stood by Canada’s public servants and their unions throughout the process. The NDP would like to see public servants and the government enjoy a relationship based on responsibility, trust, and respect, today and in the future. That is why we are proposing concrete measures to reinstate a healthy working climate and a relationship of trust in the public service.

Among other things, we propose protecting whistle-blowers; granting powers to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada; adopting a code of conduct for departmental staff; and restricting the growing use of temporary employment agencies to the detriment of permanent employees.

We are as determined as ever to pursue these important goals. It is not a question of modifying a few policies here and there. We need a real change in attitude. The NDP will continue to demand that the government re-establish a free and fair collective bargaining process in the public service, and that it safeguard acquired protections and rights.

On October 17, 2016, the government introduced Bill C-62, which we are discussing today. Yes, I said 2016. The bill is more than welcome. It is aimed at re-establishing fair framework legislation for labour relations in the public service, and it is raising a lot of expectations. In December 2013, the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act was amended to eliminate the procedures for the choice of process of dispute resolution, including those involving essential services. The NDP vigorously opposed these amendments, which the Liberals are now looking at.

In our 2015 platform, we promised Canadians that we would defend the interests of public sector workers.

It is because of this promise, which we intend to keep, that we are supporting Bill C-62 today. The bill repeals various sections of the two profoundly anti-union legislative measures adopted by the former government, namely Bill C-59 and Bill C-4. The Harper government’s first legislative measure attacked by Bill C-62is the former Bill C-59, in particular section 20. The bill unilaterally imposed an inferior system for the management of disability and sick leave on public servants, which was an unjustified and major attack on the rights of public service workers.

That bill also abolished employees' right to good faith bargaining, taking sick leave out of federal public sector collective agreements so that the employer could unilaterally modify that leave outside the bargaining process.

One of the key provisions of current public sector collective agreements relates to sick leave. It gives full-time employees 15 days of leave per year to be used in case of accident or illness.

The Conservatives' Bill C-59 also took away accumulated unused sick leave days and imposed a short-term disability plan on public service employees. To make matters worse, the Conservatives introduced a seven-day unpaid waiting period before employees would receive their short-term disability benefits.

This is unacceptable. The previous government had the nerve to claim that these measures would save $900 million, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

According to a 2014 report by the parliamentary budget officer:

...the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the CPA.

The quotation speaks for itself. It means that most employees who are on sick leave are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost to departments.

The parliamentary budget officer confirmed that public service employees use sick days at about the same rate as private sector employees. An average of 11.52 days were used in the public sector, compared to 11.3 in the private sector. A difference of 0.2 days is pretty minor.

Division 20 of part 3 of Bill C-59 also authorized the Treasury Board of Canada to nullify terms and conditions in existing collective agreements. It gave the employer the authority to override many provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, including the statutory freeze provisions that maintain the status quo during the collective bargaining process.

Members may be surprised by what I am about to say. Under the provisions of Bill C-59, employees would be forced to choose between reporting for work even if they are sick and losing a percentage of the salary they need to survive.

Robyn Benson, the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, denounced these measures. According to PSAC, the sick leave plan for federal public servants is essential, and it must ensure that employees do not have to work when they are sick. That seems obvious to me, and I agree with PSAC.

I worked as a manager in various government and community organizations for 25 years. I managed a number of teams and a hundred or so employees. As a manager and as a member of Parliament, I believe that it is totally ineffective to make employees report for work when they are sick. It is even worse to cut employees’ sick days by more than half.

The second legislative measure of the Harper government addressed by Bill C-62 is former Bill C-4, in particular section 17, which radically changes the collective bargaining rules in the public service by giving the government full control over union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to arbitration. Bill C-4 takes away bargaining agents’ right to choose arbitration as a means of resolving collective bargaining disputes, making conciliation the default process. However, arbitration is a valid solution in situations where members want to avoid a strike, and the right to arbitration should therefore be maintained.

Section 17 of Bill C-4 also undermines the right to strike by making it illegal to strike if at least 80% of the positions in a bargaining unit provide essential services, as defined by the employer. Under Bill C-4, it is up to the government to designate which positions are essential, rather than working with the bargaining agent to negotiate an agreement on essential services.

This same section 17 infringed on workers rights in cases where the employer consents to arbitration by requiring adjudicators to give priority to Canada's financial situation in relation to its budgetary policies.

Discrimination complaints filed by public servants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission were simply erased. These measures are unacceptable.

That is why it is time to take action. This sets aside or amends changes that were made to four statutes during the last lost decade when the Conservative government violated union rights. I am referring to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the Public Service Employment Act.

The NDP always made a point of opposing the former Conservative government's attempts to limit union rights, mainly the public sector workers' right to strike.

We are therefore happy to support the government's efforts to undo the Conservative Party's damage and make Canada's public sector labour code equitable once more. The NDP is also happy to support Bill C-62.

We do not support it blindly, however. My job as an opposition MP is to scrutinize the bill and identify elements of it that need fixing. By expressing opposing views, sharing knowledge, and engaging in dialogue, we will come up with ideas to refine this bill and make sure it does everything it is supposed to, and it certainly needs help on that front. That is why I will now take a critical look at the bill's weaknesses.

After all the back and forth on this, Canada's workers deserve an ironclad law that will level the playing field for everyone involved and restore the balance of power. Although Bill C-62 is progress, it is just the first step toward instituting all the measures we want to see.

We should never legislate easy solutions to the problems we face. We have to avoid that. The NDP fought very hard to have the government abolish the previous government's initiative that attacked provisions governing public servants' sick leave. Bill C-62 can do that by repealing Division 20 of former Bill C-59 on sick leave.

Why is the government concurrently working on a new health regime that has short-term disability provisions similar to those proposed by the Conservatives in the past? That is the first reason why Bill C-62 does not allay all of our concerns.

Other points have me wondering. The greatest weakness of Bill C-62 is that it does not reverse all the negative changes made by the former government to our labour legislation. While this bill seeks to restore the rights C-62 stripped from public sector unions under Stephen Harper's tenure, Bill C-62 falls short of addressing some elements of Bills C-4 and C-59. I am referring to Division 5 of Part 3 of Bill C-4.

The Liberal government seems to be taking half-measures in an area where expectations are monumental. If we are to truly do away with the Harper government’s anti-labour legacy, Bill C-62 must do better, first by re-establishing the provisions of the Canada Labour Code respecting Canadians’ right to refuse dangerous work, such as changing the definition of “danger”, now limited in scope to situations of imminent threat.

We are also concerned about another point that Bill C-62 ignores: the removal of health and safety officers from the process of refusing dangerous work. As it stands now, the employer assesses the safety of the work, and the worker must appeal directly to the Minister of Labour. The minister can simply refuse to investigate if he or she deems that the matter is trivial or vexatious, or that the employee’s refusal is in bad faith. This measure implemented by the Harper government should be permanently struck down by Bill C-62.

Lastly, we believe that we should take this opportunity to re-establish a federal minimum wage and to reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act repealed by the Conservatives in 2013.

We also need to advance gender equality in the federal public service. That is why Bill C-62 should include a proactive federal legislative measure on pay equity in order to counter the effect of labour market forces on women’s wages.

The government claims that Bill C-62 demonstrates its commitment to fair collective bargaining for public servants. However, the exclusions to collective bargaining in Bill C-7 show that the Liberals have not always defended fair collective bargaining.

The government must commit to eliminating the exclusions in Bill C-7 in order to respect the right of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to meet and bargain collectively, just as public servants do.

That is why, in light of all the previous explanations, we deplore Bill C-62's lack of ambition. This lack of ambition restricts the scope of a bill that deserves more than what the Liberals are proposing.

Our disappointment appears to be shared by the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. She recently called on the government to do more than simply introduce a bill to correct the Conservative bills aimed at restricting public servants’ bargaining rights.

It is imperative that we continue to work on this bill. We must go much further and take advantage of its full potential. I explained which measures should be retained, which measures need to be taken much further, and which measures should be eliminated. The Liberal government really needs to repeal all of the Conservative measures.

This morning, I heard the President of the Treasury Board mention some lofty principles. If the Liberals wish to follow these principles, they must repeal all of the anti-labour measures the Conservatives introduced. We must take advantage of this opportunity.

We know that this bill was introduced in the fall of 2016, which was quite some time ago. People have very high expectations. The federal public service is dedicated to serving Canadians. We just marked the second anniversary of the problems with the Phoenix pay system. We need to take Bill C-62 as far as we can in order to resolve these problems that we have been grappling with for far too long.

We have amendments to propose. I outlined the measures that we want to implement. I hope that we will all be able to work together so that, when Bill C-62 passes, we can all proudly say that we accomplished our mission and that we implemented proper working conditions for federal public servants, working conditions in which they can feel secure. I hope that we can allay the concerns related to the Phoenix pay system and that public servants will have working conditions that will allow them to do their jobs properly.

We know that front-line work is demanding. That is what everyday life is like in some departments. Those employees listen to Canadians who are in difficult situations and who come to them for help or to get the their file sorted out. We are therefore asking federal public servants to do very demanding work.

Here, we pass bills. The next step is to implement them. We need to make sure that public servants feel that we parliamentarians here in the House are collaborating to provide them with the working conditions they need to do their job properly.

Budgetary considerations have been mentioned. All elected officials, at all levels of government, always need to ensure their decisions stay within budget. As I explained, a number of measures cost nothing. As we know, employees who are off sick are not even replaced, so their sick leave does not cost us anything.

For this reason, we are eager to collaborate in perfecting and completing this bill, which will officially reverse the anti-union measures of the past.

Bills C-5 and C-34 have been languishing on the Order Paper since they were tabled by this government. We hope that merging them with Bill C-62 is a sign that the government is finally ready to move forward.

That is why I want to make an appeal, an appeal to set partisanship aside and implement an infallible law that genuinely protects the rights of all workers, an appeal for teamwork and collaboration to make sure the proposed amendments I have presented here can be considered and approved.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing forward this important piece of legislation after the severe attacks by the previous government on union members.

The Liberal government said that this bill would repeal portions of former Bill C-4 to restore the labour relations regime that existed prior to 2013. However, this bill does not address changes enacted by former Bill C-4 to the Canadian Labour Code that make it harder to refuse unsafe work, which is critical to workers.

Does this member support repealing those provisions?

Resuming Debate

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the government's motion to disagree with the amendment by the Senate to Bill C-4. In fact, I am saddened to have to speak to this bill again.

Bill C-4 was passed by this House, with no amendments, and sent to the other place, where it was adopted at second reading and where it also went through the committee process, again with no amendments being tabled or adopted.

However, at third reading, certain members of the other House proposed amendments. Of course, as parliamentarians, it is certainly appropriate to study legislation before either place and to propose amendments that would improve or clarify the bill at hand. In this instance, the amendments proposed served to completely gut the bill. Senator Tannas' amendment would have had Bill C-525, from the previous government, reinstated. Senator Dagenais' amendment would have done the same with the previous government's Bill C-377. The latter was subsequently withdrawn, so I will speak to the remaining amendment.

The card check system for union certification seems to be a preoccupation of the Conservative members in this House and in the other place. One could put it down to ideology, I suppose, or consternation that something their party, their government, put in place while in government is being dismantled. That is understandable.

What is less understandable is the fact that the Conservatives continue to try to resurrect a law that has been judged by non-partisan experts to be unfair and unnecessary. Andrew Sims, vice-chair of the 1996 task force to review the Canada Labour Code, said:

...the two bills that are repealed by Bill C-4....both had the air of one side seeking political intervention for more ideological, economic, or relationship reasons, and they have corroded the view that legislative reform at the federal sector is based on the tripartite model.

At committee we heard testimony from respected experts, both employer and employee stakeholders and academics, that the previous government's Bill C-525 was a law that was enacted on the false premise that it was indeed the very bedrock of democracy, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Conservatives like to compare the union certification process to elections, but testimony and evidence from expert after expert debunked this claim. The analogy, simply put, is a false one.

Here is what Prof. Sara Slinn, associate professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, at York University, had to say about the previous government's Bill C-525:

...there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so...if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

It seems appropriate for me to once again refer to the testimony of Prof. Slinn, who also addressed the issue of the card check versus secret ballot votes for union certification.

...in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

My Conservative colleagues want to seriously curtail, I believe, the ability of Canadians to join unions.

Whenever there has been adversity suffered by working people or unfair or unsafe working conditions, unions have been there to advocate for fairness and for safer and more humane working conditions. Unions have been at the forefront of raising awareness and fighting for issues that affect everyone, from the dangers of asbestos in the workplace to the plight of the next generation of workers facing a future of temporary and precarious work.

I am proud to recognize the efforts of the labour movement in Canada in educating Canadians about the scourge of asbestos. I know that all Canadians look forward to the day when asbestos is finally banned in Canada.

As we mark the 25th anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, when 26 miners were killed, I am also extremely proud of the tireless efforts of the United Steelworkers, whose advocacy on behalf of Westray families resulted in the Westray law. We just have to make sure that all levels of government enforce this law.

Unions and their members have long been the proverbial canaries in the coal mine, raising the alarm on many important issues, and any attempt by the Conservatives, whether in the House or in the other place, to make it harder for Canadians to join unions begs the question why. Why the attack on the constitutional right of working men and women to organize themselves in joining unions?

Canadians have the right of freedom of association, and the card check system has served Canadian workers and Canadian workplaces well for decades. The previous government's Bill C-525 was just a thinly veiled attempt, based on dubious anecdotal examples, to tip the balance to the side of the employer, and employers already have the upper hand in most instances.

Rather than refute, once again, the many problems with Bill C-525, allow me to ask my Conservative colleagues what their motivation was in bringing in such an obviously anti-union, anti-worker, and therefore, in my opinion, anti-democratic law?

To quote Hassan Yussuff, from the Canadian Labour Congress:

Why would an employer care if the workers want to join the union? If it's their free democratic and constitutional right in this country, why would employers want to interfere in it other than the fact that if you do have a vote, it gives the employer time to use all kinds of tactics during the time the vote has been ordered? I could list some of the companies that clearly said they were going to close the facility, or cut people's salaries, or lay people off. Of course, ultimately it changed the workers' ability to truly exercise their free choice.

There is no reason to make it harder to join a union other than to tilt the playing field unfairly toward employers.

As I mentioned earlier, it gives me no pleasure to stand here today to speak to Bill C-4 again. In September 2016, I stated in the House my hope that Bill C-4 would receive swift passage so that the risks and restrictions brought about by the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 would cease to exist. However, here we are in May 2017, in a déjà vu situation. Just as the previous government's Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were enacted by the Conservatives in a less than straightforward fashion, as part of an omnibus bill through a private member's bill process, as opposed to being introduced and debated as government bills, so too have the Conservatives in the Senate engaged in what I believe are questionable tactics.

Bill C-4 had already been adopted at second reading in the Senate, studied at committee with no resulting amendments, and yet Conservative senators decided to break parliamentary tradition and propose amendments at third reading. According to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

The Senate has not vetoed a bill from the Commons since 1939. The Senate now very rarely makes amendments of principle. The amendments it does make to bills now are almost always related to drafting—to clarify, simplify and tidy proposed legislation.

The amendments proposed by the hon. senators Tannas and Dagenais were most definitely not to clarify, simplify, and tidy, but rather were designed to torpedo the contents of the entire bill. While the motives of the aforementioned senators are very clear, it remains a mystery as to why and how the government seemed unable to shepherd its own bill through the upper chamber.

Back in September when Bill C-4 was first debated, I congratulated the government on making good on one of its election promises. It would seem that my congratulations were a bit premature. I hope the government will take its responsibilities seriously and work diligently to ensure that it keeps this particular promise to Canadians to restore some balance to the collective bargaining process and to eliminate the onerous and unnecessary financial reporting requirements that the previous government imposed on unions.

I had also enumerated for the government the many ways that we as lawmakers could make life better for Canadians. Last fall, at the one year anniversary of the election, I expressed hope that the new government that had promised equality for women, fairness for indigenous people, and sunny ways for all would work closely with all members in this House, as well as unions and civil society, to bring about better jobs and a more secure future for all Canadians. I am disappointed that seven months later, one of the government's very first pieces of legislation has yet to be passed. How much longer do workers have to wait?

The NDP said that Bill C-4 was a good first step, but we reminded the government that there is still much work to be done. The previous government's omnibus bill, Bill C-4, had decimated the health and safety provisions for public sector workers. We need to restore these important safeguards for the people who deliver our essential public services.

As part of the promised labour policy reform, we asked the government to bring in legislation to update and modernize the Canada Labour Code. As we know, sections of the code that deal with workplace harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements are about 60 years out of date. It is time we modernized the code to reflect the reality of today's labour market. We have yet to hear from the government about this.

Given the rise in precarious and involuntary part-time employment, will the Liberals work with unions to ensure that part-time, temporary and self-employed workers have the right to the same workplace and labour protections as other Canadians? These workers are faced with a host of added challenges that include eligibility for EI benefits, and erratic hours that create challenges in pursuing an education, arranging child care, and qualifying for a mortgage.

When will the government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage for workers in federally regulated sectors? Some provinces and municipalities are already acknowledging that a living wage will make a huge difference in making life more affordable. Will the government step up and lead the way?

We heard just the other day in this House how the government will be pursuing a national poverty reduction strategy. A critical element of a poverty reduction strategy, I would say, and I think most people would agree, is a federal minimum wage. As I have said before, another sad fact is the disproportionate number of workers who would be helped by a federal minimum wage are women and young people. We cannot afford not to act.

Through a combination of policy and propaganda, the previous government started to dismantle the system of protections put in place by decades of advocacy by labour organizations and unions. Their right-wing agenda has generated policies that have hurt the environment, social services, and all workers, but especially persons of colour, indigenous communities, women, the poor, and other marginalized groups.

It is way past time for the federal government to bring in stand-alone pay equity legislation. We have studied this issue and consulted, and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Two committee reports have called for action, yet the government is making women wait. It is unconscionable.

All these are contributing factors to greater income inequality. If the government is truly sincere about helping the middle class, then it must immediately address all of these issues. If the government cannot manage to stickhandle its own bill through the legislative process, what hope do we have that these pressing issues will ever get the attention they deserve? Affordable child care, pay equity, decent accessible housing, and a living wage are all measures that would help Canadians from all walks of life.

It is not enough to state that one is a feminist. It is not enough to stand beside union men and women during the election and raise one's fist in solidarity. These are just words and gestures. We must follow that talk, that show of support, with actions, with leadership, with the hard work of making hard decisions.

It is time to stop the rhetoric of gender lenses, gender-based analysis, of consultation, discussion, of a whole-of-government approach. It is time to act. It is time to do the hard work of governing. It is time to stop blaming the previous government for the inaction of the present government.

The government must pass this legislation. The Liberals must bring in the changes they promised the working men and women of this country. I urge the government to finally make good on its promise to repeal the previous government's Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 and to urgently turn its attention to all the pressing issues facing Canadians. My NDP colleagues and I stand ready to help.

Canada Labour Code

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I have said in the House on previous occasions, Bill C-4 was a very good first step.

As some members will remember, the previous government's omnibus Bill C-4 did a number of things, including decimating the health and safety for public sector workers. There is more than this; we need to restore important safeguards for workers, including safety safeguards which were repealed in the omnibus bill of the previous government.

Today is a good first step. I would like to hear from the minister on when we are going to see the repeal. You commented in your speech about the importance of safety. There are still things in legislation that need to be repealed. Today is a very good first step. We need to move on and start to get back to good labour relations and safer workplaces.

Bill C-29—Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to use some statistics from the previous government that might be helpful. A number of years ago, on Bill C-4, which consisted of 322 pages, there were five days of debate at second reading under time allocation, two days at report stage under time allocation, and one day at third reading under time allocation.

On Bill C-31, which was 380 pages, there were five days of debate at second reading under time allocation, two days at report stage under time allocation, and two days at third reading under time allocation.

On Bill C-29, on the other hand, which was only 244 pages, there were six days of debate at second reading, there were two days at report stage, and one day at third reading.

We are doing things in a way that will allow us to get our work done. We are doing it in a way that is appropriate, so that Canadians can understand what we are trying to achieve for them and their families. That is the way we plan on moving forward to make a real difference to our economy and for Canadians over the long run.

[Jerry Dias]

It would be my pleasure.

If we started to do everything by referendum, my guess is that Bill C-51 probably would not have been accepted by Canadians. If we had a referendum on omnibus Bill C-4—about this thick—I can only guess that it probably would have gone down.

The bottom line is that those who talk about referendums today usually are those who never held them when they were in power, so I find it somewhat hypocritical.

Here's how Canadians are looking at it. It depends on the question and how you ask the question. If you asked a Canadian—excuse me, let me finish—

CANADA LABOUR CODE

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act.

Bill C-4 is a small step forward. It recognizes the need to respect the rights of hard-working men and women across the country. Since I have been an advocate for the rights of working men and women for many years, it should come as no surprise that I support this legislation.

My colleagues in the NDP caucus and I are happy to see critical rights restored to hard-working Canadians. However, this bill is only a first small step. We worry about the erosion of workers' rights under the previous government. There are so many questions and concerns. We look to the Liberal government to restore each and every one of the rights stolen from Canadian workers.

We also ask the government to update parts of the Canada Labour Code that are about 60 years out of date. One way to rectify this problem would be to act immediately on the recommendations in the final report of the 2006 review of the Labour Code. This is something long overdue. Many of the recommendations would provide much-needed updates and would benefit many hard-working Canadians who work two or three part-time jobs trying to support a family and purchase or maintain a home.

It is amazing that in a few short years we have seen the dismantling of the rights of each and every individual across the nation. These are rights that have taken decades to create and develop. These are rights that protect each and every one of us, especially those who are the most vulnerable.

New Democrats vigorously opposed the former Conservative government's attempts to restrict the rights of unions and to change the rules governing labour relations under the guise of increased transparency. During the election, we committed that an NDP government would repeal Bill C-525, on union representation, and Bill C-377, concerning the supposed transparency of labour organizations.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary and discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. The bill was pushed through Parliament by the previous government despite widespread opposition from a variety of interests, not just unions.

Many people knew there would be negative effects from this legislation well beyond its impact on unions. Many groups and associations represented individuals whose rights they consider important, whether one belonged to a union or not. Those groups included the NHL Players' Association, provincial governments, Conservative and Liberal senators, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry in Canada.

New Democrats agree with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who believes that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this legislation is not repealed, it will almost certainly be defeated in the courts.

New Democrats opposed Bill C-377 at every stage, because the legislation was as unnecessary as it was irresponsible. It corrupted the very ideal of fairness and balance in negotiations between the parties and undermined the fundamental right to free collective bargaining. It was a partisan assault on the men and women who go to work every day to provide for their families.

Canada needs a strong and healthy trade union movement. Unions in Canada have done so much not only for their members but for Canadian society as a whole. When unions are weakened, all working people feel it, and why is that? It is because attacks on collective bargaining do not promote economic growth. In fact, the opposite occurs. Attacks like these promote inequality, not a healthy economy.

The previous government claimed its support of Bill C-377 was based on providing transparency. What it failed to mention was that unions are already required to make their financial information available to their members. The bill represented an unnecessary duplication. It was a solution to a non-existing problem.

On top of this, the bill would have cost taxpayers a great deal of money to implement. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that it would cost much more than the $2 million allocated by the CRA for this level of monitoring. It was estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would have to spend $21 million over the first two years just to establish an electronic database and $2.1 million each year thereafter. That is ridiculously expensive, especially for something that is clearly redundant and represents unnecessary harassment. The bill should never have seen the light of day, and its repealing just makes sense.

Bill C-4 would also repeal another anti-union private member's bill supported by the previous government, Bill C-525. New Democrats fully support repealing that bill. The bill attacks the fundamental right of association, making certification of new worker associations or unions much more difficult while at the same time allowing the decertification of existing unions to be much easier.

These changes to labour laws were made despite there being zero evidence of any problems with the previous system of union certification.

A union, like any other type of association, exists to provide support and a voice to its members. What right does a government have to meddle in the daily management of any worker association or union? Very simply, it has no right. Such destructive meddling represented more than some childish act of union busting, and the effects would have had an impact on all Canadians.

Whether a person supports unions or not, the fact is that unions have been a driving force in ensuring that all hard-working Canadians, whether unionized or not, receive a basic level of rights, freedoms, and protections.

Organized associations of working people are important to Canadians and the economy. Higher wages negotiated by unions improve the lives of everyday Canadians by injecting an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each week. Standing in the way of the well-being of hard-working Canadians is bad policy, bad governance, and bad fiscal management, and it is bad for the economy.

I join with the Canadian unions that are pleased that the federal government has introduced legislation to repeal both Bill C-377 and Bill C-525.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Hassan Yussuff, has said,:

...these bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions' ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Mark Hancock, National President of CUPE, echoed those sentiments when he said:

This is good news for all Canadian workers. These bills were nothing more than political attacks on unions and we are happy that the new government is moving quickly to correct these wrongs.... This is a good step in re-establishing a sense of respect for unions, the democratic voice of working people.

The UFCW said this:

UFCW is pleased to see the government tabling Bill C-4. Our union campaigned vigorously against the Conservative Government's Bill C-377 in the last parliament. The bill was undemocratic, and part of the Conservative government's campaign against workers and workplace democracy. It was also a major invasion of the privacy of individual union members and it infringed on provincial jurisdiction over labour issues.

Repealing Bill C-377 is positive for all Canadians as this bill would have been expensive for the government to implement and monitor.

The NDP will continue to push the government to restore and enhance collective bargaining rights as well as fair working conditions for all Canadians. The NDP will continue to pressure the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to enact anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation.

Likewise, the NDP will also push the government to repeal the previous government's dangerous legislation, also entitled Bill C-4, and not just review it. This contentious Conservative legislation has been called unconstitutional and stacks the deck in the government's favour, undermining fair collective bargaining. Some people claim that the bill turned back the clock almost 50 years, and I certainly agree. A bill this backward needs to be repealed and not just reviewed.

Having fought hard against these unnecessary and irresponsible bills, the NDP welcomes the changes tabled by the current government. The rights of working people have been under attack for far too long and the repeal of these bills is a good first step, but there is much more to do for workers' rights and for working conditions for Canadian men and women.

The NDP will push the government to restore good faith bargaining with our public sector workers. We will push the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to ensure that workers have fair and independent health and safety protections. We will push the government to adopt anti-scab and pay equity legislation, because all Canadian workers deserve fairness and respect.

Bill C-4 is a very good step. However, it does not go far enough, and there are still many questions and concerns. We can and we must do better. Canadians are counting on us.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was very heartened to hear the member use words that I used in my speech, which were about having a more balanced approach to labour relations and that the legislation before us was a first step toward correcting what I feel was anti-worker legislation from the previous government. The NDP fought hard in the last Parliament to get rid of these anti-union, anti-worker types of legislation. Although there was consultation, if we go back and look, most people who were consulted disagreed with the government's legislation.

Why would we continue to operate under the previous government's Bill C-4 and just go at it bit by bit? Why not really make a stand, if the government really is supportive of workers, and repeal all the previous anti-worker legislation? I would like to hear whether the member would like to join with me in order to move forward. It is almost as big a step going back to start over in order to get back what workers fought long and hard for, which was taken away under the previous government.

Canada Labour Code

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to talk about this issue and to reflect on the previous government's attitude toward unions. It certainly was not the champions of unions, and I think most of us in this House would agree, except for perhaps a few.

Part of the agenda of the previous government was to reduce workers' rights as much as possible, and to undermine the collective rights of workers and unions to make workplaces better, to improve health and safety.

If we look at other things that were involved in the previous government's Bill C-4, we will see a list of things it wanted to remove: health and safety, the rights of public sector workers to take things to the labour relations board. It wanted to unilaterally be a part of negotiating things it took off the table that we could no longer do with collective agreements.

When the Conservatives espoused the words “democracy, transparency and accountability”, they were using those to say that working people are somehow not that way, that unions are not that way, that the public is not that way. It was a wedge issue in order for them to bring forward what was very clearly the anti-worker, anti-safety, anti-union agenda of the previous government.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-4.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister as well as the government on following through with one of their election promises.

New Democrats vigorously opposed the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the rights of unions, and to change the rules governing labour relations under the guise of increased transparency. These bills were designed to weaken unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting requirements on them and by making it more difficult for Canadians in federally regulated workplaces to join unions.

Allow me to recap the two bills that Bill C-4 would repeal.

Bill C-377 was an unnecessary and discriminatory law designed to impose onerous and absurdly detailed reporting requirements on unions. It was pushed through Parliament by the Conservatives despite widespread opposition from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, the NHL Players' Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry, among others.

Bill C-525 was a private member's bill supported by the Conservatives. It was designed to make it harder for workers to unionize and easier for unions to be decertified. The labour law changes were made without any evidence of a problem with the previous system of union certification.

It is my hope that the bill before us will receive swift passage so that the restrictions and the risks brought by Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will cease to exist.

I had the privilege of hearing from many stakeholders during the committee hearings, both unions and employers, on the bill, and I am pleased to have opportunity today to quote at length some of the testimony we heard last spring. Much of which we heard at the committee from expert witnesses describes the problems with these two pieces of legislation in a knowledgeable and straightforward way, and in plain language that makes it really easy to see why these bills should be repealed.

Tony Fanelli, representing the construction and contract maintenance industry employers, explained why he opposed these onerous disclosure and reporting requirements of Bill C-377. He said:

If all trust funds, all training funds, and virtually every fund that would be connected to a union are subject to public exposure, our competition would clearly understand over time how those monies go into training and how we do business. In the construction industry, training and development is a key component to the success of projects we build [and bid on]. The staff either make or break an employer. We saw this legislation would open the door for the non-union to come in, just as I mentioned.

On top of that are the reporting requirements, the reporting responsibilities, that would come out of this. When we did some of the preliminary audits on the cost of doing this, it was just prohibitive.

And these are a group of large employers.

He continued:

It would happen not only with employers like us, the people I represent, the bigger employers in Canada, but across every employer association in every jurisdiction in this country. That's the reason we're opposed.

Mr. Fanelli also said:

If the Construction Labour Relations association of Alberta or the Industrial Contractors Association of Canada are held to be a labour trust and have to make the reports and returns required by Bill C-377, then both our confidentiality and our bargaining strategies are laid open.

This cannot be good for labour relations or good for either party in the labour relations continuum. I've been a labour relations practitioner in Canada for nearly 40 years. During that time there have never been any issues arising in respect of this subject. If this hasn't been an issue in the past, what is going to be gained by such significant public disclosure?

He went on to say:

We are also responsible for the privacy of our employees, and the legislation compels us to decide which law we breach: the Income Tax Act or the various provincial and federal privacy laws...it might be different if there were some wrong or right in this area, but there simply isn't. The unionized contractors in Canada see no obvious value in any part of Bill C-377, and therefore support the repeal of that legislation under the bill being considered today....

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities also had the opportunity to hear from some eminent labour relations experts and practitioners. Andrew Sims was the vice-chair of the 1996 task force to review the Canada Labour Code. He gave an enlightening presentation and had this to say about both bills, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525:

It's a fairly strong expression of views, but it is not simply my personal experience. It is founded on the last 30-year—and I think the most significant 30 years—review of the Canada code, and the people whose laws will be affected.

In my view, the two bills that are repealed by Bill C-4...both had the air of one side seeking political intervention for more ideological, economic, or relationship reasons, and they have corroded the view that legislative reform at the federal sector is based on the tripartite model.

To the oft cited but erroneous comparison of a secret ballot forum to form a union to an individual's vote during a democratic election, here is what another expert witness, Sara Slinn, associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School at York University, had to say about Bill C-525:

...there is a faulty political election analogy at work here. Mandatory vote supporters commonly rely on a political election analogy founded on the view that certification votes are analogous to political campaigns and elections. The attraction of this argument is understandable, appealing as it does to ideas of free speech and informed choice and workplace democracy, but it's a false analogy.

The nature of union representation is not analogous to government power or political representation, and as a result, the nature of decision-making in a union vote is not analogous to that in a political election. First, the nature of the decision is [totally] different. Certification doesn't transform the employment relationship. It simply introduces the union as the employee's agent for the limited purpose of bargaining and administering any collective agreement that the union may be able to negotiate. The employer's overriding economic authority over employees continues in any event.

Secondly, there is no non-representation outcome possible in the political context. In political elections citizens vote between two or more possible representatives. There is no option to be unrepresented, so...if union representation elections were to be analogous to political elections, then it would be a vote among different collective employer representatives with no option for non-representation. That's simply not the system that we have anywhere in Canada.

Professor Slinn also addressed the issue of card check versus secret ballot votes for union certification. She stated:

...in terms of cards being a reliable measure of employee support, it's often contended that votes more accurately indicate employees' desire for union representation than cards, suggesting that card-based certification fosters union misconduct to compel employees to sign cards. Although this is possible, there is no evidence, either in academic studies or in the case law from jurisdictions that use this procedure, that it is a significant or a widespread problem. Anecdote isn't evidence, and certainly it shouldn't be a compelling basis for legislative change in the face of a lot of academic research finding that mandatory vote systems have negative effects on labour relations and that employer interference in certification is indeed a significant and widespread problem.

Another effect of Bill C-525 is the increased difficulty that employees would face when trying to form a union. Despite the Conservatives' denial, it is clear that mandatory voting procedures, as set out in Bill C-525, would allow more opportunity for employers to influence the outcomes of certification drives. I will quote Professor Slinn again, as follows:

In every case, in a vote-based procedure, the employer is notified by the labour board that a certification application has been made.... In most jurisdictions in Canada, in all but two, there is a deadline for that vote. It's between five and 10 working days. Under the Canada Labour Code, there is no deadline for that vote.

This provides ample time for employers to engage in anti-union campaigns.

She goes on to say:

...there's quite a bit of research on delay in the vote process. Representation votes, by requiring a vote in addition to submitting evidence, necessarily result in a longer certification procedure. It has been found that it significantly reduces the likelihood of certification where there's either no time limit—as is currently the case under the Canada Labour Code and other federal legislation....

These studies concluded that a combination of enforced statutory time limits and expedited hearings for unfair labour practices was necessary to satisfactorily offset these negative effects. Neither of these are currently available.

Professor Slinn noted that this delay would be a real concern under the current provisions and that passing Bill C-4 would help in part to address the issue.

In terms of employer interference, Professor Slinn noted that the vote-based procedure gives employers a substantial opportunity to seek to defeat the organizing attempt. There are numerous studies showing this is not only widespread but effective. A large percentage of managers surveyed in some of these studies admit to engaging in what they believe to be illegal, unfair labour practices to avoid union representation.

Survey evidence has also found in Canada that non-union employees expect employer retaliation and expect anti-union conduct by employers. Research at UBC has found that Canadian employers are no less anti-union in their attitudes toward unions than U.S. managers.

Professor Slinn found that Bill C-4 amendments reversing the Bill C-525 and Bill C-377 changes, particularly to the representation procedures, are a change that better protects employees' decision-making about collective representation.

Some of the aforementioned concerns about Bill C-525 were also echoed by Hassan Yussuff from the Canadian Labour Congress. He said:

If the board is uncertain about whether or not there is support for a union, the board itself can order a vote. Of course, on many occasions when there has been a vote, the board has found that employers have truly interfered with the workers' ability to choose the union....

Why would an employer care if the workers want to join the union? If it's their free democratic and constitutional right in this country, why would employers want to interfere in it other than the fact that if you do have a vote, it gives the employer time to use all kinds of tactics during the time the vote has been ordered? I could list some of the companies that clearly said they were going to close the facility, or cut people's salaries, or lay people off. Of course, ultimately it changed the workers' ability to truly exercise their free choice.

It was abundantly clear from the testimony of respected individuals and experts that Bill C-4 is a good first step. However, we are disappointed that some of the major actions were missing from the bill. The government has intimated that it plans to move forward with labour policy reform, which would include hearing from unions, employers, all other levels of government, and Canadians. While this is encouraging, it begs the question, why not immediately repeal the egregious labour law changes found in the previous government's omnibus Bill C-4? Why review bad legislation that is contentious and unconstitutional?

The previous government's omnibus Bill C-4 also decimated health and safety protections for public service workers. When will the government commit to restoring these important safeguards for the people who deliver our essential public services?

As negotiations with the public sector unions resume this fall, public service workers are looking for the respect they were promised during the election, and they are hoping that this government will make good on its promise to restore fair collective bargaining for the public service.

As part of the promised labour policy reform, will the government bring in legislation to update and modernize the Canada Labour Code? As we know, sections of the code that deal with workplace harassment, hours of work, overtime pay, and vacation entitlements are about 60 years out of date. It is time we modernized the code to reflect the reality of today's labour market.

The most recent review of the Canada Labour Code last happened in 2006, with the final report making several recommendations to help an increasing number of part-time and contractual employees.

In May 2015, a briefing note to the former minister of labour said that the rise in part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers along with the demand for knowledge-based jobs has changed the nature of work and the workplace. Will the government work with unions in ensuring that part-time, temporary, and self-employed workers have the right to the same workplace and labour protections as other Canadian workers?

Given the rise in precarious and involuntary part-time employment, Canadian workers are faced with a host of added challenges such as eligibility for EI benefits. It often results in a diminished ability to save. The erratic hours create challenges in pursuing an education, arranging child care, and qualifying for a mortgage. All these are contributing factors to the greater income inequality, and if the government is truly sincere about helping the middle class, then it must immediately address these issues.

I am sure my esteemed colleagues will agree that in every corner of this great country there is still much we can do to bring a better standard of living to Canadians. As the economy continues to struggle and the cost of living rises steadily while wages stagnate, Canadians are looking to the government to make life more affordable. Affordable child care, pay equity, decent accessible housing, and a living wage are all measures that would really help Canadians from all walks of life.

Will the government commit to reinstating a fair minimum wage for workers in the federally regulated sectors? Some provinces and municipalities are already acknowledging that a living wage will make a huge difference in making life more affordable. Will our government step up and lead the way?

Another sad fact is that a disproportionate number of workers who are affected are women and young people. We cannot afford not to act. It is way past time for the federal government to bring in stand-alone pay equity legislation. We have studied this issue and consulted, and the evidence is clear and undeniable. Two committee reports have called for action, yet we continue to wait.

Through a combination of policy and propaganda, the previous government started to dismantle the system of protections that were put in place by decades of advocacy by labour organizations, community groups, and unions. Their right-wing agenda has generated policies that hurt the environment, social services, and all workers especially persons of colour, indigenous peoples and communities, women, the poor, and other marginalized groups.

Now that we have a new government in place, one that has promised equality for women, fairness for indigenous people, and sunny ways for all, I do look forward to seeing the current government work closely with all members in the House as well as with unions and civil society to bring about better jobs and a more secure future for all Canadians.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today in support of the government's Bill C-5, one of a number of actions that the government has taken to restore the trust and confidence in our collective bargaining system in our country.

The bill goes to the heart of what we, as a government, believe in, which is collaborative, constructive relations with bargaining agents. It is a bill that highlights our belief that a balanced system of labour relations is the best one in a fair democracy.

This bill will repeal Division 20 of Bill C-59, passed in 2015.

Bill C-59 was the last omnibus budget bill introduced by the former government. It gave the government the power to circumvent the collective bargaining process and to unilaterally impose a new sick leave regime on public servants.

To be more precise, it gave the Treasury Board the legal authority to do the following in the core public administration: first, establish and modify the terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees despite the content of the Public Service Labour Relations Act that was negotiated in good faith in bargaining agreements; second, establish a short-term disability plan; and third, modify the long-term disability programs.

In other words, it gave the government the authority to ignore the existing Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to put in place a new sick leave and short-term disability program without the support or agreement of the bargaining agents representing public service employees. That is what we have been speaking about in this debate. It serves to undermine the good faith that government needs to earn in its bargaining with its public servants and their representatives.

As members may know, the Public Service Labour Relations Act was initially passed in 1967 to give public servants the right to unionize and to negotiate collective agreements.

It is vital that the parties work collaboratively and that the ability of the public service to serve and to protect the government be enhanced. That is obvious.

Bill C-59 sought to give the government the power to unilaterally impose a short-term disability plan if an agreement was not reached.

Unilateral measures are not collaborative measures. They do not foster good will or respect.

That is why we objected to these measures when they were introduced, and that is why we are here today repealing the legislation tabled by the previous government.

Federal employees are Canadians like us, who, each and every time they come to work, do so in service to Canada and Canadians, with the goal of improving or protecting the lives of their fellow citizens. They are the people who protect the integrity of our ecosystems by collecting the data and science that is needed to make the decisions, the people who issue our passports when we travel, who inspect high-risk foreign vehicles to ensure our ports stay safe and our waters clean, who work in the local post office, who ensure the safety of our food and the security of our borders.

However, in the past decade, a good number of fundamental labour rights that were hard won by workers and unions have been rolled back.

We need only look at Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which make union certification more difficult and decertification easier, and which would require unions to comply with demanding requirements for financial reporting.

These bills were passed without the usual consultation of employer, union and government when labour relations legislation is amended.

These are some of the measures the members opposite have been speaking about that we are committed to repealing.

The previous government did not follow the negotiation process and made it much more difficult for unions and employers to bargain collectively in good faith and work collaboratively in the interest of Canadians. In contrast, we believe in negotiations to achieve settlements that are both fair for public servants and for taxpayers. Threatening bargaining agents through a bill is not a basis for constructive negotiations.

We started by introducing a bill to repeal Bill C-377. That bill created unnecessary red tape for unions, requiring them to submit detailed financial information to the Canada Revenue Agency, including on non-labour relations activities. We also introduced legislation to repeal Bill C-525, which made it more difficult for employees to organize and negotiate collective agreements.

The President of the Treasury Board also committed to repealing the unfavourable provisions of Bill C-4, another omnibus budget bill passed in 2013, which sought to limit the ability of unions to represent their employees.

These are the important measures we have taken to restore fairness and balance in Canada's labour laws.

Let me sum up our responsible reasons for introducing Bill C-5. The bill would repeal the law that gives the government the power to unilaterally impose a new sick leave system on federal employees without collaboration or consultation.

During the election campaign, we committed to restoring fair and balanced labour legislation that recognizes the important role of unions in Canada.

We respect the collective bargaining process and we will bargain in good faith. We will work to negotiate collective agreements that are fair and reasonable for both public service employees and Canadians.

We want to restore balance, so that neither the employer, who represents the public, nor the union, which bargains for employees, has an unfair advantage in labour negotiations.

That is the system that best serves a just society. That is the system that will attract young millennials into our public service. That is the system in which we all exercise our responsibilities to ourselves, our communities, and to others. That is the system that best serves Canadians.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the labour critic in the NDP, for her fantastic speech and critique of where the government could potentially be going for working people in Canada. As a union member for 20 years, I know there is nothing more fundamentally important than the right to collectively bargain and the right to strike. Unfortunately, we do not see this being addressed in Bill C-5.

When we look at former Bill C-4, it is a direct threat to collective bargaining rights and the right to strike. Unions such as PSAC, PIPSC, and CAPE recognize this importance. It is the foundation of their ability to protect their rights in the workplace. We need to move collective bargaining back to where it was before the Conservative Harper government created Bill C-4 and essentially took that right away.

Could my hon. colleague give us her thoughts on why the government is not recognizing this and moving immediately to restore free and fair collective bargaining for public service workers in this country?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk today about this important issue. Bill C-5 is one step on a long road to recovery for Canadian public service workers, and more generally, for the rights of all Canadian workers.

The previous government's concerted assault on the rights of Canada's public service workers, on the value of the important services they provided, and by extension, on the rights of every hard-working Canadian have really negatively impacted our ability to attract new talent to the public sector and has seriously deteriorated the services the Canadian government is able to deliver to all Canadians. The result is costly. It is costly to the economy, to the Canadian way of life, and to the well-being of public servants, plus it creates gaping holes in our social fabric, which sadly means that particular segments of the Canadian population are left behind or are underserved.

The previous government's Bill C-4 showed little regard for basic business principles, willful ignorance of common and elementary knowledge about sickness in workplaces, and zero concern for the well-being of other people. In this day and age, there is no good reason to demand that a person go to work sick.

The previous government's trampling of workers' rights was shortsighted and unwarranted and has left a negative impact on the public sector and the Canadian way of life. Repealing the bill is obviously the right thing to do, but we can do better.

My NDP colleagues and I ask the current government to continue to stand up for workers' rights and to immediately repeal the previous government's Bill C-4, which interferes with free collective bargaining, infringes upon workers' rights to a safe work environment, and restricts the right to strike. The government should move immediately to repeal each section of this bill that undermines the constitutional rights of public service employees.

Under the previous government, we witnessed a major dismantling of important public sector departments. This made many Canadians uncomfortable, so uncomfortable, in fact, that some even wrote songs about it, which is partly why we have a new party in power today.

Many of these public sector departments provide the information, research, and analysis necessary for a government to make informed decisions. Being informed when making any decision is a key factor in making good decisions, whether that decision conforms to preconceived ideas or not.

Dr. Peter Wells, a former public servant and environmental scientist, said in an interview with the National Observer that the previous government was quite “simply anti-science, anti-evidence, and anti-informed policy and decision-making.... More than 2,000 positions and people were lost, many in my field [of environmental science], resulting in a loss of a generation of skills, knowledge, and capacity that were there to serve the public”.

“There to serve the public” is the important part here. It is there to serve the public good, not the good of a single political party or the agenda of a small group of ideologues. The public service is essential to a functioning democracy. They ensure that we live under the best conditions with the best resources and the best information available anywhere in the world. The health of our public sector plays a crucial role in whether we lead the world or fall behind. The public sector is essential to every Canadian's well-being and safety. In short, the public sector deserves respect, and public sector employees should be treated with respect.

Canadians want a Canada that trusts its public servants, because frankly, our public service workers are not the enemy. Canadians trust their public servants to show up to work every day and to diligently serve Canadians in what are often highly challenging and demanding situations. Canadians also understand that these same public servants should not show up to work sick. Passing on illnesses to co-workers and taking longer to get better only reduces productivity.

Trust is key in any healthy relationship. The Government of Canada is not a babysitter and should not babysit the people it is elected to serve. That is not the role of government. A government should trust the people who elected them, because unless we have forgotten, many of these people are our neighbours. Despite our many differences, we must respect our neighbours' right to freedom of speech, to health and well-being, and to a safe workplace. We must respect our neighbours' right to make their own decisions, to learn, and to have the space and resources to grow, because every single Canadian benefits when each of us has the opportunity to prove our potential.

Governments should provide leadership and vision, not micromanage public servants and certainly not abolish rights that will endanger the safety and well-being of public servants and ultimately the people they serve.

Moreover, our government should be working to build, not destroy. A government should protect and not harm. A government should not steal rights but respect them and provide opportunities for exercising those rights. That same government should also trust public sector workers to carry out the important work necessary to maintain the daily operations of the Canadian government.

Every day, thousands of our neighbours go to work to ensure that our food and borders are safe, that our pension cheques are delivered, and that the best of Canada is represented abroad. All of these workers make us proud, and our government should reflect that.

With any system, there is potential for abuse of that system by its users. There is always someone who will try to manipulate situations to their own perceived advantage, often at a cost to everyone else. That can be said of many systems. It can be said of governments, government services, and even representatives of governments themselves. However, like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the previous Bill C-4 of the previous government declares everyone guilty until proven innocent, and, in the process, smashes the entire structure to pieces so that little usable remains.

Moreover, a parliamentary budget officer report from July 2014, requested by the former member for Ottawa Centre, shows that the previous president of the Treasury Board and the justification for this poorly though-out bill misrepresented the level of sick leave taken by civil servants. It clearly shows that the use of sick leave in the federal civil service imposes no significant cost on the government or taxpayers.

The PBO report states:

the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the [core public administration].

That means that most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost for departments.

Likewise, and this is important, the PBO also confirmed that the use of sick leave by public servants is in line with the public sector. However, creating a problem where none exists to advance an ideology was the previous government's MO.

The previous government's Bill C-4 does absolutely nothing positive for Canada or Canadians and has paved the way for unenlightened ways of forcing Canadian public servants to go to work sick. Likewise, it sets a precedent that negatively impacts the whole of the Canadian working population.

Organized labour, like any professional association, is designed to look out for the well-being of its members. That is a simple fact. Every similar organization, whether it is a professional association, a chamber of commerce, or a taxpayers federation, does the same. Even pro athletes have their unions. In fact, that is the reason they organize. It to present strength through co-operation, to protect one another's rights, and to fight for more rights.

Organized labour, like other professional organizations, has provided leadership in our society. Its members have endured hardship and even ridicule while standing up for better working conditions. Their hard-won gains have benefited all Canadians, and many of these gains are taken for granted by many of us today: weekends, overtime pay, vacation pay, parental leave, health and safety regulations, and even sick days.

Creating a standard for all Canadian workers, unionized or not, to be treated with respect has led to all of us having the basic rights of association and freedom of speech and the right to a workplace that is safe. As small as it might seem, organized labour also helped set a precedent that if one is sick, one can stay home and not lose a day's pay or one's job. Despite what the previous government thought, this makes great business sense, and it has become a standard across the country and across sectors.

Today, these benefits are what helps an organization, private or public, attract top talent. It is also what helps keep that talent because measures such as sick leave ensure a modicum of decency between employer and employee, positively influence staffing efficiencies and stability, and express a confident statement regarding the well-being and health of an organization's or business's workforce. Given all the benefits that a happy, healthy workforce brings, it did seem strange that the federal government as an employer chose not to, or did not want to be a leader.

For example, Shift Development, a forward-thinking development company in my riding, pays a living wage to all its workers. Its CEO, Curtis Olson, says he pays all his employees a living wage rather than the minimum wage because he cannot afford not to. He said, “For me, as a business owner, the cost of employee turnover is a huge cost”. Mr. Olson knows the value of and relationship between high employee morale, health and stability, and increased returns from productivity, efficiency, and success. He said, “If I take care of my employees and help meet their financial and lifestyle needs, they’ll take care of the company and the growth of the company”. The Canadian government should learn from our business leaders' successes and start valuing and trusting their employees because without them the government cannot deliver a single service to Canadians.

The previous government's Bill C-4 was unenlightened and primitive. It pushed labour relations and standards back decades and set precedents that were regressive and reached far beyond the confines of the public service sector. It is incomprehensible to many Canadians why the previous government would want to erase rights that took decades and in some cases many generations to earn, rights the Conservatives wiped out in massive undemocratic omnibus swaths and a sweeping ideological mugging of Canadian rights and freedoms. These transgressions were made without consideration for the consequences for the Canadian working person, the economy, or the future Canadian workforce, our children.

Today, we are debating a return of only one of those rights. In the coming days, months, and years no doubt a great deal of time and energy will be lost to rebuilding what was destroyed by the previous government. Thanks to that government, we must move backward in order to move forward. Instead of debating a national living wage, which would increase the health and well-being of our local communities and economies, the previous government left us in the sorry state of debating the reinstatement of sick leave to public servants. If news reports about the current negotiations are accurate, the Liberal government has not lived up to all of its election promises about respecting the public service. It is all very good to promise to negotiate fairly and to bring a renewed respect to its dealings with public service workers, but if they are serving up some of the same offers as the previous government, it is not real change.

I urge the government to keep its promises and not break faith with the public service. It is my hope that the new boss is not the same as the old boss. Let us work to fix what is broken, including a pay system that has left thousands of workers unpaid or underpaid, the full effects of which are not yet to be seen. Let us get this bill passed now and move on to creating and implementing things such as a national housing strategy, which would save Canadians billions of dollars in health care and correctional services costs. Let us work on pressing issues such as quality affordable childcare, improving access to health care, and tackling climate change. Let us focus on improving the lives of families and seniors, and creating brighter futures for our young people. I know for a fact my riding would benefit from discussion on all of these issues, and I am sure my riding is not the only one in the country.

As such, while I support Bill C-5, more needs to be done to restore the numerous and hard-earned rights of Canadian workers, especially those in the public sector.

I urge the government to commit to repealing all the regressive changes made to labour law in the former government's Bill C-4. The previous government's Bill C-4 undermined the constitutional rights of federal public service employees to collective bargaining, including the right to strike. It also offered government negotiators an unfair advantage at the bargaining table. Unions, of course, fought against the changes throughout those legislative processes.

Happily, with collective bargaining about to resume in a new process for several tables of large unions, the government has the opportunity to make a gesture of good faith by committing to repeal provisions of the previous government's Bill C-4 affecting collective bargaining. That would be a start, because there are some seriously questionable aspects of that bill.

In fact, the Public Service Alliance of Canada asked the court to immediately declare that division 20 of Bill C-59, which is part of Bill C-4 of the previous government, is in violation of its members' charter rights because it denied the right of employees to good-faith bargaining by giving the employer the unilateral authority to establish all terms and conditions relating to sick leave, including establishing a short-term disability program, and modifying the existing long-term disability program; it allowed the Treasury Board to unilaterally nullify the terms and conditions in existing collective agreements; and it gave the employer the authority to override many of the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

In short, the previous government's Bill C-4 gave the government unbridled authority to designate essential positions. It eliminated the public sector compensation analysis and research functions that had previously allowed the parties at the bargaining table to base wage offers and demands on sound evidence and facts.

The previous Bill C-4 also changed the economic factors that could be considered by a public interest commission or an arbitration board, which placed the employer's interests ahead of its employees and tipped the scales, shamelessly, in the employer's favour.

The NDP has stood with the public service workers and the public sector unions every step of the way, while right after right was stolen from them by the previous government. During and after the last campaign, the NDP proposed a comprehensive suite of reforms that would help ensure that the relationship between public service employees and government is responsible, reliable, and respectful, now and into the future. These measures include protecting whistleblowers, empowering the integrity commissioner, introducing a code of conduct for ministerial staff, and reining in the growing use of temporary work agencies at the expense of permanent jobs. We remain committed to taking these important steps forward.

However, beyond changing specific policies, what is really needed is a change of attitude. Our public service workers have been neglected, undermined, and abused by brutal cuts and restrictive legislation, under both Liberal and Conservative governments and administrations. It is time we revisit our thinking.

What do any of us know about what is possible until we change the way we have been thinking and try a new road, a road that respects the independence of public servants, that respects the important work they do, and that shows that respect by honestly and fairly coming to the bargaining table? The current government must commit to restoring capacity in the public service so that essential services for Canadians can be delivered.

The Liberal government has said it is a friend of labour, both during the election and in government, but sometimes its words and actions do not line up. Its exclusion of such important issues as staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline from the collective bargaining process for the RCMP staff is one such disappointment.

Another is Bill C-10, which made the layoffs of 2,600 Air Canada and Aveos workers permanent by allowing Air Canada to ship aircraft maintenance jobs out of the country. The Air Canada Public Participation Act required the air carrier to keep heavy maintenance jobs in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. In a unanimous ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal recognized these obligations. However, instead of respecting the court's ruling, the present government decided to side with Air Canada, at the expense of workers.

I hope the government will stop saying one thing and doing another. I believe it is time it makes good on many election promises. I urge the government to make a commitment to repeal the previous government's Bill C-4.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to repeal Division 20 of Part 3 of the Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to engage the House on an important decision the government has made for employees of Canada's public service, their unions and for all Canadians.

The decision is as follows: the government will not use the powers in division 20 of Bill C-59, the Harper regime's anti-union legislation that currently enables the government to bypass negotiations with unions and unilaterally impose a sick leave system for federal employees.

As we have already told all bargaining agents, we will repeal this law.

This decision is in keeping with our government's commitment to bargain in good faith with public sector unions and to look for opportunities to modernize the sick leave and disability management system.

The Conservative government gratuitously disrespected the public service repeatedly. This time it did so when it decided to take the issue of sick leave off the negotiating table and give itself the power to unilaterally implement a plan of its own choosing.

Public servants were justifiably angry. They felt the previous government did not respect them and did not respect the collective bargaining process, and they were right.

From the beginning, our government has been committed to restoring a culture of respect for and within the public service. We have immense respect for our public service and the unions that represent them. We recognize the important roles they play.

During last year's election campaign, our government was clear in its opposition to Bill C-59 and other Harper government anti-union pieces of legislation. We understood that the changes made to the collective bargaining rights in both Bill C-59, division 20, and certain provisions of omnibus budget bill, Bill C-4, were neither fair nor balanced.

We pledged to introduce a bill this fall to restore the public service labour relations regime that was in place before the former government amended the legislation in 2013. In the meantime, we took steps to make current rounds of collective bargaining easier.

When we took power, our goal was to change the tone, to repair the relationship with public service employees, and to cultivate greater collaboration with the unions representing them.

That is because we value the important role that federal employees play as a force of positive change for Canadians. Every day, these public servants work for the sound governance of our country. They promote Canadian values and defend our interests within Canada and around the world. They deliver thousands of high-quality programs and services to Canadians. From operating icebreakers in the high Arctic to inspecting aircraft, from protecting our borders to peacekeeping abroad, from delivering employment insurance to issuing passports, from geologic research in the field to approving drugs for human use, from maintaining our national parks to preserving historic sites, our federal public service does all of this and much more.

Federal employees work hard across Canada and around the world.

We have seen the effect of their work as Canadians came together to welcome and settle some 25,000 Syrian refugees. That was a tremendous achievement that our public servants, within multiple departments, achieved working together.

This goes beyond just appreciating our employees and the work they do. We believe Canadians can achieve great things when we all work together. Indeed, our promise to work collaboratively with Canadians was a key cornerstone in our election platform.

Canadians want change in the way that governments treat and engage citizens. They want change in the way we work with unions and the labour movement, the way we work with members of Parliament, the media, indigenous peoples, the environmental community, all levels of government, veterans, business leaders, and so many others, all of whom want to contribute to building a better Canada.

By repealing division 20 of Bill C-59, the government is working with unions.

I would like to speak about the importance of rebooting our relations, broadly, with Canada's labour movement, but specifically with our public sector. It is really important to reset those relationships.

What we are doing here today is not simply a matter of demonstrating respect for and recognizing the importance of labour relations in governance. It is part of what we are doing as a government to work in partnership with the labour movement to achieve a better and more prosperous Canada.

One of the first things I did, after being named president of the Treasury Board, was to reach out to Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the National Joint Council, and other public sector leaders. I told them I wanted to restore a culture of respect for the public service, and respect and civility in labour relations.

The National Joint Council was among the first organizations I met with upon taking my responsibilities.

I want to send the following message: we will respect the collective bargaining process and negotiate in good faith. We are committed to reaching agreements, including on sick leave modernization, through collective bargaining.

This approach is crucial to the government's agenda. Canadians gave us a strong mandate to implement an ambitious and progressive agenda for change, to create jobs and grow the economy. However, we cannot get that done without an engaged, motivated, and respected public service. We need to bargain fairly, and in an environment of respect.

We know that we can accomplish more by working with one another than by working against one another. Collaboration is the only way to move forward together.

Real change of the type we envision for Canada can only happen when we work together, when we work collaboratively. Public servants are from diverse backgrounds. They work in communities across the country, and they work together to build a better Canada. We have backed up our commitment with actions.

In December, I made a commitment to the public service unions to go back to the bargaining table to negotiate in good faith. That is what we have done. We are looking for ways to modernize the sick leave system and reach agreements that are fair and reasonable for employees and Canadians.

We also committed that we would not exercise the powers given to the government to unilaterally implement a disability and sick leave management system. On January 21, we confirmed that we would be repealing that legislation, and on February 5, we introduced Bill C-5 to do that.

With the threat of Bill C-59 removed, we can have a genuine conversation with unions representing the public service on how to modernize the sick leave system in the public service. The current system can, for example, fail employees who have recently entered the public service and who have not accumulated a large bank of sick days. This is of particular concern to our government, and it is of concern to me, given our desire as a government to see the public service attract more young people to its ranks, attract millennials to the public service.

The fact is that the average age for new hires within the public service today is 37. We would like to see the federal public service do more to attract and retain millennials, who represent Canada's best and brightest generation and prospects for the future. However, we cannot do that if we do not have a system of sick leave that recognizes their importance. That is one of the changes we want to make.

Also, our current system fails employees, in our view, who suffer from mental health challenges and other chronic medical conditions. These are some of the important reasons that we are committed to a modernized system.

In terms of working together, we understand that wellness and productivity go hand in hand. Workforce wellness generates higher levels of employee engagement, which, in turn, leads to better-performing workplaces. We understand that workplace wellness means mental, as well as physical, health issues. As the country's largest employer, we have to tackle this challenge in our own ranks. To that end, we will be working to create a welcoming environment for free and frank discussion of mental wellness and mental health issues.

The fact is that our country is enriched and strengthened by different perspectives from the government, federal employees, and unions.

What is more, we know that we cannot provide Canadians with quality services if federal employees are not healthy, empowered, and involved. There is definitely a good dynamic for dealing with these problems and a general interest in doing so. By working with the unions, we are going to make real progress.

I want to recognize the excellent work done in this area of mental health by the joint task force on mental health, and the crucial work of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in advancing this agenda. The joint task force established a positive and collaborative partnership between representatives of the employer and from an equal number of bargaining agents. That is why we are consulting with employees on the federal public service workplace mental health strategy.

With this strategy, we are committing to exploring aspects of mental health with our employees, and to listening and responding to their needs. The strategy will evolve over time, and improvements will be based on research, good information, and employee feedback. This is an important step in helping to improve the psychological well-being of our employees. It is a great example of what we can achieve when we work together with the unions to make a real difference and to achieve important change for their members.

We are committed to taking further action, together with the public service unions and with the public service broadly, to strengthen our public service and to restore civility to our negotiations. I want to reset the relationship with our employees and their unions, and move responsibly and fairly to build the public service that Canadians need.

If we are going to meet the real challenges we face as a country, from improving economic opportunity and security for Canadians to settling thousands of refugees, we need to maintain a motivated and engaged public service. We have a wonderful opportunity here. From bargaining in good faith to open accountable government, to the utmost care and prudence and handling of public funds, we can continue to build a high performance public service for Canadians.

We need to work constructively and collaboratively to do it. Let me be clear. That does not mean that we as a government will always agree with the unions representing the public service on every single issue. Sometimes the union leaders will change our minds and sometimes we might even change their minds on something. However, if we are engaged collaboratively, we can disagree without being disagreeable, and we can work together to come together to build a stronger public service and better government for Canadians. Ultimately, we can learn from each other. We can negotiate in good faith to reach agreements that are fair and responsible for all parties.

In closing, Canadians know we find ourselves in a challenging fiscal situation and a slow growth economy. We were elected on a strong and progressive plan to grow that economy. If we are to implement our agenda to invest, to create jobs, and strengthen the middle class, we will need to be prudent, and it will take sound and responsible fiscal management and real collaboration.

As part of that, we have committed to fair and balanced labour laws that acknowledge the important roles of the unions. That is why we will resolve issues at the bargaining table in a way that is fair and reasonable for the public service and all Canadians. We will not be bargaining in public. We will be bargaining at the bargaining table, and that is where we ought to be bargaining, with the utmost respect for our public servants and understanding the importance of us working together.

The best is yet to come for Canada. The only way to ensure that we as Canadians achieve what we are capable of and that Canadians will benefit from all of this important work is to work together collaboratively, all of us as Canadians, members of Parliament, public servants, provincial, federal and municipal governments, the business and environmental communities, and indigenous peoples. We have a lot of work to do in this country and we need to work hard together to achieve our full potential.

Members of our public service play an important role with respect to not only our plan as a government but also achieving our potential as a country.

I look forward to this debate and hope that all hon. members would join me in supporting this piece of legislation.

Canada Labour Code

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the past two decades there has been a steady attack on the rights of working people in Canada. Nowhere has this attack been more evident than on organized labour.

Having spent nearly a decade fighting the attack by the former Conservative government, the NDP welcomes the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. Today, I am proud to stand in the House in support of Bill C-4, a bill that would restore unions' rights to represent their members and to ensure that labour relations are respected.

In the last Parliament, despite public warnings from Canada's Privacy Commissioner, constitutional experts, and the Canadian Bar Association that these bills were very likely to be found unconstitutional, Bill C-377 became law anyway. Bill C-377 placed onerous, redundant, privacy-violating reporting burdens on unions.

Unions were already required to make their financial information available to all their members. While pushed under the guise of transparency, this sweeping bill would have had far-reaching consequences.

For example, anyone who took on a temporary contract with a union and was paid more than $5,000 would see their name disclosed on this database. Likewise, any company engaging in work with a union, such as a small business providing snow removal services, would see their company and the contract details posted publicly, potentially undermining their ability to negotiate other contracts. Let me say that in Ottawa, it snows quite a lot.

By the way, this ideological attack on unions did not come without a price tag. The parliamentary budget officer estimated that the Canada Revenue Agency would need approximately $21 million to establish this electronic database over the first two years and approximately $2.1 million per year to keep the database up to date and to maintain after that. That means repealing Bill C-377 would save Canadian taxpayers and unions millions of dollars per year.

With the passage of Bill C-4, we now would have the opportunity to put that money to better use, to protect Canada's rights as well as access to government services.

Some of my constituents struggle daily to make ends meet, even with a full-time job, some of them with multiple jobs. Others would like to work, but cannot access the workforce for a variety of reasons including their inability to secure affordable, quality child care. The savings from this could fund a number of much needed programs such as social housing, services for seniors, and programs for the most vulnerable.

Like Bill C-377, Bill C-525 was designed to weaken unions in Canada. It was a bill that aimed to solve a problem that in my opinion, did not really exist.

Bill C-525 amended the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employee and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act in order to make it more difficult to certify a union and much easier to decertify one.

Prior to this bill, in order to trigger a union certification vote within the workplace, between 35% and 50% of the employees would have to sign a card indicating that they wish to become members of the union. Bill C-525 would have seen this threshold raised to 40%. Let me make it very clear, prior to Bill C-525, if 35% of employees signed a card, it only triggered a workplace vote, it did not automatically certify a union.

In order to certify a union during the card signing process, more than 50% of employees would still need to have signed a card indicating that they wished to be a member of the union. Their rights were respected and the process was legitimate. For workplaces that were already unionized, Bill C-525 attempted to make decertification of a union easier.

Bill C-525 would lower the threshold required to trigger a decertification vote to 40%. With these measures, it is clear to me that the attempt here was to make it more difficult to trigger certification and for simply ideological reasons.

New Democrats have long supported Canadians' right to freedom of assembly, as protected under the charter, as well as defending the value of the labour movement to working Canadians. It is no coincidence that as unionized rates in Canada have fallen, good-paying, stable, full-time jobs have gone with them. Collective bargaining has played an important role throughout history in ensuring that workers' rights are protected, that workers work in a safe environment, and receive fair pay and benefits for the value they bring to the workforce.

As these stable, secure jobs have been eroded in the workplace, what remain in Canada now are precarious ones, temporary contracts, and part-time work, which often are without benefits and have lower pay. Those are becoming the norm in today's workplaces. Just last year it was found that 52%, or over half, of all workers in Toronto, a major city in Canada, are in these precarious employment situations. Across Canada, these precarious positions are also disproportionately held by visible minorities and new Canadians, adding another barrier to their moving up the socio-economic ladder and achieving financial security for themselves and their families.

For a growing number of precarious workers, making ends meet is becoming increasingly difficult as the cost of living continues to rise and their wages do not keep up. Statistics Canada found that the lowest-earning 20% of Canadian households are now spending over 51% of their take-home pay just to cover essentials. Housing costs alone are now taking up nearly one-third of 20% of Canadian households' paycheques.

The impact of precarious work goes beyond the chequebook. Workers in precarious jobs are nearly twice as likely to report worse mental health than those in secure positions. The impact on people not knowing when their next shift is, of being subject to last-minute scheduling, and not knowing if they will still have jobs next month can lead to acute stress, poor nutrition, and weight gain. Studies have also shown now that workers are becoming trapped in precarious situations instead of moving on to stable, permanent positions. It is increasingly evident that they are stuck, going from contract to contract.

Employment instability, lower wages, and the lack of benefits have far-reaching impacts on Canadians and the economy. Poverty among seniors hit a historic low of under 4% in 1995 and that figure has begun to reverse as workplace pension benefits are eroded and Canadians struggle to save for retirement.

In 2013, poverty rates among seniors increased slightly to 11%. Poverty among seniors disproportionately impacts women, who are now experiencing poverty at the unacceptable rate of 30%. However, do not take the NDP or labour's word for it. Unionization was a key driving force in the past in addressing these issues. Indeed, in a study released just last year, the International Monetary Fund signalled a significant shift in approach, acknowledging that the role unions have historically played in addressing income inequality in society around the globe has been understated.

Research bodies are now showing that declining unionization rates are a significant factor in increasing inequality, especially among developed nations, including Canada. The IMF has now stated that the declining presence of unions has not only weakened the earnings and earnings potential of low- and middle-income earners, but that this has directly led to the rapidly increasing income share of the very highest earners, in particular, corporate managers and shareholders. Unions in Canada play a key role in the financial security of working Canadians and this can no longer be denied.

The Liberal government's decision to repeal these ideological pieces of legislation that would further harm the Canadian labour movement and the financial security of working Canadians is a welcome first step, but there is more to be done. The NDP will continue to push the government to repeal division 20 of Bill C-59 on sick leave, to reinstate a federal minimum wage, and to enact anti-scab legislation and proactive pay equity legislation. New Democrats will push for the repeal of the former Bill C-4, instead of being satisfied with just the current promise to review it. This legislation is also likely to be found unconstitutional and was another example of ideologically driven legislation to undermine fair collective bargaining.

Canadians can be assured that the NDP will continue to fight for workplace rights and against growing income inequality in Canada. Reducing inequality and improving the financial security of everyday working Canadians needs to be a top priority for the government.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House and speak to this important bill. As somebody from northern Manitoba, I am proud to come from a union town, Thompson, a proud mining town where we all know clearly how important it is to have a strong group of unions in our community. I am also proud of the role that unionized work has played in my family. My dad was a member of the important union in our community, the steelworkers, as was my grandmother. I know what it means to grow up in a household where union work means families and communities being better off.

I am also proud to rise in this House as a New Democrat. The NDP of course is a party that was born out of a labour movement, and it has always stood up for unions and the rights of Canadian workers. We have proudly voiced our fervent opposition to the former Conservative government's attempt to restrict the power of unions and to make it more difficult for workers to organize.

Unions have been a key player in the fight against inequality in our country, and they have been essential stakeholders in pressuring the government into implementing key policy changes that have benefited our entire society. From workplace safety regulations to the weekend, we must not forget the good that has come from the victories of the labour movement.

It is the labour movement, especially in a world where the middle class and the working class are shrinking in size and influence, that is a necessary counterweight to the corporate greed that has been disproportionately rising in power over the last three decades. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I rise in this House along with my colleagues to express our support for Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act. We welcome the actions taken by the government and will continue to fight for the rights of working people who were undermined by the previous government for so long.

Bill C-4 would repeal two pieces of legislation, Bills C-377 and C-525, that were pushed through by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. These two anti-union bills were designed to make it harder for Canadians to join unions in the federal sector as well as to fundamentally weaken the power of unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting. Both bills have been met with widespread opposition and criticism from many groups, including constitutional and privacy experts, the provinces, Conservative and Liberal senators, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and, of course, hard-working union members and workers across the country.

Bill C-377 forced unions to file information on the Internet about the salaries of their members as well as the unions' labour and political relations and activities. This bill was put forth by the Conservatives under the guise of increased transparency, they said. However, it is crucial to note the fact that unions are already required to make their financial information available to all their members. Furthermore, the NDP as well as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada believe that the bill goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It violates the right of freedom of association and the private lives of all who are members of a union. In addition, Bill C-377 would cost Canadian taxpayers an estimated $21 million just to establish an electronic database needed to store this information about union members, and it would cost the Canadian public $2.1 million each year after that. By repealing this piece of legislation, it goes without saying that both the Government of Canada as well as unions themselves would be able to save millions of dollars annually.

Bill C-525 proposed to drastically change the process through which unions under federal jurisdiction become certified. The bill increased the number of membership cards needed to certify a union and eliminated the possibility of forming a union through a majority card check. Prior to this legislation, a union was automatically certified if more than 50% of its employees signed a card indicating that they wanted to be part of a union. However, Bill C-525 outlawed this process. Because of this, the bill makes it harder for workers to unionize while making it easier for unions to be decertified. As such, Bill C-525 leaves workers vulnerable to intimidation by employers or third party members.

Yes, Bill C-4 would be a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done to ensure the rights of workers and improve working conditions for all Canadians.

Now I want to acknowledge the fundamental role that unions play in Canadian society through the protection of Canadian workers, the promotion of health and safety in our workplaces, and the role they play as the collective democratic voice for working people. I want to stress the fundamental importance of unions in providing education about workers' rights and standing up against workplace bullying and harassment.

Unions have been trailblazers when it comes to ending all forms of discrimination. They have been at the forefront of fighting for women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the rights of racialized and indigenous peoples. They contribute to democracy by giving workers collective bargaining power, thereby lowering inequality in our country.

Furthermore, a new study done by the International Monetary Fund, perhaps an unusual source for such information, indicates how increases in income inequality can be directly linked to the decline of rates of unionization. This is particularly shocking considering the IMF has actually contributed to decreased levels of unionization itself.

Moreover, a decline in unionization correlates to weaker employment laws, leaving workers vulnerable in terms of their rights and more open to exploitation. Unionization helps to equalize the distribution of wages. Higher wages negotiated by unions inject an additional $786 million into the Canadian economy each year. On average, the hourly wage of a unionized worker is $5 higher than that of a non-unionized worker. For women, that difference goes up to $6.65 an hour. Because of this, it is paramount that the importance of unions be recognized and respected accordingly.

As previously expressed, Bill C-4 is a good first step, but New Democrats are disappointed that some major actions are missing from this bill. The NDP will continue to push the government to restore good faith bargaining with public service workers, starting the repeal of division 20 of the Conservative omnibus budget bill, Bill C-59, that attacks a worker's right to sick days.

Furthermore, New Democrats call upon the government to reinstate a federal minimum wage and to adopt anti-scab and proactive pay equity legislation immediately. The NDP will also push the government to repeal former Bill C-4 rather than just review it. This contentious legislation has been called unconstitutional, as pointed out by many, and is said to stack the deck in the government's favour by undermining fair collective bargaining.

I wish to thank all the workers, union members, labour activists, and advocates who made the repeal of these pieces of anti-union legislation possible. As a member of Parliament for the NDP, as well as the critic for jobs, employment and workplace development, it is important for me to show solidarity for our union brothers and sisters.

All those who believe that unionization is outdated need only look at how productivity gains have been divided between labour and capital over the past 30 years or so. Nowadays, capital compensation is completely out of proportion with performance, compared to the low pay labour receives. Speculation is valued more than the production of goods and services. This trend has increased in proportion with the decrease in the rate of unionization in society.

As I reiterate my support for this bill, I would like to send a clear message to the government. The structural problems that the middle class and workers in Canada are facing go beyond the scope of this bill. The fight against inequality requires a structural review of government operations, and the country is counting on the new government to do just that.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You also refer to Bill C-4, which is an obstacle. It is not the first time that this government attacks the right to collective bargaining.

Does this all mean that this government does not like workers and does not like unionized workers? What is going on?

Opposition Motion—Federal Science Research

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, I am alarmed, Mr. Speaker.

There is a new phenomenon in this city that I have not seen before. In the past, I found that when public servants retired, they were somewhat discreet and did not get actively involved in political parties. However, what I find today is rather surprising in that when they retire, they very rapidly join our party. They want to get rid of the Conservative government because of the way they have been treated, and it is not just the scientists but other public servants as well. I have mentioned this before.

In Bill C-4, the government totally put in shambles the laws governing the relationship with our public service. In the current bill before the House, Bill C-59, it is the same thing. The Conservatives would give the President of the Treasury Board total power to decide unilaterally, without negotiation, how to arrive at a sick leave program. It is not through negotiations anymore.

What has happened in the last few years is that our federal public service has been totally mistreated, and it is not prepared to accept that anymore, including the scientists.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise today to debate a particular section of Bill C-59, section 20, which deals with the sick leave and disability programs that the government wishes to impose upon the federal public service. This is nothing new.

Here is a passage from the October 2013 throne speech, in which the federal government announced, and I quote:

It will reform disability and sick-day entitlements and work with employees to get them back to work as soon as possible.

That almost implies that employees are absent not because they are sick, but because they can take sick leave. Before talking about Bill C-59, I would like to talk about a bill that was passed not long after the 2013 Speech from the Throne, and that is Bill C-4.

Bill C-4, which I had called at the time a rather explosive bill, indeed, exploded the relationship between our federal public service and the Government of Canada, in a number of ways. It changed legislation that governed the federal public service and, also, the workers who fell under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, through the Canada Labour Code, in a number of ways. I will mention three.

The government gave itself the ability to define “essential services” in a way that had not existed before. It was, before the adoption of Bill C-4, a mechanism where both parties, the employer and the employees, could present their arguments and the body that rendered the decision was a rather respected one. However, this law now, essentially, gives the authority entirely to the government.

The other thing is that the unions will no longer have the right to arbitration, which was a very important tool that has been used repeatedly over the past decades. However, now, arbitration would be an option only if 80% of the members do a job that is considered essential. The government has given itself the right to very easily control the union's ability to use arbitration by taking away the essential right to the renegotiation tool that works well when the parties cannot come to an agreement.

If the unions manage to win the right to an arbitration, the government had 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, nothing else. That was not the case before.

Finally, the arbitration boards will no longer be independent. Basically, they report to the government.

In addition, there is another matter that I should mention. The definition of “danger” is changing, which would affect not only the 200,000-plus core public servants, but also the 800,000 other employees in Canada who fall under the Canada Labour Code, and the minister, or one of his delegates, is now responsible for defining “danger”. That sets us back at least 50 years. Given the tremendous progress we have made, regarding the rights of unionized workers in our country, I believe, now, that the public service and the workers governed by the Canada Labour Code are less well-served.

Back, now, to Bill C-59.

I wrote a blog on October 15, 2014, and I will quote it now.

[The President of the Treasury Board] has now proposed replacing the current system of banked sick leave with a new short-term disability plan and has warned that annual sick leave may be limited to five days a year [he has now offered six], which is a draconian cut from the 15 days currently allowed through negotiated collective agreements. Paid sick leave is not a perk that can be given or taken away at the discretion of the employer, but a contractual benefit of employment negotiated over time and representing, along with salary and other forms of leave, the mutually agreed worth of the work provided by employees.

A Treasury Board report has warned of a heavy fiscal liability that the government’s obligation to provide sick leave apparently represents, but the report is mistaken or misleading in several respects. To start with, a theoretical liability is meaningless when a great number of public servants do not use all their sick leave entitlements. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) has noted that the so-called liability includes work-related injuries and unpaid sick leave which are not relevant to the current discussion and negotiation. The PBO has also argued that the incremental costs of paid sick leave are minimal when departments do not backfill sick employees, which is the case with most departments and agencies. Finally, numbers are skewed when individual sick leave days are placed in the same basket as the forced draining of an employee’s banked sick leave immediately prior to long term disability.

The current system serves an important purpose: workers should not be going to work sick as this would impede their own recovery and may put co-workers—or the public—at risk of illness as well. We should be promoting healthy workplaces.

Let us hope that this situation will be resolved by good faith negotiation and not by another piece of legislation embedded in yet another omnibus bill.

That is the end of my blog entry from October 2014. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are now. Bill C-59 basically contains a measure giving the President of the Treasury Board the power to do whatever he wants, regardless of existing laws.

This morning we saw a headline in the Ottawa Citizen that made mention of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board is pressuring unions for a sick leave deal by the fall. In Bill C-4, the government established and tilted in its favour the capacity to negotiate, or dictate really, to the public servants of our country. Now, in Bill C-59, we are seeing a provision that would give the President of the Treasury Board the ability to dictate, when he wants, measures that have not been negotiated and that I do not believe would result in agreement. In the budget that was adopted in this House, the government and one of the ministers said that it is cast in stone, is expecting to recover $900 million worth of benefits this year from the sick leave program that our public servants benefit from. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we have a situation here that is not appropriate.

We should also note some numbers. Of the core public service staff, 25% have fewer than 10 days of banked sick leave, and 60% do not have enough banked days to bridge the gap to disability. Federal public servants currently have 15 days per year and can carry unused days over, which the government wants to stop, however the banked days are forfeited upon retirement. If there is abuse or if conditions need to be changed, five of the largest unions have been negotiating with Treasury Board since last June, apparently there are now 18, and have indicated a willingness to correct measures that may not be as solid as they should be. However, for the government to dictate that we will go from 15 to 6 days, non-accumulative, is not appropriate. That would create a situation in our public service that would not favour the service to the public.

In the past we have had a very solid relationship with our federal public service. Starting in the 60s when the prime minister at the time, Mr. Pearson, recognized the right to strike, and until 1984, 41% of our employees in Canada were unionized. That has now dropped back. In that period of time we had a great compression of the inequalities among the salaries of people. Since then it has been increasing. That is a serious difficulty that not just I but the World Economic Forum has identified as the world's single largest problem. The way we are dealing with our federal public service will not help solve that at all. It is a sad way for us to go, and I would hope that we would consider going in another direction rather than in this one.

Rail Service Resumption Act, 2015

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me once again today to rise in the House, in the Parliament of Canada, to oppose a bill. I rise as a member of the official opposition to represent the values of the NDP, which is opposing a back-to-work bill for the seventh time since the Conservatives took power in 2006. This government is certainly a repeat offender when it comes to attacking workers, violating their legitimate rights and preventing them from exerting pressure, which includes going on strike.

In 2007 we had Bill C-46 for the continuation of railway operations, so this is not the first time. In 2009 we had Bill C-61 for the continuation of railway operations once again. In 2011 it was Bill C-6 to restore mail delivery. That bill targeted postal workers and letter carriers. Also in 2011 was Bill C-5 to continue air service for passengers. Then we had Bill C-39 and Bill C-33 in 2012, when the Conservatives once again created a power imbalance between the parties. They systematically took the employer's side and took away fundamental rights from unionized workers, who are well within their rights to exert pressure.

I asked the minister a question earlier that I believe is the key issue we are concerned about: do people still have the right to strike and use pressure tactics in Canada today? Does this Conservative government recognize that striking is a legitimate way of expressing the right of association and freedom of collective bargaining? The Conservatives seem to be completely ignoring that aspect, and I will come back to that later. The Supreme Court's recent decision has once again upheld this right that the Conservatives have been flouting, year after year, in Canada.

We have reached a point where workers have to ask themselves whether they will be bothering anyone if they exercise their right to strike. Will the government systematically intervene and break the rules to give the employer more power and additional arguments? The situation is always the same. If the employer knows for sure that it does not really have to reach an agreement because its friends in the Conservative government will intervene, violate rights and prevent its workers from striking, then what incentive does the employer have to negotiate in good faith and try to find a solution? That is the major problem.

They should give negotiation a chance.

We have a Conservative government that is always on the side of the employers and never on the side of the workers of this country. Workers have a fundamental right to exert economic pressure and strike if they need to in order to force employers to recognize problems and find solutions.

The minister just said that a negotiated deal is always better than an imposition of anything. Why is she imposing back to work legislation again and again? It is the seventh time that the Conservatives would do that since they were elected in 2006. It is a bad habit that they have; they take a side every time and break the balance of power between the two parties. We are saying to give the workers a chance to negotiate and to exert their rights.

The Minister of Labour just said that the recent decision of the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the right to strike. I contradict that. I have a quote from a Supreme Court judge in that decision from a few weeks ago. Judge Abella wrote the following:

Where good faith negotiations break down, the ability to engage in the collective withdrawal of services is a necessary component of the process through which workers can continue to participate meaningfully in the pursuit of their collective workplace goals. In this case, the suppression of the right to strike amounts to a substantial interference with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

This is exactly what the decision of the Supreme Court is about. It is about the fundamental right of workers to exert some pressure on an employer to improve their working conditions.

If those workers are refused the right to strike, that is an interference of their fundamental rights. This is exactly what the Conservative government is doing, again and again.

It is a sad day. The right to strike in this country is under attack. Unions were considered illegal organizations before 1872. We are asking whether the government wants to go back to that point in time. Every time that it can crush workers and their unions, the government does it systematically. It has done it with Bill C-525, Bill C-377, and Bill C-4, other attacks on health and safety issues.

It is a sad day for democracy. It is a sad day for the workers of this country. It is a sad day for the labour movement. Workers can count on the NDP to defend their rights because we will protect the freedom of negotiation and collective bargaining. This is a value that we on this side of the House cherish and care about. Workers know that in a few months they will have the opportunity to have the first social democrat, pro-union, pro-worker, government in this country. It is coming.

I would like to reiterate that the labour minister told us that the Supreme Court's recent decision had nothing to do with exerting economic pressure or the right to strike. However, Justice Abella indicated in the ruling given a few weeks ago that the suppression of the right to strike interferes with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining, a process that provides an opportunity to get results.

In this case, it is extremely dangerous for the entire labour movement and for all workers to have a government that systematically takes the employer's side and tramples on workers' rights.

It is critical with the CP issue, and when there is a threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over their heads, to ask why the employer would negotiate in good faith. The employer knows it has good friends in power in Ottawa. The government will be on the employer's side and will force workers to go back to work. There is no reason for the employer to negotiate and look for a compromise.

Our concern is also the safety issue that is on the table for Canadian Pacific workers. It is a safety issue for everybody in this country: for the workers, first and foremost, of course, but also for everybody else. It is a question of the hours of work being too long, and extreme fatigue. We are talking about conductors who are driving freight trains that can be four kilometres long. We can imagine the consequences if the conductor is too tired to be aware of the dangers or everything that is going on.

This is not only the vision of the union. It is a problem that has been recognized by Transport Canada, and even by the companies. Transport Canada's own analysis of CP and CN employee scheduling records, from six different rail terminals across Canada, concluded that on the timing and length of each shift, assigned through an unpredictable on-call system, extreme fatigue was rampant.

In 4% of cases, employees were already extremely fatigued at the start of their shift because they did not have enough hours to sleep. It is a shame.

The government is not acting to correct that situation. Canadians should know that their safety is being put at risk by the government. We want that to change.

Forty-five percent of employees became extremely exhausted during work, and nearly all, 99%, were fatigued at least once during a month.

It was the same problem, the same issue, three years ago when employees of CP went on strike for a couple of days. After that, of course the Conservative government came here to vote on back-to-work legislation. The workers at that time were promised that the situation would be fixed: “Do not go on strike, we will negotiate and fix it.”

However, three years later, it is the same story. The same problems are still there. Extreme fatigue is still a problem for members of the Teamsters who are working for CP. Nothing has changed. We are back here again in the House of Commons, talking about back-to-work legislation.

My guess is that in three years we will be back again, because the issue will still not have been solved. There is no incentive for CP to solve the problem. The Conservatives are not helping. The Minister of Labour is not helping.

I think it is worth repeating, because the main issue in dispute here is not that workers want higher pay or want to extort more money from their employer. This is not about money. Incidentally, Canadian Pacific is an extremely profitable company. It has nothing to complain about; business is good. The discussions and debates are really about a matter of public safety. People need to be aware of that, because this is about the problem of too much overtime and the fatigue this causes. Canadian Pacific workers, the train operators, are not getting the rest they need, which leads to extreme fatigue.

What do the workers want? To be able to stop working and go home after 10 hours of work. All they are asking for is to not work more than 10 hours. What is this, the 19th century? Right now, train conductors have to work up to 12 hours straight before they can get a real rest. This is 2015; this is shameful. This Conservative government is doing nothing. In fact, it is actually helping rail companies perpetuate this practice.

Consider the potential consequences if a conductor driving a four-kilometre-long train is tired, does not have the necessary reflexes, and is unable to read the terrain or the dangers up ahead. Recent tragedies have shown us how important rail safety is. Everyone needs to know that this is a public safety issue and that the Conservatives are doing nothing about it.

A few minutes ago, I said that three years ago, CP workers, Teamsters members, went on strike for a few days on the issue of fatigue on the job and lack of breaks. The Conservative government forced them back to work. They were told not to worry, that this would be resolved, that there would be negotiations and recommendations would be made. Nothing was done. Today, in 2015, three years later, these same workers are going back on strike on the same issue of fatigue at work because nothing has been resolved. Now, we have another bill that is going to force them back to work again.

Should we allow the Conservatives to remain in power, I would not be surprised if people have to deal with a CP strike in three years. Unfortunately, if the Conservatives are still in power, they will again force them to go back to work. However, even Transport Canada recognized the issue of workplace fatigue for train conductors. It is not the Teamsters, the union, the CLC, but Transport Canada that is talking about this. Investigations of six different train terminals across the country led Transport Canada to conclude that the problem of extreme fatigue was rampant across Canada. In 4% of cases, employees are even extremely fatigued at the start of their shift, at the start of their work day, because they often do not get enough rest between two shifts. Fully 45% of employees are extremely tired or even exhausted while on the job. Forty-five per cent. Almost everyone, 99% according to Transport Canada, is tired at least once a month.

That has an impact on the workers. Obviously, it is bad for their health, their family life and their work. It puts everyone at risk.

The NDP does not want train conductors to experience fatigue at work. That is basic and straightforward. We do not understand why the Conservatives are still refusing to resolve this issue.

Even our neighbours to the south, the United States, where private enterprise is king and people despise regulations, have more regulations governing hours of work for rail company employees than we do. That is bizarre.

Why have the Conservatives never managed to fix this problem? We do not understand, but it puts huge swaths of our communities at risk.

Over the past five years, there have been at least seven accidents that, thankfully, did not cost any lives, but that happened because train conductors were tired at work. This is a real problem.

We have to find a solution, but we will not find a solution by preventing workers from exercising their right to take job action or go on strike. We know that because this is like groundhog day: it is the same old story over and over again.

I want to emphasize the fact that it is a real problem. The extreme fatigue of CP workers is real. Transport Canada has revealed that in the last five years, at least seven accidents or incidents were caused by fatigue of drivers or conductors of those trains. It is a real problem, but the government has no solution. Its only way to act is always ideological, always against unions, always against workers and against the safety of Canadians.

It is really sad. It is another case of the Conservatives going against international law. There is a labour organization in Switzerland that recognized that the right to strike is a fundamental right in modern societies. Once again, the government is going against the last decision of the Supreme Court and against international law.

On this side of the House, we think that workers can organize, defend their rights, and improve their working conditions. It is not the job of the government to oppose that, because it helps to build better communities. We always hear the Conservatives talk about the middle class and how they will defend the little guys of the middle class, but the middle class is, for the most part, a creation of the labour movement in this country and in all countries. Without the labour movement we would have no middle class.

If we want to defend the middle class, we must give the workers the tools to negotiate, to gain something in collective agreements, and to make sure that they are working in safe places. We must make sure that we do not put the safety of citizens of this country at risk.

Not only is the current federal government going against the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Saskatchewan case, but it is also going against regulations of the Geneva-based International Labour Organization, which considers the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining to be fundamental.

However, this is not surprising coming from an extremely ideological Conservative government that always responds in the same way when Canadian workers try to exercise their rights and improve their working conditions. This government pulls out the big guns and beats them back, telling them to shut up and get back to work. It does not want to listen to them; they are annoying.

What is important to this government is that companies continue to rake in profits, regardless of how or why and regardless of the rules, even if it makes people sick.

The Conservatives often like to say they are standing up for the middle class. However, the middle class is mainly a creation and a consequence of union struggles by workers who got organized, defended themselves at their workplace and negotiated better collective agreements.

If we are talking about the middle class, we must also talk about the tools that workers created to improve their situation. The NDP will always be there to stand up for workers and their families, for workplace health and safety and for public safety.

Unfortunately, again today, we see that the Conservative government is violating workers' rights and putting public safety at risk. I hope that all of us in the House will oppose this back-to-work bill—yet another one—and stand up not only for workers, but also for the middle class and public safety.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-21 because this gives me an opportunity to talk about how important small businesses are to me and my riding and about why we should support them.

Specialized industries and big businesses should not be the only beneficiaries of our desire to support our economy. We need to recognize that small businesses are central to our economy. I will explain why. Small businesses are one of our biggest drivers of economic growth. We have to help them thrive. Small businesses already account for nearly half of Canada's GDP, and they are responsible for close to 60% of all jobs in Canada as well as 75% of net new jobs. When the economy is in a downturn and fewer jobs are being created as we lose big companies, small businesses are the ones making a difference and creating jobs, especially in rural and remote areas. As a result, they are very important and create 75% of net new jobs.

We in the NDP believe that SMEs should be a priority for any federal government, because they directly support job creation. That is why we proposed reducing the small-business tax rate from 11% to 9% during the last federal election. That measure directly targeted SMEs. We also proposed other simple, concrete measures to help SMEs. For instance, we proposed expanding the hiring tax credit for small businesses. The Conservatives cancelled it in 2014, which was really sad to see, because it meant taking away a tax credit that created jobs and helped people enter the workforce. There are 1.3 million unemployed Canadians. Eliminating this kind of hiring credit that created jobs was a move in the wrong direction. At the same time, in the most recent budget, the Conservatives spent $500 million to implement measures that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will create only about 800 jobs. Clearly, that is not a good investment.

Furthermore, youth unemployment is very high. It is actually double the national average. We need to take a closer look at that in order to reverse that trend. Everyone knows that our youth are Canada's future. As parliamentarians, we have to invest in their future. That is why we proposed a tax credit worth up to $2,000 for hiring young people, in order to help businesses train young people aged 18 to 25 and provide them with good jobs.

In addition to all of that, as part of our campaign to make life more affordable, we proposed ways to reduce operating costs for our retailers and merchants, by directly tackling the anti-competitive credit card fees imposed by credit card companies. The Conservatives introduced a voluntary code of conduct recently, but that is not enough to reduce credit card transaction fees. We in the NDP are concerned about the excessive fees that businesses have to pay, since they can amount to 1, 2 or 3% of sales.

The exorbitant fees charged by credit card companies do not help our communities. That is money that comes directly out of our communities and will not be reinvested. A ceiling needs to be imposed to make these fees more equitable for the companies, but especially for our merchants. That would be fairer to the families who are trying to make ends meet.

These proposals truly support the entrepreneurs in my region whether they have just started their company or have been in business for decades. I travel around my riding and talk about these proposals, which are very well received by the Vallée de la Petite-Nation chamber of commerce and the chamber of commerce and industry of Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Mirabel and Argenteuil. These proposals will directly affect business owners in my riding.

In a riding like mine, a big part of the economy is based on agriculture and agri-food, and most of the business owners work in that field as well. These farmers are at the heart of our rural areas and a job creation strategy in the rural areas and small communities. I wanted to point that out because we have to think beyond taxes and red tape. We also have to think about what we can do to encourage and support our farmers.

The bill before us, Bill C-21, An Act to control the administrative burden that regulations impose on businesses, is meant to reduce red tape for businesses. The Conservatives are proposing to do that by giving more power to the Treasury Board. That is where they start to take away the SMEs' power to create jobs.

We still want to find ways to reduce the administrative burden on SMEs and allow them to focus on what they do best, namely growing their business and creating jobs. However, the NDP wants to prevent the government from eliminating rules regarding health, food safety, transportation safety, management systems and the environment. It is not unreasonable to ask the government to protect the environment, workers and our food.

We are concerned that the measures introduced to concentrate power in the Treasury Board are not steps in the right direction. We do not trust that the Conservatives will do a good job. In closing, I will provide two examples.

First, in the October 2013 budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, the Conservatives made changes to the Canada Labour Code in order to gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. They are directly compromising Canadians' health and safety.

Second, they do not necessarily want to reduce red tape because they increased the paper burden with the building Canada fund. We do not know how they can be trusted. When they have the opportunity to take occupational health and safety seriously, they do not do so, and when they say that they want to reduce red tape, they make more for our municipalities, which also create jobs.

For all those reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Labour

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Supreme Court recognized that the right to strike is protected under the Constitution. The Conservatives have shown a blatant disregard for the right to strike, even stripping it from federal workers with Bill C-4. That deal is nearly identical to the Saskatchewan law that the Supreme Court just ruled is not constitutional. Will the minister sit down with the unions and come up with an agreement, or will he waste tax dollars fighting to protect an unconstitutional law?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court just struck down a law that prevented Saskatchewan public servants from striking. The court reiterated that the right to strike is protected by the Constitution and that the government cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of what constitutes essential services.

Will the Conservatives acknowledge this decision and amend Bill C-4, which drastically restricts the right to strike and labour relations in the public service?

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time on my feet giving a speech, I would like to wish all my constituents a happy new year.

Happy new year to all my constituents. 2015 will no doubt be a very interesting year, one that I am sure will mark a major change in Canadian politics when an NDP government takes power.

Obviously, no one can oppose virtue. However, this bill is far from virtuous. I want to be clear with Canadians. I believe—as does my party, of course—in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, this bill does not significantly reduce the burden on small and medium-sized businesses, since it does not address most of the regulations that are problematic for them, namely those pertaining to all of the paperwork associated with taxes. When I visit small and medium-sized businesses in my riding, most of them complain about all of the paperwork required, particularly by Revenue Canada.

It is difficult to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to eliminate red tape since they did the opposite with the Building Canada fund, for example. Instead of helping municipalities and SMEs start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create delays of up to 18 months that will slow down important projects in my riding and the ridings of my colleagues.

The Conservatives did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires employers to provide more and more information about their employees. What is more, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help when it comes to training and information. Such assistance would help them figure out all of the paperwork and send the right forms to the right people. This government is not really supporting small and medium-sized businesses.

If we really want to help small and medium-sized businesses, we can do better than this bill. For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. That is another example of bureaucracy and red tape.

If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. That was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected by this government.

No, this bill is not good enough. The principle is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results. What small businesses really need is for us to identify what is wrong with the system and eliminate it. It would take a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.

We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, either by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business actually is for the purposes of government procurement contracts. These are major, tangible differences. These are changes that can help SMEs.

I do not know if members realize this, but the government currently defines small and medium-size businesses as businesses with 500 or fewer employees.

In my riding, SMEs have on average 12 employees. It is completely unrealistic to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with a so-called small business with 499 employees. That makes absolutely no sense. The system is not designed to consider criteria such as profit margins or staffing numbers, for example.

We could debate the service agreements that merchants sign with credit card companies, which favour small-business owners by allowing them to pass the fees on to consumers, thereby increasing all prices. Even though the Competition Tribunal recently rejected a lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard, in a rare move, it did call for the creation of a regulatory framework for anti-competitive practices.

Furthermore, to help small and medium-sized businesses, we could also create a tax credit to help businesses that hire and train young people or give grants to help SMEs expand. We could make it easier to transfer a family business to the next generation, for example, create tax credits that would offset payroll taxes, help small business innovate, and so on. In agriculture, we could do something about venture capital and the high interest rate for new land purchases.

Clearly, unlike the government's symbolic one-for-one legislation to reduce red tape, our proposals are sensible, concrete, realistic measures that would actually help Canadian SMEs create jobs. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have other, more serious concerns regarding this bill.

As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, because of their almost uncontrollable zeal for defending the free market as they understand it at all costs, I see that they have hidden in this bill their intent to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health and safety and the environment.

After the listeriosis crisis and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need to guarantee, more than the government is doing, that there will be more, not fewer, standards and regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety.

Regulations that are in the public interest should be kept. This bill puts them in jeopardy because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate them under the pretext of cutting red tape for businesses. This is definitely not the recipe for sound public administration.

We are not alone in thinking that. During the study of the bill, Chris Aylward of PSAC testified before the committee. He said:

If regulations are no longer deemed to be in the public interest after due consideration and consultation, the regulators have always had the ability to amend or delete them. In fact, they have done so on a regular basis... Not only is Bill C-21 unnecessary, it will not adequately protect Canadians... At worst it is a make-work project that will mean regulatory and enforcement officers will have to spend their valuable time within a context of shrinking resources aimlessly looking for regulations to cut.

Furthermore, Laura Jones, executive vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, stated that:

It's always going to be challenging, you know, where that line is drawn, because to get a bit more safety sometimes can be very costly, and different people will draw that line in different places.

It is all still quite vague.

It is true that the NDP wants to reduce red tape for small businesses, but we cannot do that at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who are in the habit of deregulating without any regard for safety, health or the environment. Their harmful record on eroding regulations that protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment is quite clear.

For example, in 2013, the then Minister of Transport gave WestJet an exemption from the Canadian aviation regulations. WestJet planes can now operate with just one flight attendant for every 50 passengers, rather than the standard one flight attendant for every 40 passengers, as required by the regulations. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. It is only natural. Where will this end? The NDP has asked that the rule of one flight attendant for every 40 passengers be upheld.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy also put the important issue of rail safety in Canada back on the agenda, after decades of Liberal and Conservative deregulation. In 1999, the Liberals persisted with the deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was adopted by the Mulroney Conservatives. This approach left it up to the industry to look after the safety of its own operations—in other words, self-regulation, which no longer works—instead of ensuring that the government worked with the industry to set safety standards. That would be perfectly reasonable.

In October 2013, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. This will jeopardize the health and safety of workers.

The Liberals were no better. I would remind the House that the Lac-Mégantic tragedy called decades of Liberal regulations into question. In 1999, the Liberals continued with the deregulation begun by the Mulroney government. No, the Liberals are no more reliable when it comes to protecting the health and safety of Canadians. Does the Liberal leader really have the judgment needed to defend the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians? I seriously doubt it.

It is not simply a question of managing the number of regulations to please the richest companies in Canada, but rather of determining which ones are helping Canadians. Therefore it is important that we do our research and our homework as good public administrators. This is a reasonable way to address this issue.

It is ridiculous that only the bill's preamble clearly states that the regulations protecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically protect health and safety regulations from the application of the bill?

Why did they not support our amendments in that regard when studying this bill? The NDP moved 12 amendments; that is not a lot. They were robust amendments, and nine of them would have prevented the government from eliminating regulations that protect Canadians' health and safety, food safety, transportation safety, the safety management system and the environment. One amendment would have required the government to just consult with stakeholders before eliminating regulations. Another amendment laid out the reporting requirements and eliminated the Governor in Council's power to make new regulations for the report.

If the Conservatives are serious, why did they vote against all these amendments? The amendments are reasonable and truly reflect all the evidence we heard in committee. The Conservatives said that these amendments were redundant. That is absolutely not the case. It is obvious that giving the President of the Treasury Board more powers is not what is needed for sound public administration.

The NDP believes in common sense solutions to reduce red tape and the compliance costs for small businesses when they deal with the government. The NDP is always open to ways to help small businesses by eliminating unnecessary red tape and letting them focus on what they do best: growing their businesses and creating jobs. However, the best way of doing this is not the one-for-one rule. It is rigorous research and broad consultation with the business community to identify those bureaucratic demands that are really causing problems.

This bill is a poison pill. Bill C-21 gives the President of the Treasury Board too many arbitrary powers that will make him the arbiter of eliminating regulations that he deems unnecessary. If the Conservatives are really serious about the health and safety of Canadians, I hope they will answer during this debate why they will not explicitly exclude regulations that protect health and safety from the application of this bill and why they opposed the NDP amendments that did that very thing.

Government regulations to protect Canadians' health and safety and the environment should remain a priority of any government. We need more than the government's promises of a preamble. The NDP would like to prevent the government from eliminating the regulations that protect health, safety, food security, and workplace health and safety, and this is why we are opposing this bill.

We want to make sure that future generations are not affected by the deregulation this bill would cause. Our fellow citizens deserve to be protected, as well as our children and grandchildren. Also, any bill of this kind should include clear obligations in terms of accountability for how the government uses this legislation and for the stakeholders who are consulted before regulation is eliminated. However, the Conservatives voted against this accountability in committee. Regulations that are in the public interest should clearly be consulted on with the public.

It is a matter of good public administration. It is about protecting our children, keeping them healthy and safe, and protecting the beauty of their natural environment, while finding a way to eliminate red tape. As I said before, we can do this by conducting a study in partnership with the public service and our small and medium-sized businesses and by using our heads.

[Mostafa Askari, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Library of Parliament]

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice-Chair, and members of the committee.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee today.

I will make a few brief remarks to set the context for the questions that you may have regarding the small business job credit.

While PBO shares parliamentarians' concerns with the cost-effectiveness of the small business job credit in improving employment outcomes, I would like to stress the importance of the bigger picture.

This proposal and any proposal that would affect the premium rate paid by employers or employees acts against the legislation that has been established over recent years for the purpose of detaching the EI program from discretionary policy decisions and ensuring that the contributions from workers are used only for expenses of the EI program.

Following a number of interventions in the premium-rate setting process, in 2012, Bill C-38 provided for the premium rate to move to a 7-year break-even rate after the account came into balance. The Economic Action Plan Act, No. 2, 2013, Bill C-4, amended the Employment Insurance Act to freeze the EI premium rate at $1.88 in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The policy announcement was accompanied by a report from the chief actuary updating the status of the EI operating account.

With the data in this report, PBO was able to show that barring a significant unexpected economic decline, a rate of 1.88 in 2015 and 2016 would be a premium rate increase compared to the rates that would have been set prior to Bill C-4, and that it would contribute considerable extra revenue to the budget outlook over the period of 2015-16 to 2016-17.

The PBO reported this in its fall economic and fiscal outlook update on October 25, 2013, and updated it in its October 2014 economic and fiscal update.

The government has never provided an explanation for why the premium rate is set well above the level required to eliminate the surplus in the EI operating account in 2015 and 2016 or why the break-even rate is not set immediately after the account goes into surplus in 2015. This is contrary to the government's stated objective of having a transparent premium-rate setting process.

It is important to underline that, given the requirement that the premium rate is set to balance the operating account over a seven-year period, any changes to the premium rate now must be offset by a change in the opposite direction later, and any impact that the rate change has on job creation today will be offset in the future. This applies to the small business job credit.

According to the PBO's estimate, this measure has a small temporary impact on the level of employment of 800 jobs in 2016, but this increase will be offset by a slightly higher than required EI premium rate for all employers and employees when the government sets the seven-year break-even rate in 2017 or earlier.

I am pleased to answer any questions you may have on this topic.

Thank you.

[James Carman, Senior Policy Advisor, Taxation, Investment Funds Institute of Canada]

Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to provide the views of members of the Investment Funds Institute of Canada at this hearing. We are the voice of Canada's investment fund industry. By connecting savers to Canada's economy, our industry contributes significantly to Canadian economic growth and job creation.

In my remarks today, I will be focusing on the amendments to the loss restriction event, LRE, rules in Bill C-43.

First, I would like to thank the government and the minister for the amendments. We believe that these amendments will address many of the concerns faced by our members. As originally enacted through the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, a trust would be subject to an LRE if an issuance or redemption of trust resulted in an investor or a group of investors holding more than 50% of the units of the trust. The trust would have a deemed year end, resulting in potential distributions to investors, be required to file a tax return and provide tax reporting to investors, and any previous loss carry-forwards and accrued losses on its investment portfolio that could not be applied in the deemed year end, including against accrued gains, would be lost.

The principle intent of the legislation was to ensure the majority investor could not buy into a fund that had suffered extensive losses and take advantage of these losses to offset future gains within the fund. While the department's intent to protect the Canadian treasury against lost revenue due to aggressive tax planning was completely appropriate, the scope of the legislation was too broad and had unintended consequences.

The original legislation did not take into account important distinctions in events that result in LRE that are simply situational in origin, and have no aggressive tax planning intent. Some examples include changes in majority ownership that frequently occur when an investment fund is in a start-up or wind down phase. During these periods, a single investor may easily end up holding 50% or more of a fund because of the small number of other investors and capital. Fund-on-fund situations where a bottom fund has a small number of investors, primarily widely held top funds, are also problematic.

The application of the LRE rules is also unfair to minority investors where the result is that the trust loses previous loss carry-forwards and accrued losses. Minority investors are entitled to benefit from their share of the losses and have no control over changes to majority ownership.

The amendments in Bill C-43 address many of the significant issues that I've just outlined. However, as IFIC noted in our submission dated October 31 to the department, there is still one more important issue that needs to be addressed.

Bill C-43 defines the conditions to be met in investment trusts in order that what would otherwise be an LRE is disregarded. A key component is the definition of “portfolio investment fund”, which contains elements drawn from the specified investment flow-through trust rules, or the SIFT rules. These rules were enacted for a totally different tax policy reason, to shut down income funds. The definition of “portfolio investment entity” includes a condition that will require trusts to ensure that they do not hold more than 10% of the equity value of an issuer. This is not a concentration test applied to prospectus-qualified funds that are subject to National Instrument 81-102. The test will require investment managers to make portfolio investment decisions that they wouldn't otherwise make. Also, the definition of “portfolio investment fund” effectively means that funds that invest in portfolio securities, Canadian and foreign real estate, or resource issuers, cannot qualify.

It is our hope that we can work with the government to find a solution based on the investment restrictions in National Instrument 81-102.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. Once again, we appreciate this invitation and would be pleased to answer any of your committee's questions.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to the latest Conservative omnibus bill. This bill is a product of a tired, old Conservative government that has lost touch with the challenges and opportunities of Canadians.

Bill C-43 is overflowing with changes that have no place in a budget bill, such as the petty change the Conservatives want to make to deny refugee claimants access to social assistance.

The Conservatives are actually using Bill C-43 in an effort to deny income support to refugee claimants, right after their attempt to limit refugee claimants' access to health care was struck down by the Federal Court. The court called that Conservative policy “cruel and unusual treatment” that “outrages (Canadians') standards of decency”.

A recent editorial in The Globe and Mail called this bill “an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role”. The Globe is right. It is anti-democratic for the Conservatives to once again use a massive omnibus budget bill to limit debate and ram through so many unrelated measures in Parliament.

In the last few years, the Conservatives have concocted and implemented a process that prevents MPs from all parties from doing their jobs in properly scrutinizing legislation. This is leading to a lot of sloppy mistakes. The Conservatives' general disdain for Canada's democratic institutions and their outright contempt for Parliament have led to countless errors being cemented into Canadian law.

This bill would try to fix a number of previous Conservative mistakes. I would like to give members a few examples of areas where the Conservatives are trying to use this omnibus bill to fix errors in previous bills.

First, the Conservatives forgot to include a tax credit in the last omnibus budget bill, Bill C-31, for interest paid on Canada apprentice loans. The Conservatives try to fix that in clause 35 of Bill C-43.

The second is that the government forgot to ensure that PRPPs are subject to similar GST treatment as RRSPs. The fix for that is found in part 2 of Bill C-43.

Third, they forgot to include a refund in Bill C-31 for duties paid on destroyed tobacco products. That correction is in Bill C-43, part 3.

Fourth, they forgot to change a legal heading when the Conservatives used Bill C-19 to transfer spending powers from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Conservatives gave all of the powers in that section of the law to the immigration minister, but still named the section “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.

Fifth, they forgot in Bill C-38 to allow the Minister of Industry to publicly disclose certain information regarding the review process.

Sixth, they forgot in Bill C-31 to include foreign money services businesses as foreign entities under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

Seventh, they ignored expert advice and capped the size of the Social Security Tribunal in Bill C-38, leading to massive backlogs in the system.

Eighth, they failed to realize in Bill C-4 that the amalgamation of the Blue Water Bridge Authority might not go as planned.

Ninth, they created confusion in Bill C-4 with various amendments related to public service labour, including a reference to the wrong clause number.

Tenth, they forgot in Bill C-45 to coordinate between RCMP pension rule changes in Bill C-42 and rule changes that raised the age for public service pensions in Bill C-45.

There are 10 examples of the the mistakes the Conservatives made in the previous bill that they are trying to fix in this omnibus bill.

The fact is that the Conservatives' game plan of limiting debate and ramming these bills through Parliaments is responsible for creating these mistakes. Parliament is denied its legitimate role to identify these flaws in the process of real parliamentary debate at committee and in the House and fixing them.

The reason these mistakes are made in the first place is because of the deeply flawed process surrounding omnibus legislation.

I would like to talk a bit today about tax policy, GST, EI, and the income-splitting proposal that the Conservatives had in their last platform.

Bill C-43 actually adds GST to some goods and services that are used by or provided by non-profit organizations operating health care facilities. When we asked officials for an example of what kinds of service might get caught up in this GST hike, the example they provided was of a health care facility that also runs a residential apartment building, such as an old age home. Adding GST to services purchased by or provided by old age homes means one of two things: either it will cut into the bottom line of the health care facility, or the old age home will have no choice but to pass the tax hike on to the people they serve. In the case of an old age home, it means that the government is getting ready to hike the GST and punish Canadian seniors, who are already struggling to get by on a fixed income.

In terms of employment insurance, Bill C-43 also gets it wrong. Bill C-43 offers a small EI tax cut to employers, but only if they agree to stay small. Instead of creating real jobs and growth, Bill C-43 would actually encourage businesses to stay small and would punish them if they grow and become more successful. Due to a design flaw in Bill C-43, the so-called small business job credit creates an incentive for some businesses to fire workers. That is why economist Jack Mintz has called it “a disincentive to growth” and why economist Mike Moffatt said “...the proposed ‘Small Business Job Credit’ has major structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.”

Even Finance Canada officials last night acknowledged that this tax credit creates a disincentive for some employers to hire.

Last month the PBO looked at this tax credit and found that it will only create 800 jobs over the next two years, at a cost of $550 million. That means it will cost taxpayers almost $700,000 per job.

In response to the need to encourage businesses to hire and to reduce EI premiums for businesses that do that or reward businesses that hire, the Liberals have proposed an EI holiday for new hires. This plan would only reward businesses that actually create jobs. The Liberal plan has been endorsed by Canadian job creators, including the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, which has said that the Liberal plan for an EI exemption for new hires “would create jobs”. The Restaurants Canada organization, representing restaurants across the country, said “This...proposal for an EI exemption for new hires would help restaurants create jobs.” The CFIB said it loves the Liberal plan to exempt small business from EI premiums for new hires, which has lots of job potential.

The same PBO report that looked at the Conservatives' tax credit and identified the flawed program that would cost $700,000 per job also identified that the Conservatives are collecting billions of dollars in excess of taxes in EI over the next two years and that the Conservatives actually have the capacity to cut EI premiums significantly.

The PBO estimates that artificially high EI rates under the Conservatives will cost the Canadian economy 10,000 jobs over the next two years. That is 10,000 more Canadians who will be out of work over the next two years because the Conservatives are using artificially high EI premiums to pad the books to fund pre-election spending. The Conservatives are ignoring the evidence and putting Conservative politics ahead of the Canadian economy and ahead of the interests of Canadian workers and employers.

Speaking of ignoring the evidence, the Conservatives appear ready to go ahead with their flawed income-splitting scheme that was introduced in their last platform. The idea that the Conservatives were putting forth in their last platform has been panned by everyone from the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to the Mowat Centre and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It was even panned by the late Jim Flaherty himself.

It is being panned because, as articulated in their platform, fewer than 15% of Canadian households would benefit, most of them high-income households, at a cost of $3 billion per year to the federal treasury and another $2 billion per year to provincial governments. Provincial governments, as we know, are facing deficits and huge fiscal challenges.

Under the Conservatives' scheme, the Prime Minister, earning $320,000 a year and with a stay-at-home spouse, would save about $6,500 per year. Meanwhile, a Canadian earning the average industrial wage and with a stay-at-home spouse would save less than $10 per week, and most households would get no benefit whatsoever.

We have a different approach. The Liberal approach is that we need to build a plan for 2015 that would be focused on creating jobs and growth to strengthen the Canadian middle class. The status quo is not working. The current federal government is so preoccupied with day-to-day politics that it has lost track of and is out of touch with the challenges and opportunities facing Canadian families. Those are challenges such as aging demographics and a slow-growth economy, which some refer to as secular stagnation. Baby boomers are rapidly approaching retirement age, and as they exit the workforce, they will leave a shrinking tax base and labour shortages in their wake. They will also place a greater strain on health care systems as they age. We will end up with more Canadians using the social safety net and fewer Canadians paying into it. These demographic pressures are leading economists to predict that slow economic growth could become the new normal.

The Canadian economy, frankly, is already sputtering under the Conservatives. Job growth over the last two years has been extremely weak, consumer debt is high, infrastructure is in disrepair, and housing prices in our cities are inflated. Last year the Canadian economy created a paltry 5,300 net new full-time jobs across the country. The percentage of Canadians working today is still two full points lower than before the downturn. There are 200,000 more jobless Canadians today than before the downturn, and the number of Canadians who are considered long-term unemployed is twice that of 2008. More than 150,000 Canadians are unemployed and have been searching for work for a year or longer. As we all know, the longer they are out of the workforce, the harder it is for them to get back in.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have young Canadians who simply cannot get their foot in the door of the Canadian labour market. Recent grads are facing huge challenges. There are 200,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn, before 2008. Persistently high youth unemployment and under-employment is robbing a generation of people of opportunities they need to succeed. TD economist Craig Alexander and CIBC economist Benjamin Tal describe a scenario of a lost generation of Canadian youth and a lost generation of potential for all Canadians.

This is despite the fact that this generation is the most technologically adept, most educated generation in our nation's history, and therein lies the challenge we face. There is a gap between the education they have and the job market. We have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Too many Canadians in their twenties are left saddled with big student loans and are unable to make ends meet. All too often, it is their middle-class parents and grandparents who are footing the bill. Among the hardest hit are Canadians who are actually squeezed between helping their adult children pay the bills and taking care of their aging parents at the same time, the sandwich generation. In many cases these parents in their forties, fifties, and sixties are taking on additional debt or dipping into their retirement savings. In fact, this is one of the things that is driving record levels of personal debt, which is about $1.65 for every dollar of annual income. According to the Canadian Financial Monitor, Canadians who are 55 years of age or older are two and a half times more likely to refinance their mortgage if they have children than if they do not have children. Their average household debt is twice that of their childless peers.

Meanwhile, many younger families do not actually have a mortgage to refinance. Instead, they are being priced out of the housing market altogether.

On this front, the Conservative government must share at least part of the blame for the high housing prices in Canada and commensurate personal debt. It was the Conservative government, in budget 2006, that brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment. It introduced them for the first time in Canada. It had an effect, because in the first half of 2008, more than half of all new mortgages in Canada were 40-year mortgages, and 10% of those had zero down payment.

The Conservatives shifted Canada's borrowing culture and lending culture, and that shift has helped fuel record levels of housing prices commensurate with that household debt. They have since reversed course and returned to the norm that was the case under Liberal governments in the past, meaning 25-year mortgages with at least 5% down. However, it is important to recognize the Conservatives' culpability in bringing 40-year mortgages with no down payments into Canada and helping fuel record levels of personal debt related to skyrocketing housing prices.

From the OECD and the IMF to the Bank of Canada, one thing on which Canadian and international economists agree is that elevated housing prices and household debt pose a big domestic threat to our economy. These elevated housing prices have helped widen the generational divide between those on the one hand who have watched the value of their house appreciate and in some cases have tapped into that equity to help fund consumption, and those on the other hand who cannot afford to even enter the housing market.

We are seeing greater income inequality in Canada, and fewer Canadians now think of themselves as being middle class. In fact, the number of Canadians who self-identify as middle class has dropped from 64% in 2009 to 47% in 2014. Even more troubling is that for the first time in recent history, more Canadians now believe that the next generation, their children and grandchildren, will be worse off, not better off, than they are today. That is the first time this has happened in Canada.

What we need is a federal government that will rise to meet these big challenges facing our country: aging demographics, slow growth, soft job market, and high levels of youth unemployment and underemployment. These are all challenges, but they also represent opportunities. I will give one specific challenge to our country that is a big social and economic challenge but that also represents an opportunity if we can get it right.

Over the next 10 years, there will be about 400,000 young aboriginal and first nation Canadians who will be of workforce age. If they have the skills they need for the jobs of today, that would be really good for our economy. If they do not, it represents a demographic, economic, and social time bomb for our country.

The reality is that we have failed collectively as governments at all levels to address this challenge. If we take it seriously, young aboriginal workers can be part of a Canadian growth and economic success story. We have to get it right. We have to take these issues seriously.

Liberals believe that sustainable growth and a focus on creating jobs, growth, and opportunities is the best way to benefit Canadian middle-class families and to restore hope to them. We believe we need to invest in infrastructure, training, innovation, and trade, and we believe that we need to keep our competitive tax rates.

Bill C-43 does nothing to grow the Canadian economy, and it ignores the very real challenges of the middle class and of young Canadians.

In a very short period of time, potentially within days, we will be seeing a fall economic statement. We hope the government chooses to invest in the future by investing in infrastructure, in training, and in young Canadians. We need the government to do so, and if this government does not, a future Liberal government will.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

Red Tape Reduction Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my interest in this bill is twofold because I am the official opposition's Treasury Board critic and the member for a riding that relies heavily on small and medium-sized businesses to create jobs.

This year I had the tremendous privilege and pleasure of touring several such businesses in municipalities like Chelsea, Wakefield and Shawville. I even toured a number of pharmacies to talk about the drug shortage. It was great to consult with business people in my region. They agree that we need to cut red tape, but not necessarily via the approach in this bill.

As an MP, of course I believe in the principle of red tape reduction, which will reduce administrative hassles for business people. However, as the official opposition's Treasury Board critic, I have serious concerns about this bill. As is often the case with the Conservatives' bills, it seems that their almost religious zeal for defending the free market as they see it at any cost has led them to conceal in this bill their intention to eliminate regulations that protect my constituents' health, safety and environment. In light of the listeriosis crises and the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, we need this government to guarantee that it will do more to protect and regulate Canadians' health and safety.

Regulations that are in the public interest should remain in place. This bill jeopardizes them because it gives the President of the Treasury Board the power to eliminate such regulations under the guise of reducing paperwork for businesses. That is obviously not the way to achieve sound public administration.

It is true that the NDP wants to reduce the administrative burden borne by small businesses, but we do not want to do so at the expense of Canadians' safety. We cannot trust the Conservatives, who have a tendency to deregulate without considering safety, health or the environment.

It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations, but of determining which ones are helping Canadians. This means carrying out a proper study, which is a reasonable approach to public administration.

Only the preamble of the bill states that the regulations affecting the health and safety of Canadians will not be affected. We all know that the legislation that will govern these regulations has no preamble. No mention is made of the environment in the entire bill. If the Conservatives really care about the health and safety of Canadians, why did they not specifically guarantee the application of the bill and the regulations that protect their health and safety?

I would remind my colleagues in the House of some important facts about this government's tendency to let things slide when it comes to the health and safety of Canadians. The Conservatives do not have a good track record in terms of preserving these regulations.

For instance, last year, the Minister of Transport allowed an exemption to the Canadian Aviation Regulations for the air carrier WestJet. WestJet planes will now be able to operate with one flight attendant per 50 passengers rather than according to the standard of one flight attendant per 40 passengers. Other airlines have since asked for similar exemptions. The NDP has asked that the 1:40 rule be maintained, which is reasonable.

In 1999, the Liberals, who are no better, persisted with the Mulroney government's deregulation of rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach, which was maintained by the Conservatives. This approach leaves it up to the industry itself to ensure that its operations are safe, instead of ensuring that the government works with the industry to set safety standards that should be followed. Basically, it is self-regulation. The goal of any business is to make a profit.

That resulted in many derailments throughout the country.

In addition, the Conservatives used the budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, to make changes to the Canada Labour Code, and those changes will gut the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. It is unacceptable to compromise the health and safety of workers.

It is clear that the Conservative President of the Treasury Board should not be given discretionary powers over our laws and regulations that govern our constituents' health, environment and safety.

It is hard to believe that the Conservatives are sincere about wanting to reduce red tape. They did the exact opposite with the building Canada fund. Instead of helping municipalities and small businesses start infrastructure projects in a timely manner, the Conservatives set up a long and cumbersome bureaucratic process for every project worth more than $100 million. That will create 6- to 18-month delays that will slow down important projects.

They did the same thing with their so-called employment insurance reform, which requires that employers provide more and more information about their employees. In addition, small and medium-sized business are not really getting any help.

For example, the Conservatives are dragging their feet when it comes to taking serious action to regulate anti-competitive credit card fees that merchants must pay to card issuers. If the Conservatives really wanted to help SMEs, they would have supported the NDP's idea to have an ombudsman to control the credit card fees that card issuers charge merchants. It was a simple and reasonable solution, but it was rejected.

This bill cannot be taken seriously. The principle behind it is good, but it is unclear whether it will achieve the expected results.

What we really need to do for small businesses is to identify what does not make sense in the system and eliminate it. That is a simple study. The one-for-one rule is too vague, and there is no guarantee that it is going to work.

We also have to stop giving lip service to small and medium-size businesses and actually help them out, for example, by restoring the small business hiring tax credit for young people; reducing taxes for small businesses specifically, not the corporate tax rate for the largest and most successful businesses in this country; cracking down on hidden credit card transaction fees; and perhaps redefining what a small and medium-size business is for government procurement contracts.

I do not know if members realize this, but small- and medium-size businesses are defined as 500 employees and less. I would approximate that, in my riding, the average number of employees that small and medium-size businesses have is 25. Therefore, it is completely unreasonable to expect a company with 25 employees to compete with the supposed small and medium-size business with 499 employees. It does not make any sense. There is no sensitivity built into the system regarding profit margins, the size of staff, et cetera.

We could talk about the service agreement between merchants and credit card companies that profit small business owners by directly passing on these fees to consumers. This increases the price of goods on everything. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move, the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices.

We could also create a new tax credit for businesses that hire and train young people, and financing to help small business owners grow their business. We could make it easier for parents to pass family businesses to their kids, create tax credits to offset payroll taxes, and help small businesses innovate, et cetera. In the agricultural sector, we could perhaps do something about risk capital and high interest rates for acquiring new agricultural lands.

It is clear that on this side of the equation, we are proposing sensible, concrete, realistic means of truly helping our small and medium-size businesses to create jobs that are desperately needed in our country.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

It does, Mr. Speaker.

New Democrats are not alone in expressing our concerns about this impact. As I said, it is worrisome that there is no mention of the word “environment”. It is also reprehensible. New Democrats will specifically seek to address this in an amendment during the committee stage of the bill's proceedings.

We have some validators on this. Robyn Benson, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, has underscored the importance of ensuring the proper enforcement of health and safety regulations, stating that “Regulations, and their proper enforcement, can literally save lives. But sometimes only a horrific mishap will make the point”. Unfortunately, we recently had a very stark reminder of what can happen when deregulation runs amok with the tragic incident at Lac-Mégantic last summer.

The labour movement is not alone in underscoring the importance of regulations that protect the health, safety, and environment of Canadians within the context of the bill. In the lead-up to the introduction of Bill C-21, Laura Jones, from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who has been quoted numerous times by the other side, stated that rules that are necessary to protect health, promote safety, and protect the environment are important and should not be classified under the definition of red tape.

What is most concerning about this sloganistic approach to easing the paper burden on small business is that the Conservative and Liberal track records from the past when it comes to safeguarding regulations and standards that protect the health and safety of Canadians have been abysmal.

As I mentioned earlier, the tragedy in Quebec has put rail safety in Canada back in the spotlight after decades of deregulation by the Liberals and then Conservatives. Largely, this descent into deregulation can be traced back to 1999 when the Liberals further deregulated rail safety by continuing to implement the safety management systems approach adopted by Mulroney's Conservative government. This approach has allowed rail companies to self-regulate rather than requiring them to adhere to operational safety standards jointly established by government and the industry. Unfortunately, we have seen a shocking example of how unchecked deregulation can cut short the lives of dozens of individuals and reek havoc on an entire town in what seemed like the blink of an eye but was really the result of a slow march toward a dangerous self-regulatory approach.

Further, with its October 2014 budget implementation act, Bill C-4, the Conservatives introduced changes to the labour code that will significantly restrict the powers of health and safety officers in federal workplaces. This is yet again an attack on Canadian workers that could have serious consequences for individuals in the workplace.

Let me speak briefly as to why the issue of health and safety regulations is so important and why New Democrats believe they should be exempted from the mandate of Bill C-21. In Canada, over 1,000 people fall victim to workplace accidents every year, while a growing number of Canadians are losing their lives or suffering from work-related illnesses. Regrettably, this number has been going up for the past 15 years.

I think we can all agree in the House that any injury, any death in the workplace, is one too many. Unfortunately, all too often families are left to pick up the pieces when loved ones are suddenly taken away while on the job. No one should ever have to leave their home in the morning wondering whether today is the day they die at work. In our country, three people are killed on the job every working day. Left behind are families and friends devastated by the loss of their loved ones.

Given the sad reality of how tenuous health and safety conditions continue to be for many of Canada's workers, it begs the question: If the Conservatives are really serious about the health and safety of Canadians, why not explicitly exclude regulations that protect health, safety, and the environment from the application of the bill?

New Democrats need more than the government's word or the preamble of a bill, which is subject to interpretation. We want assurances that the one-for-one rule would not apply to regulations that impact the health, safety, and environment of Canadians.

Canada's entrepreneurs are resourceful and innovative by nature. They are well positioned to succeed in the 21st century economy. However, to help them create the jobs we need in Canada, we need to make sure government is providing new entrepreneurs with the services and the supports they need to succeed. For instance, there are a variety of government services to assist businesses, but as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has pointed out, they are offered by many different governments, different agencies, and different departments. Finding and applying for the right service can also be time consuming, and many small business owners are forced to hire expensive consultants to navigate that bureaucracy. That needs to change. However, Bill C-21 does nothing to address this growing concern.

One aspect of this issue, which often gets lost in the conversation around the need to reduce the paper burden, is that dramatic cuts to the public service represent an additional layer of red tape for small business owners as they are forced to wait longer for the answers they need to maintain and grow their businesses.

New Democrats were staunch opponents to the cuts made by the Conservative government, cuts that have had a major impact not just on our most vulnerable citizens but also on business owners who are placed on hold in what can seem like a never-ending queue. While the Conservatives like to brand themselves as the party that is open for business, their cuts to front-line public services has left a closed sign hanging in the window of government service delivery during precisely the time when small business owners need a leg-up because of the economic downturn. This has left entrepreneurs out in the cold, not to mention the impact it has had on job recovery in our country.

That is why the bill is such a misnomer. On the one hand, the government is using a sloganistic approach to improving the efficiency of government in responding to the needs of our job creators. Then, on the other hand, it has undermined the ability of the government to deliver services and respond to inquiries from those very same job creators with its reckless public sector cuts. New Democrats believe the government should be focusing on real measures to help small business owners grow their businesses and not just half measures through a self-promotional bill.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to help small businesses they would not be dragging their feet when it comes to taking real action to curtail the excessive fees credit card issuers charge merchants. Small businesses are being gouged every day. On average, they must pay about $200 or more in fees for every $10,000 processed. Despite dismissing a recent case against Visa and Mastercard, in a rare move the Competition Tribunal called for a regulatory framework to deal with anti-competitive practices. So far, the Conservatives are really only paying lip service to the plight of small merchants by finally admitting that action is needed to lower merchant fees.

I could talk about the time when I went to the great riding of Winnipeg Centre. My colleague from that great riding and I went out to talk to small business owners in the Forks, which I think is the name of that great little place that is around there. We had business owners trying to track us down to talk to us about their concerns with respect to how much they are having to spend every year, some of them talking about tens of thousands of dollars, just to be able to accept credit cards, and the credit card fees that they have to pay. Some of them have even said they have had to stop taking them, which is having an effect on their businesses. They said they were not hiring people. They were not expanding their businesses because of these fees they were having to pay.

Unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats have common-sense proposals to help merchants, such as creating an independent government body to crack down on the anti-competitive merchant fees that stifle small businesses.

As well, training is important. As a party, we New Democrats know that smaller businesses do not necessarily have the resources to hire human resources managers to identify training opportunities and programs for staff let alone expertise to apply for government training programs. Training new employees costs time and money, and we sympathize with business owners who do not want to pony up the money to train employees only to have their competitors poach them and reap the rewards of their investment. Canadian business owners need to have the opportunity to have their workforce improved, because we have seen it fall by almost 40% since 1993.

We have also called for a youth hiring and training tax credit of up to about $4,000 to reward small and medium-sized enterprises that would give our youth their first chances to have well-paying jobs. Eligible businesses hiring Canadians between ages 18 and 25 could get up to about $1,000 for hiring a young employee and another $1,000 to match funds for the training of said employee. This tax credit would double in regions of the country where youth unemployment is highest, up to about $2,000 for each component. That is $4,000.

In tough regions in the north, such as my riding of Sudbury, we have higher unemployment. I have been talking to many of the small-business owners in my riding, and many are saying that something like this would be a benefit for them. We have three great post-secondary institutions in my riding putting out great graduates: Collège Boréal, Cambrian College, and Laurentian University. This would actually help those graduates get those great-paying jobs.

Again, noting that this bill, in our opinion, is sloganistic, we really need to find other programs that would work to really help small businesses. It is small businesses, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, that are the economic drivers and the heart of our economy. It is the small and medium-sized enterprises.

We need access to financing to help small-business owners grow their businesses. We have a strong start-up culture here in Canada, but entrepreneurs find it hard to access the funds they need to grow their business. New Democrats hear every day from experts and business observers that Canada needs a stronger venture capital market and access to more investors to help entrepreneurs grow their innovative ventures into real successes. Unfortunately, too many promising Canadian start-ups are sold off to U.S. investors before they can reach full maturity, because their owners just cannot access the financing to bring them to the next level. Budget 2013 increased taxes on small-business-friendly credit unions by over $200 million. That is money the credit unions could be using to continue to invest in our small businesses.

The Conservatives are also planning on phasing out their discounted tax treatment for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which provide a critical source of investment for business owners, especially in Quebec.

Looking back at all the things we have been talking about that could be done right now to help small business, we have not seen any action by the current government. What the Conservatives have done is bring forward this bill that talks about reducing some of the red tape and the paper burden.

To conclude, regulations that are in the public interest should be maintained. It is not just a question of managing the number of regulations on the books but of determining which regulations are working for Canadians and which regulations are not working. This is a sound approach. What I am talking about is public administration.

By not even mentioning the word “environment” in the preamble and in this bill causes us great concern on this side of the House. While of course it is important to protect the Canadian economy and important to ensure that there is health and safety, we cannot have any of those three items without protections for the environment. It talks about the air we breathe and the water we drink and the places we reside. We need to ensure that those protections are put in place.

While we agree that we want to reduce the administrative burden on small businesses, we really do not have faith that the current Conservative government would do just that. It has a history of deregulation with no regard for the health and safety of Canadians. As I talked about earlier, there has been example after example of that.

One of the other things we could do right now is help businesses plan for the next generation in retirement. Entrepreneurs of the baby boomer generation are approaching retirement, and many are unsure of how they will dispose of the businesses they have spent a lifetime building. New Democrats know that entrepreneurs find it difficult to properly value the worth of a business they have poured their hearts and souls into and that finding a buyer who can raise funds to pay the right price can be challenging. A lifetime capital gains exemption protects business owners when they sell their businesses from paying taxes on capital gains of up to $800,000. These earnings will often be the source of retirement funding for many business owners.

Unfortunately, rules in the tax code can make it cost more for business owners to sell their businesses to members of their own families. Talk about red tape. New Democrats think we should make it easier, not harder, for family business owners to pass on their businesses to their kids. We support examining the tax code to make sure that a business passed from one family member to another has access to the same lifetime capital gains exemption of $800,000 as any other business that is sold. In talking about reducing red tape, we also need to ensure that we are looking at the tax code, something the government has not been talking about.

I am very pleased to stand and speak to this issue that is very important to our party. As I mentioned, my party knows that small businesses and medium-sized enterprises are the heart of our economy and are the job creators in this country. If we can find ways of reducing red tape while protecting our economy, our health and safety, and the environment, that is what New Democrats would propose.

Privacy

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to do creative reading.

The minister sees his laws being struck down and then claims somehow that he is winning. He is not fooling anyone, least of all the Supreme Court. The way the government is trying to roll back Canadians' privacy rights is not constitutional.

Does the minister intend to allow bills like Bill C-4, Bill C-13, and Bill C-31 to pass into law just so they can also be struck down later, or will he respect the court's rulings and redraft these bills as even his own people are recommending?

Employment

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can forget the Conservatives' employment insurance reform. It would be hard to come up with a more regressive policy. This unfortunate reform has weakened the economy in Quebec, the Maritimes and my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, which is having a hard time getting back on its feet.

It does not end there. Every day, the Conservatives, who are the self-proclaimed job champions, are attacking the rights of Canadian workers and the gains they have made. They are attacking unions, labour-sponsored funds, the public service and local services.

Allow me to provide some examples. Bills C-377 and C-525 were sad attempts at overhauling labour relations in Canada.

Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, was another opportunity for the Conservatives to quietly turns back the clock on decades' worth of struggles for decent working conditions and good jobs.

The cuts to Canada Post will further eat away at local services and wipe out quality jobs for Canadians.

In my riding, workers and unions are clearly saying that the summer will be hot and that the declaration of war issued by the members opposite will not go unanswered.

2015 starts now.

Agricultural Growth Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot in the House about the different areas of expertise we have as members of Parliament. We come here with different backgrounds. Some of us are experts in academic issues or technical issues. Some of us are just experts in what it is like to come from our regions. We are very much like Canada in that way, and like Canadians, we have different backgrounds.

My background is not agriculture, and so the bill has been a real learning experience for me. I want to share with the House where my learning experience on the bill actually started, because I will be honest, the bill was not on my radar when it was first tabled. Look at the fact that I am a member of Parliament for Halifax, an urban centre. There are a few fishing villages in my riding, but I really do not represent any agricultural areas.

I talk often in the House about how important it is for us to talk to constituents to tap into their expertise but also to hear about their hopes or dreams or to hear about their fears about different pieces of legislation. That is exactly what happened to me when the bill came up. I looked in my calendar one day and saw that members of the Food Action Committee, which is a committee of the Ecology Action Centre, had scheduled a meeting with me to talk about Bill C-18. I am not one to even remember bill numbers very quickly, so I had to look it up. I realized that it made sense that the Food Action Committee wanted to talk to me about the bill, which is called an act to amend certain acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, but I wondered why they wanted to talk to me about it.

I immediately contacted my friend and colleague, the member for Welland, who is our agriculture critic, and he forwarded a lot of material about what Bill C-18 sought to do or purported to do. He walked me through some of the key issues for him as our critic and also very likely for the Food Action Committee.

I went ahead with the meeting and met with Jonathan Kornelsen and Mary Ellen Sullivan, and it was a typical MP meeting, where folks say that these are the issues with the bill and ask what the NDP's position is on it. They presented me with a petition entitled “The Right to Save Seeds”. It had 145 signatures on behalf of the Food Action Committee. They explained that their friend had three pages of petitions and could not keep up. He was at a grocery store in downtown Halifax and quickly ran out of pages because people were so passionate about this.

The petition addresses the agricultural growth act portion of Bill C-18. It has raised serious concerns among farmers and consumers. They put together the text of the petition with the help of the National Farmers Union website.

Before I get to the content of the meeting or of the bill, I want to read something from a blog Mary Ellen Sullivan contributes to called “Adventures in Local Food”. I want to read it because if there is any message I have tried to communicate during my time as a member of Parliament, it is that politicians are just members of our communities. We are not experts. We rely on the expertise of our communities. We want to talk to people and have our constituents shape our views on policy and legislation, even if we are going to disagree in the end. It is so important to be in touch, and I am always thankful when people do that.

On the blog, “Adventures in Local Food”, Ms. Sullivan wrote about our meeting. She wrote:

Our meeting was a relaxed exchange of information, questions and discussion, with [our MP] advising us of the position of the NDP and the workings of the political process. Because we received more than 25 signatures she can present our petition in Parliament!

It was a great learning and rewarding experience for Jonathan and me. [She] instilled confidence in us that grassroots actions such as petitions, demonstrations, and meeting with your MP do have an impact. Politicians do take note of these actions.

I found that the NFU website provided excellent educational and action resources including background information on C-18 and other issues--just use the search box for issues you’re interested in. It gives advocacy suggestions including how to meet with your MP, and information sheets that can be given to them. NFU works in collaboration with such organizations as the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) on issues affecting farmers and consumers.

Meeting with [our MP] was a great education for us and gave us confidence to continue to take food action! I was delighted to have Jonathan join me--a fledgling FAC member with two meetings under his belt, a background in biology, experience working on a farm in BC, and lots of knowledge and passion. Glad he decided to see what’s going on in NS. We hope you’d be inspired to meet with your MP too. Learn about the issue and relax--our MP’s are working for us.

That is pretty inspiring. I am really glad that Mary Ellen Sullivan took the time to lay out that it is not difficult, that people can meet with their MPs, and that we are working for them. Let us sit down and relax. She actually says “relax”. I thought that was a great message.

Let us move on to the content. As members heard from Ms. Sullivan, we talked about the issues in this bill, including an issue that was very important to them. This was probably the main issue they wanted to communicate to me, and it was about the ability to save seeds. Members heard my colleague from Timmins—James Bay go into this quite a bit.

When people come and meet with us, they want to explain their perspective on different issues. They also want to hear what our perspective is, and they want to know what our party will do. Is it going to support this bill? Is it going to vote against it? What are people saying about it? They asked me my position. I explained to them, as I will explain to the House now, that this bill is problematic. It is another omnibus piece of legislation that would make changes to nine different pieces of legislation. Looking at them and breaking down what these changes are, and they are extensive, there are some we do support. There are other parts that, on their face, we oppose and find problematic.

What do we do when we are faced with this kind of situation? What do we do when we like some parts but think that other parts would do damage?

I think that our critic, the member for Welland, and his deputy critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, have put a lot of thought into this. They have consulted with stakeholders, and they have done an excellent job of dissecting all the points in this bill to bring them to a balanced conclusion.

My colleague from Malpeque posed a question to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and asked what the solution is. He has great expertise in this area. He said that we are not sure where we are with farmer's privilege. How do we balance that? How do we figure out farmers' rights versus farmer's privilege? That is a great question to ask. We do not always have all of those answers when we are here at second reading just fleshing out the ideas of a bill. It is so important that we bring this to committee and study it, listen to experts, and maybe try to come up with those solutions. I do not have some of the solutions before me right now, but I am eager to hear from my colleagues what some of those solutions might be.

I told Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Kornelsen that I was prepared to support the bill at second reading and that at committee we plan to work on making the problematic aspects of this bill better. We plan to try to fix the problems. I have to admit that I am not overly optimistic that the Conservatives will listen to our proposal, but I refuse to be cynical about this and just give in. I do think we have to try.

What are the problematic aspects of this bill? I have received a number of postcards from constituents speaking out against the bill. In particular, I have received a lot of postcards from a postcard campaign on the issue of farmer's privilege. On the front of the postcard, it says:

Save our Seed

Stop Bill C-18! Farmers’ age-old practices of saving, reusing, exchanging, and selling seed are in jeopardy.

The postcard has some really compelling language in it. It says:

[The bill], now before the House of Commons, would allow the biggest seed companies in the world to exercise almost total control over seed in Canada. These companies would also be able to charge royalties on a farmer’s entire crop. The Bill includes power to make regulations that would quickly undo or severely limit the so-called “Farmers Privilege” to save seed. This means Canadian farmers would pay giant corporations hundreds of millions each year for the right to grow a crop.

Canadians do not want multinational seed and chemical companies like Bayer, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow and Syngenta to control our seed, and ultimately, our food system.

I am asking you, as my democratically elected representative, to safeguard Canadian farmers’ right to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed by taking all actions necessary to stop Bill C-18.

That is pretty passionate. They are not asking for a rewrite here; they are saying to stop.

I want to thank some of my constituents who have reached out to me on this, including Tessa Gold Smith, Jim Guild, Herb and Ruth Gamborg, Steve Burns, Aaron Eisses, Mark McKenna, Josh Smith, Elisabeth Gold and Peter Gravel. All these folks have signed onto this, saying that we should stop Bill C-18.

I sympathize with their demand to stop this bill, even though I will support it at second reading. This is one of these balancing acts that we have to play from time to time. When I sat down with Jonathan and Mary Ellen and said that there were some aspects of this bill that we would support, they asked me which parts.

I believe there are some pieces of this bill, like putting stronger controls for products that are being imported or exported. There are new strengthening of record keeping requirements, whether for plants, for feed or for fertilizer. There are some safety measures in there to prevent risks to human, animal and environmental health. One big part that everybody could support is prohibiting the sale of products that would be a subject of a recall order from the CFIA. That is a great step toward strengthening our food safety system. It makes me wonder why that has not been there all along.

It is a balancing act to figure it out, so we will try to get it to committee.

I agree with constituents of mine who have written to me in this postcard campaign about the farmers' privilege piece. I have two more letters that I received from some constituents about this issue.

One is from Margaret Murray who says:

No doubt you have done some investigation on Bill C-18. I'm wondering what the NDP issue is on this important issue. Multi-nationals like Monsanto MUST be curtailed in their attempts to 'own' what ought to be in the public domain. Taking a renewable common resource an turning it into a non-renewable patented commodity is simply wrong!

I have also heard from Cynthia O'Connell who asked me to oppose Bill C-18 as it would harm organic farmers on whom she depended for organic food.

Even though the bill is ostensibly about agriculture, it really would impact consumers, including consumers in urban centres like Halifax, which I represent. It is capturing the hearts and minds of people. They are writing to me.

As I said, there is a balance that has to be met here. There would be some benefits of the changes found in the bill, like enhancing public accessibility and transparency when it comes to plant breeding and, for example, protecting researchers from infringement of plant breeders' rights. However, the issue of farmers' privilege is significant, and that is the number one issue about which people have written to me.

Let us get to farmers' privilege and what the NDP would see as very problematic.

Farmers' privilege does not include the stocking of propagating material for any use. What does that mean? Even if farmers are able to save seed for the purpose of reproduction, it looks like they may have to pay to store it, which would effectively negate that privilege. Earlier, when I said that we did not necessarily have all the answers when we came here at second reading to debate the bill, I am very clear when I say it looks as if farmers would have to pay to store it. I would want to explore this issue and find out from the minister if that was actually the intention. If it is not the intention, then maybe that could be fixed with a simple wording change.

The farmers' privilege also would not extend to the sale of harvested material. This means that farmers would likely still be required to pay for the sale of the crops grown from farm-saved seed. It also means that plant breeders could potentially generate revenue on a farmer's entire production rather than just on the seed purchased to grow the crop. This could have significant impacts on the profit margins of farmers.

Some farmers say that paying a royalty base on what they produce instead of on the seed that they buy actually reduces their risk. If they harvest a poor crop, they pay less with an end-point royalty compared to paying upfront when they buy seed. Even in what I am presenting to the House right now, I am a bit unsure, so this is something we would need to explore further as well.

Bill C-18 includes amendments that would allow the CFIA to make changes to farmers' privileges through regulation, not through legislation, and that is an important distinction. This means that the government could significantly hinder these rights at any time without parliamentary oversight.

Not a lot of people understand the difference between regulation and legislation. Legislation would have to come before the House where we would debate it and vote on it. There is a process involved. Regulation is just an order-in-council. What does that mean? Effectively it means that the Prime Minister's Office has written something down and given notice, but it is not democratic. It is an interpretation of the legislation, and who knows where that comes from. In theory it is the Governor-in-Council, but in reality I doubt that is the case. There is no parliamentary oversight, and these rights could be changed at any time, at least that is my reading of the bill.

Allowing for farm saved seeds is an optional exemption under UPOV 091, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants that we signed in 1991. That means Canada could disallow farm saved seed and still fulfill its international obligations under the agreement.

Bill C-18 goes so far as to define what is meant by a document, so that is good because there is some detail there. However, it does not give a definition of farmer, which is problematic. This would have some important implications for the enforcement of farmer's privilege. It goes to the root of the issue here, especially given that Bill C-18 would allow the government to make significant changes to the farmer's privilege provisions through regulation. There we are again. Changes could actually be made, without any parliamentary oversight, through regulation, and there is no definition of what a farmer is.

Given the government's recent changes in Bill C-4 that limit farm loss deductions to people whose primary income is from farming, this is an area where more clarity is needed. Do I count as a farmer if I am participating in a community garden in downtown Halifax? I am not sure.

To prevent the privatization of existing varieties, we have to ensure a variety registration system that would ensure that new crop varieties would be as good or better than existing ones. We also have to ensure that farmers will continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that are developed by public plant breeders.

I will finish up with a couple of other concerns about the potential legal burden for producers.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has called for protections for producers from claims of patent infringement with respect to natural or accidental spreading of patented plant genetic material, but they are not included in Bill C-18.

Given that the expansion of breeders' rights under Bill C-18 would be so significant, it is likely that farmers would face increased and expensive litigation. There is no provision in the bill to ensure that legal fees do not impede farmers' defence in these cases.

That is the overview of what my constituents in downtown Halifax have written to me about. There are other issues in the bill which I am sure members will hear about from other members of Parliament, but that is the big one for the folks who I represent.

While I will be supporting this legislation at second reading, as I have pointed out, we have to watch this closely. We really have to push to change this, to make amendments to the bill to protect farmers. I look forward to being able to do that at committee.

Victims Bill of Rights Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech. She clearly pointed out that an abstract right does not do much to help people in their lives. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is.

Before he leaves, I would like to thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for giving one of the best speeches I have heard in the House in the past three years. His speech was enlightening and clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' approach. The Conservatives are always very good about claiming to stand up for rights and victims, but they are taking a completely unbalanced approach and applying a double standard when it comes to the victims of residential schools and the young aboriginal women who have gone missing or been murdered.

I would like to reiterate, on behalf of the NDP, that this is a priority for us. Something terrible has been happening here in Canada for years. Dozens of people have gone missing, and the government is doing nothing when it should be launching an inquiry. I repeat, we want a public inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. We do not understand why the Conservative government is ignoring this request.

To come back to Bill C-32, even though I have not done it very often in recent years, I am going to sing a little:

Just words, always words...
Nothing but words
Words, words, words

That is a song that was sung by the artist Dalida about 30 or 35 years ago. I get the feeling that Bill C-32 is a reflection of those lyrics in that it has many good intentions but absolutely no foundation. This bill will not have any effect if we do not flesh it out.

For eight years now, the Conservatives have been going on about the importance of defending victims. They say that the bad guys in the opposition are always siding with criminals, that the justice system is against victims and that they are the only ones who care about victims and are doing something to protect them. They have held so many press conferences and photo ops and put out so much advertising on this theme. They have not stopped playing politics when it comes to this issue. They have dragged this out for eight years and now they are introducing a bill that is nothing but a statement of intent.

Many interested parties warned us that this could simply be a statement of intent, some sort of lip service that would not be carried out. We are very concerned about that. We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it carefully in committee, because we think there is room for improvement. However, as of right now, there is not much to this bill.

For example, Bill C-32 does not create a legal obligation for those who work in the justice system to enforce the rights that are set out in the bill. That is a huge problem. The Conservatives seem to have their heads in the clouds. If no one is required to enforce the legislation and follow the rules, what good will this legislation do in real life? How will it truly help people?

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. We want to conduct a clause-by-clause study of this bill in order to find ways to improve it, so that it can be truly effective and so that we can be sure we are doing good legislative work.

Today, the Supreme Court gave the Conservative Party a good slap in the face. It told the Conservatives that they put several bills on the agenda without first waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court ruled them admissible. This could have an impact on cyberbullying victims. I am talking about Bill C-13, which could be struck down and dragged before the courts in light of the Supreme Court's ruling this morning.

The NDP asked the Conservatives to wait for the ruling we got this morning from the Supreme Court and to split the bill in two in committee, so that we could move forward with the cyberbullying provisions and be cautious about privacy and the tools being given to police forces. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to listen once again. They are stubborn and follow their own ideology. They told us that they did not need to listen to us because they do not have to listen to anyone.

Now, because the Conservatives refuse to listen to anyone, we will not be able to move forward, and it could become a lot more complicated to protect our children and teens from cyberbullying.

At first glance, the bill seems to address certain requests and recommendations that came out of consultations. For example, there was a recommendation to expand the definition of victims or crime, and one to codify the victims' right to information, protection, participation and restitution. However, there are no legal obligations in the justice system.

We think that it could be a major problem that this bill includes possible access to just one rather weak complaint mechanism within federal departments or agencies that play a role in the justice system when victims rights have been violated. That needs to be clarified, and that is why we want this bill to go to committee so that the necessary adjustments can be made.

Another important element is that no budget has been allocated. There is no budget to implement the measures in Bill C-32 and ensure that they are enforced. The numbers are quite striking and they come from the Department of Justice, no less.

A study released in 2011 by the Department of Justice found that the total cost of crime is an estimated $99 billion a year, 83% of which is borne by the victims. A total of 83% of the cost of crime, nearly $100 billion, is borne by the victims. We have a victims bill of rights, but there is no envelope associated with it.

I do not know how people will get support, training, psychological support or financial compensation if there is no public funding or moneys that would ensure the real-life enforcement of the rights being proposed.

I would like to use my time to speak about other forgotten victims. I want to talk about this because a motion about workers, firefighters specifically, was passed in the House. No compensation fund has been set up for families when a firefighter dies on the job. This exists for RCMP officers and for members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The motion was passed in the House, but the Conservative government has taken no action whatsoever.

We believe that firefighters who die while fighting a fire should be entitled to this kind of fund so they can provide for their families. We know that many of the firefighters who die under these circumstances are very young, so their families deserve this support.

I want to raise this issue again. There are other kinds of victims, such as victims of workplace accidents. Some people die on the job. Unfortunately, the government is doing absolutely nothing for these victims.

The government always talks about being tough on crime. For example, it does not want prisoners to have a cell to themselves. They see that as some kind of luxurious privilege. I would like to express other people's point of view on that subject.

It might sound good during a press conference or look good on a householder to talk about how harshly they treat criminals. I am concerned about another group of people, however: correctional officers.

Correctional officers have to deal with prisoners and that is a problem when there is double-bunking. This work jeopardizes the health and safety of the correctional officers. They are extremely worried about the changes to the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4. This is going to complicate matters for workers when it comes to refusing to go to work if their health and safety are at risk.

Unfortunately, once again, the government is being insensitive to the consequences of its laws. The government is jeopardizing the lives of workers who deal with these prisoners. The risk of injury is much greater now than it was before. I wanted to point that out.

Mr. Sullivan, the former federal ombudsman for victims of crime had this to say in April:

I think the biggest problem though is that the Minister of Justice promised this would put victims at the heart of the justice system, and it falls very short of that

He was the first ombudsman for victims of crime in Canada. He also said:

The concern I have is that a lot of victims who are out there who aren’t going to read the bill, who aren’t going to go through the fine print are going to read the headlines and think that the system has fundamentally changed and it hasn’t.

Earlier today, my colleague used an expression that I will echo. Once again, this is all smoke and mirrors. We want more than just words. We want concrete measures. We have to improve this bill for victims.

Report Stage

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the government right now, moving a time allocation motion on this particular bill. This is an important bill that needs to be discussed in this House. When this bill was introduced, I was hoping, since it is 360-odd pages, that we could look at this bill and see some things that would help my community of Surrey North. As always, it is an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North. When I looked at the bill, I was hoping that here be something there for jobs. Jobs are needed in my community, well-paying jobs. What did I find? There are no initiatives in this bill that would address that issue.

We have asked for a hiring tax credit for small businesses, because small businesses generate jobs in our communities across this country, hundreds and thousands of jobs. What do we find in this particular bill? Nothing to help the small businesses that actually generate well-paying jobs. I am very disappointed that this bill did not address any of the issues in regard to generating new jobs in my communities.

Let us take a look at another issue in my community. There are long wait times for surgery. What did I find in this bill? Nothing to help provinces bring down the wait times for surgeries. People have to wait for months and months before they are able to get the elective surgery that is much needed.

The member across the way is saying that it is a provincial issue. Yes, it is, but we can transfer money. Federal transfer payments do go to provinces. What has the government done? It has actually cut $36 billion of transfer payments for health care in the provinces.

There was an opportunity for government to help reduce the wait times for elective surgeries. What did it do? Nothing.

Another issue in my community is crime. Again, the House leader of the soon-to-be opposition is interrupting me.

I looked at the bill, and what is in there in regard to crime prevention initiatives? Nothing. There is nothing in there to increase the RCMP numbers in my communities so that we could have more RCMP patrol our streets. There is nothing that will address the crime issues in my communities.

There are other issues in my communities. Affordable housing. When I look at Bill C-31, there is nothing in there to help provide affordable housing in my communities.

I could go on. I looked at infrastructure. I have a bridge in my community that is 75 years old. The life of the Pattullo Bridge was supposed to be 50 years. It is supposed to be torn down. When I looked to see if the government was looking at increasing the infrastructure funding for our municipalities, there was nothing in there.

Summer is coming. When I go back home to Surrey and look at the gas prices, they are ballooning. Our wages are not going anywhere. There is nothing in this bill that will actually put money into people's pockets.

I could go on. There are seniors in my communities. Seniors could use an increase in CPP payments. There is nothing in this bill to help our seniors.

I could go on and on in regard to this. Here is something I said on October 29, 2013. I spoke on Bill C-4, another budget implementation bill, and here is what I said:

Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

Here we go again. Bill C-31 is 360 pages long, amends 60 acts, and has almost 500 clauses. What is more, the bill includes a variety of measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech. As is typical of this government, the Conservatives are trying to force the bill through the House and the committee as fast as possible.

I know that the Conservatives have given notice of time allocation to cut down debate on the bill. I have seen that picture over and over on many different bills. I know I sound like a broken record, but no matter how many times this is talked about, the Conservatives just do not seem to get it. Time and time again, Conservatives demonstrate their inability to learn from their past mistakes. This will be their fifth straight omnibus bill. This is astounding to me. Canadians are not fooled by the government's tricks. They know the Conservatives are ramming through unfair legislation buried in hundreds of pages of this bill that is disguised as a budget.

How are we supposed to evaluate which bills MPs support or oppose, when the only choice they are given is to vote for this overarching legislation that contains all of them? There is nothing that ties these bills together. It makes absolutely no sense that they are lumped together, but here we are, being forced to vote on a mishmash of legislation. Not only that, but the speed at which the government is trying to push the bill through, and we saw the time allocation notice served today, means that entire sections of the bill have yet to be discussed in the House. They will not be discussed because of the time allocation that will be moved.

How are we supposed to present the views of our constituents when the Conservatives move time allocation and we cannot even speak? I am fortunate that I can speak, but many other colleagues in my caucus will not be able to speak to the bill, because the Conservatives are trying to shut down the debate on the bill.

It is crystal clear to me that the Conservatives remain committed to their omnibus bills and time allocation rather than to following due democratic process. However, it is not only the process that is being followed to ram the bill through the House that is objectionable. There are huge problems and omissions from the bill itself, as I have highlighted.

I talked about the needs in my community: the need for creating well-paying jobs, the need for reducing wait times and elective surgeries, the need for housing, and the need for crime prevention programs that would help make our communities safe. None of that stuff is here.

I could spend all night here talking about the issues with Bill C-31, but I want to start by talking about the economic situation in Canada right now. To be frank, the facts and figures do not paint a very cheery picture of Canada's economic situation. I am disappointed to say that the budget is not doing anything to address these problems.

The Canadian economy continues to underperform under this Conservative government. The Conservatives are offering no strategy to help unemployed Canadians. There are 1.3 million Canadians out of work, and there are 6.3 unemployed workers for every job available. I am not even sure if the jobs available are actually jobs that are available, because we know where the Conservatives get their facts. The Conservatives get their facts from Kijiji. We have seen that. They make up facts. If they cannot make up facts, they will go to Kijiji. Kijiji, for those people at home, is a website that one can buy a used tie on. One does not look for facts on jobs to validate what the Conservatives are saying.

Bill C-31 is basically inadequate. There are many flaws and omissions in it, and I have barely scraped the tip of the iceberg with my speech.

The Conservatives are again demonstrating that they are out of touch with the views of real Canadians. They are focusing their efforts instead on producing a do-nothing budget that ignores what Canadians need right now, and are in pursuit of a balanced budget during an election year. This is unacceptable. and Canadians deserve better.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in being able to rise and speak in Canada's Parliament, in our House of Commons.

It is an incredible privilege and honour, certainly to do so on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest of British Columbia. This is a region of the country that is incredibly proud, with its diverse and important history. Also, it has struggled, particularly with regard to creating jobs, and it has watched many of the major sectors suffer.

One of the great abuses that has been heaped on that challenge by successive governments is the inattentiveness to what actual Canadians are concerned about, the proper way to create jobs and wealth in this country.

We have struggled, particularly when we watch governments that grow so arrogant over time that they choose a form of governing that is disrespectful and disregarding of some of our most primary and fundamental democratic instincts.

I have some quotations, because it is not just me saying this about the process we are engaged in here today on this particular bill. Let me quote from somebody sitting in cabinet right now.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again. When we look at the Liberal Party on arrogance it is like looking at the Grand Canyon. It is this big fact of nature that we cannot help but stare at.

That is what the Minister of Industry said when the previous Liberal government used an omnibus bill, this technique of ramming all sorts of pieces of legislation into one. That omnibus bill was one-third the size of the one the Conservatives have just introduced. This must be three times the size of the Grand Canyon with respect to arrogance.

This happens to governments, especially ones that age badly over time, as the government has done. We can look at the list of omnibus legislation over the last number of years. Bill C-13 was 644 pages; Bill C-38, which was often called the pipelines enabling act, gutting environmental and safeguards we have within the Fisheries Act, was 425 pages; Bill C-45, further gutting protections for Canadians, was 400 pages. There was Bill C-4, Bill C-60, and now this one, Bill C-31, at almost 300 pages affecting 60 pieces of law.

I have a stack of quotes from Conservatives, from the Prime Minister to many ministers in his cabinet, decrying the abuse of Parliament that had been done under Liberal majority governments. It seems that they paid too close attention, but took all of the wrong lessons from the previous government. In fact, they took that and somehow tried to normalize it.

We do not think it is normal. We do not think it is proper and good for a government to try to ram these pieces of legislation through, invoking what is called time allocation or closure, shutting down the debate at every stage. In this case, the government shut it down after 20 minutes of debate. It brought in time allocation and said, “That is enough of this whole debate thing, this whole democracy thing. Let us allocate the time and shut down opportunities”.

I remember the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, decrying the fact that he might only get 10 minutes and that many members of Parliament would not get any time at all. That is exactly what the same Prime Minister is now doing.

That is on the process. It is an absolute farce when the government pretends that any sort of proper oversight was given to this bill. I have sat on the committee, and my Conservative colleagues know full well that as the shutting down of witnesses and debate at committee happens, the government starts racing through pages and pages of legislation. In fact, it had to amend its own bill before it even left the committee stage, because it had made so many fundamental errors. It was going to deprive seniors of some of their pensions, inadvertently.

Constitutional experts that the Conservatives say are the best, like Mr. Hogg, who the Conservatives rely on for advice, have come forward and said there are whole sections of this bill that will not only be challenged in our courts for charter infringement, but those challenges will succeed.

The government is going to introduce legislation that it knows full well is likely to fail a charter challenge, which is going to cost Canadians millions through our tax dollars for all the lawyers that it takes to go through all the series of courts up to the Supreme Court, but it will also cause all the pain and aggravation for those who suffer under a law that is not constitutional in the first place.

This is a movie we have seen before from the government. Time and time again, when we get references for bills that are unconstitutional from all the advice we can gather, the government chooses playing politics over good policy and brings them in anyway.

Let us look at aspects of this 360-page monster.

Let me start with something that is not in here, which the small businesses in Canada were calling for. It was a proposal first put forward by New Democrats in the last election: a small-business hiring tax credit.

Here is the fundamental idea in this very good idea. This was a small-business initiative that Jack Layton and the NDP proposed that said, “Let us help out small businesses in hiring those people, but in giving that tax credit we want to connect it to an actual job being created”. I know this is radical economics over here, where we suggest that if we give a tax credit to the private sector from the public, there should be something in return, like a job created.

The tax credits and the tax breaks that the Conservatives prefer and, to be fair, so did the Liberals before them, in the order of tens of billions of dollars, had no strings attached. I remember Mr. Flaherty, our dear friend, criticizing the private sector for sitting on half a trillion dollars of what is called “dead money”. This is money that had been accumulating in the private sector in the private enterprises in Canada that they were not reinvesting. It was just a hope from the Conservatives: here are the tax breaks to the banks and the oil sector; here is a hope that they will actually do something with the money rather than sit on it or just do stock dividends. They hope that they are going to reinvest it back into research and development, reinvest it back into hiring more Canadians and expanding their business, but there are no strings attached to that deal. The Conservatives were very happy to let that go.

Also, many of those tax breaks were done when the government was running a deficit, so it was borrowed money. As all Canadians know, because they have borrowed money at some point, borrowed money always costs more. It was borrowed money that was then sent to the private sector in Canada with no strings attached.

This was one good idea that over half a million Canadian small business owners applied for and used, this small-business hiring tax credit. We would think that, somewhere in the 360 pages, the Conservatives would have found a way to include that one measure in this budget implementation act. It is one measure that worked, that was being applied for, that Canadian business owners enjoyed, and that had helped create more than half a million jobs in small and medium-sized businesses. However, it is not here.

What is in the bill is interesting. There is the Hazardous Products Act. There are all sorts of changes to how we would handle hazardous products. There are changes to the Supreme Court. There are changes to our privacy rights in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too am speaking tonight to Bill C-31.

We see a pattern in these massive omnibus bills from the Conservative government. First of all, the Conservatives stuff these bills with measures that have no business whatsoever being part of a budget implementation act. In the legislation before us, in fact, there are rule changes around administrative tribunals, trademarks, hazardous products, and even rail safety, and these are just a few examples.

The Conservatives have introduced these changes without any public consultation, in most cases. Then they wait and hope that nobody notices the problems in the fine print. However, the problems and the mistakes in the Conservative omnibus legislation always come out in the end. Sometimes they are so blatantly obvious that they are identified in committee. Sometimes it just takes a little time.

The reality is the Justice Nadon fiasco resulted from changes to the Supreme Court Act made in a previous budget implementation act. Had those changes been subjected to more thorough scrutiny at the justice committee, and had the justice committee had the opportunity to actually propose and move amendments and vote on them, we might have actually avoided some of the embarrassment around the failed appointment of Justice Nadon.

There are measures put forward by the government in each of these omnibus budget bills that are there, in fact, to correct errors in previous omnibus bills. It is a deeply flawed process. It creates bad laws that create uncertainty. Ultimately, that is bad for business. It is bad for the Canadian economy. These bad laws hurt the ability of Canadians to grow their businesses, create jobs, and build more prosperous lives.

I would like to identify a few examples of mistakes in this deeply flawed bill. On trademarks, two weeks ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce took the important step of issuing a call to action to its members in response to the trademark provisions of Bill C-31. It is worried that Bill C-31 would remove the requirement to use a trademark before it can be registered.

As a result to this call to action, we have heard from countless chambers across the country, from Surrey, B.C., to Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador, to the Northwest Territories. Each and every one of these chambers is warning us that these provisions would increase the cost of doing business in Canada.

They are worried that this would lead to greater levels of litigation and to trademark trolling. They also complain that they were not consulted or engaged by the government. They are asking that these trademark provisions of the bill be removed.

Now, these types of changes ought to have been considered more thoroughly by the industry committee, as an example. We are worried upon hearing these concerns from the chambers.

We are also worried about what we are hearing from individual employers. We have heard from Canadian retailer Giant Tiger. We have heard from food manufacturer PepsiCo Canada, which is a significant employer in my riding. Its Frito Lay plant in the Annapolis Valley provides good jobs to the people in my riding. We take these important employers' concerns very seriously.

The government is not listening and is, in fact, heaping scorn on these Canadian businesses for actually having the audacity—or, I would say, courage—to speak truth to power and express concerns about this bill.

These local chambers represent the business leaders in our communities. We have a responsibility to listen to them.

At the finance committee, the Conservatives attacked the credibility of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its members. They dismissed the concerns of these prominent employers in our communities by suggesting that they were just self-interested lawyers who want to maximize their fees.

I would like to speak about some regional issues, as well. It is not a stretch to say that some of the flaws in this bill would actually threaten jobs in Canada. However, some of the flaws in this bill would actually protect jobs for some specific Conservatives.

Last week the public sector integrity commissioner published his report into wrongdoing by the CEO of Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, John Lynn. The investigation found that:

Mr. Lynn committed a serious breach of ECBC’s Employment Conduct and Discipline Policy, which was ECBC’s own code of conduct at the time. This finding is as a result of the appointment of four individuals with ties to the Conservative Party of Canada...into executive positions at ECBC with little or no documented justifications and without demonstrating that the appointments were merit-based....There was an element of deliberateness to Mr. Lynn’s actions...Mr. Lynn’s actions were incompatible with the trust that the Government of Canada and the public has placed in him as Chief Executive Officer.

That is a scathing condemnation of the over-the-top pork barrel patronage engaged in by the government with Enterprise Cape Breton.

Under Bill C-31, the individuals who were improperly hired by Mr. Lynn and who are still at ECBC would now become permanent employees of the public service. Furthermore, Bill C-31 singles out the CEO as the only member of the board eligible for termination pay. That is actually part of this legislation.

In light of the commissioner's findings of wrongdoing, the Liberals moved two important amendments to the bill at committee. These amendments would remove the special deal for the CEO to be eligible to receive termination pay and they would also ensure that the employees who were hired as part of the CEO's wrongdoing would not automatically become permanent members of the public service. This cronyism should have been overturned, not entrenched. However, the Conservatives have put their own interests ahead of Canadians' and they voted these amendments down.

There are some other mistakes in the bill. For instance, correcting previous omnibus bill mistakes, in Bill C-4, the government forgot to include the provincial nominee program as a category when it used a budget bill to establish the immigration department's expression of interest program. That is actually corrected in this bill.

During the committee study, we saw something new on the OAS side. The government showed up to clause-by-clause and actually introduced amendments to correct mistakes in the current omnibus budget bill, not the last one. It showed up at clause-by-clause to introduce amendments of its own to fix problems created in its own legislation. It is not thinking this through.

It seems the government has made a fairly basic error in the division concerning OAS. The first reading version of the bill would have resulted in the government actually taking GIS away from some of Canada's poorest seniors who had legitimately qualified for it. In this deeply flawed process, the government gave us zero notice of these amendments. Instead, they were introduced as the committee was about to vote on the measures during clause-by-clause. The government could not tell us when or how the mistake was discovered. It forgot to bring copies of the OAS Act, so we could not actually see how the amendments to the act would change it. We must remember, this act is one of over 40 laws that are being changed by Bill C-31. The government did not even bring enough copies of its amendments for everyone to see. To think this is how we are asking parliamentarians to make important decisions and to change laws in Canada.

It is not just the Conservatives who have looked like the Keystone Cops during the consideration of the bill. The NDP is actually voting against measures to fast-track the new Champlain bridge. Part 6, division 28 of the bill is dedicated to a new Champlain bridge. It would streamline the development and construction process of the bridge so it would be operational by 2018. It is true that this division would also include measures to implement tolls on the bridge, which Liberals oppose. We introduced amendments to remove all of the toll provisions from the bill, but when our amendments were defeated by the Conservatives, we still voted to go ahead with the bridge because building a bridge with a toll is better than no bridge at all and a new government could cancel the toll before it went into effect. ·It is illogical for the NDP to try to halt plans toward the new bridge because of a toll provision that is four years away. That is exactly what would happen if the NDP motion to remove division 28 actually passes.

The bill continues to ignore the challenges faced by veterans in Canada, continues to show contempt for veterans. The bill, through the FATCA provisions, makes the CRA effectively the tax collector for the IRS, and continues to demonstrate disrespect for Parliament and democracy by putting all of these poorly thought out provisions in a budget implementation act as opposed to free-standing legislation, dealt with by committees with the expertise to make the best possible legislative decisions.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Chair, this division—that is, clauses 308 to 310—corrects an oversight in the last omnibus bill C-4, following a pattern by the Conservatives wherein each omnibus bill includes several measures to correct previous omnibus bills. We've already seen that earlier this evening where we're just correcting previous bills that did not receive the scrutiny they should have received because they are improperly before us.

Conservatives are forcing these massive omnibus bills through Parliament, each one including hundreds of clauses changing 50 or so different laws and none of these measures are given the scrutiny they deserve. Conservatives have established this process where they're passing bad laws and having to correct them after the fact. I know you'll be upset about that, Chair.

In terms of this measure before us, we support the correction but we deplore the process.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I saw the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley rising. I am sure he would have pointed out that, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in 2013, of the jobs the current government managed to cobble together, 95% were actually part-time, and we have 300,000 more unemployed than we did the year before. Therefore, the Conservative government, I guess in keeping with not showing up to evening sessions, is a part-time government. The Conservatives are only able to stimulate the economy with part-time jobs, and that is not even going. I know my colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would also mention the fact that tens of thousands of jobs were lost last month.

We are talking about a government that right now does not seem to be doing much right.

It is rather sad that the government is again moving this motion that it is imposing with its majority. The NDP is always willing to work evenings. There is no doubt about that and we have proven it many times. Every June since 2011, NDP members were always in the House ready to debate bills and provide advice. The problem is that this government does not listen and is not prepared to listen to good advice. I will come back to that in a moment.

We are very familiar with the results. We know that bill after bill has been rejected by the court. The government is then often required to make amendments to the botched parts of the previous bill. The government seems to want to bungle everything, not just services to Canadians, but also the legislative process that leads to the introduction of appropriate bills and proposed amendments to improve bills in order to help Canadians. This process does not seem all that complicated, but it is unfortunately often botched by this government.

I am referring to the Conservatives' use of closure and time allocation motions, which is on par with their use by the Liberals when they were in power. It is appalling that this government systematically wants to shut down debate and deprive members of their right to speak. Each time, 280 members, on average, are deprived of their right to speak. The Conservatives vote for these closure motions. That is ridiculous.

In ridings where a Conservative member was elected—I am not so sure they will be re-elected the next time—that member takes away his own opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents. The Conservatives say they want to shut down debate and therefore they do not want their constituents in Calgary, Red Deer, Lévis or any other riding to be represented in the House of Commons. They want to shut down debate. Thus, the vast majority of Conservative members seldom talk about the needs of the people in their riding or bills introduced in Parliament.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has just stood up and said that the Conservatives are going to work harder, but that also happened last year. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows what I am talking about. Last year, the Conservatives were not in the House to speak. One evening, there was six hours of debate and only a single Conservative member was in the House to speak. Only one Conservative member spoke in six hours. The government moves time allocation and closure motions, and the Conservative members remain silent instead of speaking.

Members of the NDP, on the other hand, are always in attendance when the sitting hours of the House are extended. We are always there to fight, to improve bills and to solicit comments about bills. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are nowhere to be found. They do not come to the House, or perhaps one of them will show up over the course of the evening. As we said earlier, during the debate on S-12, no Conservative members came to speak about the bill. Not one, and we were there for six hours. What were they doing?

I do not know. It is not as though they were out consulting their constituents. The Conservatives are not here. They are not speaking.

I am going to come back to this momentarily, but the result is that we end up with botched legislation because the government does not listen and the Conservative members do not even speak on behalf of their constituents. Honestly.

We receive a generous salary from our constituents, the taxpayers. We are here to work to help our ridings move forward. I represent the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. It is my duty to be in the House to stand up for the interests of the people of Burnaby—New Westminster.

If members decide to stop speaking, to systematically go along with the government's time allocation and closure motions and therefore deprive their ridings of the right to speak and if, on top of that, members do not even show up for the evening sessions in the House of Commons to contribute to the debate and the legislative process, then this approach becomes a complete sham.

I am fairly certain—and I would take a bet with any Conservative member—that this year, we will have the same problem as we did last year and the year before: 90% to 95% of the time, the NDP, or sometimes other opposition members, will be speaking and the Conservatives will not even be here.

The reasoning behind this motion does not make sense. The Conservatives are not the ones who will be here working. The Conservatives will not be here representing their constituents. The Conservatives will not be here giving passionate speeches about their ridings. They will not be here.

The proof, as we will soon see, is the way this motion is structured. The way the government decided to structure the motion is evidence of how much it will once again diminish the democratic rights all Canadians value so strongly. Canadians across the country want us to be in the House. They want us to represent them, regardless of where we are from.

For example, my colleague from Sherbrooke is an extraordinary young man, and he does a good job representing his riding. He is always in the House and speaks often. He is here; he represents his riding. He understands how important it is to represent Sherbrooke in the House of Commons. The same goes for my colleague from Hochelaga. Her riding is not the wealthiest riding in Canada. The average family income in her riding is below the average. She is always here representing the people of Hochelaga and talking on their behalf. She gives speeches on the importance of affordable housing. That is because she understands her role as member of Parliament.

Members on the Conservative side, on the other hand, refuse to speak at second reading or at report stage because there is a time allocation motion, and they refuse to show up on evenings when we have extended debates. How can the government expand the scope of its activities when it does not listen and when government members refuse to speak on behalf of their constituents? They refuse to defend government bills, they refuse to take action, they refuse to present amendments and they refuse to offer anything at all when it comes to legislation.

In such circumstances, voting Conservative does not mean a great deal. When people voted for the Conservatives, they voted for members who are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office, not members who rise in the House, defend their constituents' rights and speak on their behalf.

I want to speak to the motion now because I know that many of my colleagues are reading it. We want this to be a useful study of an important motion. For those who are watching, I will go step by step.

To begin, the majority government, as usual, wants to force a decision on the House. Unfortunately, debate and democracy are foreign concepts for the Conservatives.

They are proposing that commencing upon the adoption of this order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014, on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place.

As I said, we do not object to working until midnight. However, what actually happens is that the members opposite rarely show up to speak in the House. Opposition members are the ones who really contribute to the debates, and that is a major problem. If the government listened to us, it would not be problem, but that is not the case.

This has caused many problems with bills in the past. More than once we had to make amendments to botched bills with subsequent legislation, or, again, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the bills were not in order.

Today, the Conservatives are proposing that we adjourn at midnight, or 10 p.m. if a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place. That refers to emergency debates.

My colleagues in the House, including the hon. member for Laval—who works very hard for the people in his riding—and the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, are always listening to their constituents and are always ready to raise questions that often result in an emergency debate.

A few weeks ago, in fact, an emergency debate was held in accordance with Standing Orders 52 and 53.1. That debate on the kidnapping of young Nigerian schoolgirls by the terrorist group Boko Haram was proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre. Many people from across the country came here to attend the debate, and people were still talking about it when I returned to my riding, Burnaby—New Westminster, last week.

Now the government wants to prevent us from holding emergency debates before 10 p.m. If the Chair decides that there is to be an emergency debate, that debate cannot begin before 10 p.m. For working people in eastern Canada, who have families and work hard, that is late. They will be denied their right to tune in.

It will not be so bad in my riding because of the three-hour time difference. For example, 10 p.m. here is 7 p.m. back home. That is a reasonable time. However, for the vast majority of Canadians, this government motion deprives them of their right to tune in to the emergency debates that will take place in the coming weeks.

Second, when we look at the second clause of this motion, which deals with recorded divisions, we see that what the Conservatives would now do is put in place a voting system that would have votes occur at the conclusion of oral questions, in the middle of the afternoon. This proposal reveals the whole intent of the government.

The Conservatives say that they want to work harder. We have already ripped up that argument by showing that when they said they wanted to work harder that last year, over 90% of the time it was not Conservatives but New Democrats doing the work. Only one Conservative member would show up every night to speak in the House of Commons, so this idea that somehow the government wants to work harder is simply not true.

Paragraph (b) deals with recorded divisions demanded in respect of any debatable motion before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. In this case the vote would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on that day, while if a division is demanded after 2 p.m., it would stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the next sitting day.

What the Conservatives would do is basically do away with those evening votes. Not only do they not show up to speak, but they also do not even want to show up to vote. This could be perhaps the laziest motion ever put forward in the House of Commons by the government. It is far from wanting to work harder, as we have shown quite clearly when 90% to 95% of the time it is the New Democrats carrying the heavy load.

We are fine with carrying the heavy load. We come from humble roots and we are hard workers. Everybody acknowledges that, and that is why 90% to 95% of the time it is we who do the hard work in the House.

However, now the Conservatives want to even do away with evening votes. They are saying, “No, that is too hard. It is too hard voting at 6:00 or 7:00 at night. We do not want to show up to speak”.

This is a licence for laziness. That is what the government has brought forward. The Conservatives want to make sure that motions are voted on around question period time so that folks can show up around question period and then do whatever it is that Conservative MPs do in the evening. I have no idea of that.

I should also point out that, in this motion, the same goes for private members' business. Where this motion mentions Wednesdays governed by this order, it says that recorded divisions will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. As for other private members' business, the motion says that this too will be deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday. That is the same thing.

This is really a licence for laziness. As we have shown, 90% to 95% of the time, the Conservatives are not the ones showing up to speak in the House. They do not want to vote in the evening, not even on private members' business. They want to curtail all of these activities and make sure that no votes happen in the evening.

What difference will that make? The NDP will still be here working. We work hard. We have a reputation for working hard. We come from humble roots and we represent our ridings well. I know that the members here this afternoon are very hard-working, and we will continue to work hard. Votes, including votes on private members' business, will now be held in the afternoon. That means the Conservative members will have their evenings free.

That is really the problem. As we move through this motion, we see time and time again that this is like a giant recess for the Conservatives. They have structured this so that they do not have to have votes in the evening anymore. They do not show up to speak in the evening 90% of the time, depending on the evening. It is New Democrats who actually put in the representation of their ridings. What we are seeing again is the Conservatives, through this motion, giving themselves an evening off.

The real clue to what the Conservatives are doing, this licence for laziness, is that they will not show up to speak or to vote, but they are telling the NDP that we can do our stuff and speak on behalf of our constituents. They have also proved that they are not willing to listen to the good advice we offer them, which is why they got into so much trouble having to amend legislation they brought forward previously and having pieces of legislation rejected by the Supreme Court. If they had listened to us and to Canadians, they would not be in so much trouble.

The key to this is paragraph (h): “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.” The essence of the motion is that Conservatives will not show up to speak in the House of Commons. They will not show up to participate, because they do not do that; they let harder-working members do that. They will also not show up to vote in the evening. They will not show up to vote on private members' legislation, and they will not show up to vote on public legislation. That is why they want the votes after question period, when it is convenient.

That means that the Conservatives are shutting down the rules of the House so that only they can use them. It is incredible. If we had not been through Bill C-23, in which they were trying to cook the next election campaign, it would be unbelievable that after all the decades, a century and a half and more of Canadian parliamentary democracy, a government would say that the rules will exist, but the government members will be the only ones who can use them. Only Conservatives can use these rules. Only a minister of the crown can use these rules.

We will have this period. I know it, because we went through it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley knows it full well, because I think he probably spent more time in this House than any other member. Night after night, there will be no Conservatives here wanting to speak, or maybe one member of Parliament from the Conservative Party will want to speak. However, the Conservatives will not show up to vote, because they are having all the votes deferred to question period, when it is convenient for them, and they are now saying that all the rules of the House apply only to them. Only they can use them. They are basically putting handcuffs on every single member of the opposition. They are saying that only a Conservative can use the rules that normally function that make this democratic place a democracy. Only the Conservatives can use them. It is unbelievable.

If we had not been through the unfair elections act, where the Conservatives were trying to subvert the next election campaign, we would actually think this could not be Canada. These are not Canadian values. That is what they are doing. They are putting in, and writing it out so that any Canadian can see, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown after 6:30 p.m.”

This is not an approach to try to work harder. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was trying to slide that by us a little while ago, and we simply do not believe it. The evidence simply shows that this is not the case. Conservatives will not be showing up to speak in the House. They did not last year. They did not the year before, and 90% to 95% of the time they let the heavy lifting be carried by New Democrats. We are strong, we are tough, and we do not mind doing it. We will do an even better job in 2015 once we are the government. That is when we will really see changes, when the heavy lifting actually benefits people directly through good governance.

I can tell members something else we will not be doing. It is what I mentioned half an hour ago.

I am enjoying this. I am not sure when I am going to sit down, actually. I think my colleagues from the NDP are appreciating it too.

I just want to mention what happens when due diligence is not done. Conservative members should know this, but they are muzzled. They vote for time allocation and muzzle themselves, so they do not actually speak on legislation in the House. There are 280 MPs, on average, who have their right to speak on legislation ripped away every single time, the dozens and dozens of times, the government has used closure techniques. Sometimes it calls it time allocation, but it amounts to the same thing; it is closure. Every time the government does it, 280 MPs, on average, are denied their right to speak. They do not show up to the evening session to speak. One does, and that is normally it. Then 90% to 95% of the heavy lifting is done by the NDP.

What is the result of this? I will give three examples. I could give tons of examples. I could probably speak for 14 hours on bad, botched Conservative legislation. I could do that, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you and the public would find it interesting, but eventually we are going to have to go to question period. I am going to mention only three examples.

The Conservatives rammed Bill C-38 through the House without due care and attention and without showing up for evening sessions. Bill C-38 was one of the omnibus bills. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised major concerns about it at the time. The Conservatives botched the bill. They botched it so badly that the next bill they introduced had to fix the mistakes they made in the first bill. They rammed Bill C-38 through the House with time allocation. It was omnibus legislation, which was quite all right, except it was wrong. It was badly botched in a way only the Conservative government could do it.

It was so badly botched, the government had to introduce another piece of legislation, Bill C-45. Bill C-45 had to fix all the problems in the previous bill. Was that a good use of taxpayers' money? Was it a good, use of this legislative process? The government rammed through Bill C-38 but botched it so badly that it had to bring another piece of legislation in to fix it. That is like bringing one's car in to get fixed and driving off without the wheels. It is incredible. We went through another process, with Bill C-45, to fix what was wrong with Bill C-38.

That is just a snapshot of how the government handles legislation. It is like the guy who has a hammer and thinks everything is a nail. Conservatives think everything is pavement and they can steamroll over all of it, except that when legislation is badly botched, there are consequences.

That brings me to another piece of legislation, Bill C-4. It is the same kind of thing. The Conservatives tried to throw a whole bunch of things in the bill, a laundry list, except that the Supreme Court rejected part of that legislation. As we know, the Leader of the Opposition has been raising this repeatedly in the House.

We have a problem whereby botched legislation leads to more time wasted, because the Conservatives have to introduce other legislation to fix the bad legislation they forced through in the first place without listening to the NDP. If they had listened to the NDP, they would not have had the badly botched legislation in the first place. If they do get it through the House, then, as we saw with Bill C-4, the Supreme Court says, “Sorry, you badly botched this legislation and it is not constitutional”. As a result of that, we have to reject part of this legislation.

This is the real problem. It is not that the government, as it likes to say, does its job and produces a quantity of legislation, so everyone should give it a pat on the back. It is bad legislation in so many cases. It is legislation that has to be fixed. New Democrats always offer the amendments and the fixes. We are always there to try to direct the government. We often feel as if we are trying to direct a puppy, because it seems to get distracted often.

The reality is that the work the government does should be very important. The legislation the government presents in the House should be very important. There should be a proper legislative process. There should be amendments that are considered. There should be a process people can actually respect. That is not what happens under the government.

The government just throws legislation out without due respect for parliamentary traditions. It refuses to listen to the opposition to develop the legislation so that it can actually accomplish what it purports to set out to do when it puts the legislation on the floor of the House. The government will not take amendments, will not listen to debate, actually shuts down the debate, and rams legislation through. This costs Canadians enormously.

Every time the government has to provide new legislation to fix the old legislation, and as has happened a number of times in the past few weeks, every time the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is simply not constitutional, it costs Canadians.

We have this motion that is a licence for laziness. It dismisses Conservatives from voting in the evening. It dismisses Conservatives from having to participate in debates that are actually quite important, because that is how we get legislation fixed, particularly the shoddy legislation the government tends to present in the House.

Now we have a government that has such profound arrogance that it says, quite clearly, “No dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown”, which means that no dilatory motion may be proposed except by a Conservative, except by a minister of the crown, after 6:30 p.m.

What the government is doing, at the height of its arrogance, is saying to Canadians, “Hey, we are just going to run this government, this country, exactly how we want, and we do not care about the consequences”.

We care about the consequences. We care when we see shoddy legislation that has to be corrected, and it takes months of work, because the government did not get it right in the first place. We care when the Supreme Court says that what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

We care when we see, right across this country, growing concern about the government's arrogance and its attacks on a whole host of institutions, not just in the elections act but in the attack on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Sheila Fraser. How could anyone attack Sheila Fraser? The Conservatives have been doing just that.

When we see all those attacks, we see a government that has simply done its time. It no longer has any sort of legitimate agenda but just wants to lash out at its perceived enemies and wants to set a perception that is simply not true.

With this motion, this licence for laziness, Conservatives get off scot-free. They do not have to vote in the evening. They do not have to show up in the evening. The government has said it is going to handcuff every single member of the opposition to their desks and not let them use any proper parliamentary procedure after 6:30 p.m. Only the government can.

That arrogance is something Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of. That arrogance is something Canadians are saying they have had enough of. In the most recent poll, the Prime Minister had an approval rating of one-third of Canadians. Two-thirds of Canadians disapprove of the work he is doing.

The leader of the Liberal Party has falling approval levels, but he did better. It was 50/50.

The top approval level in the country is for the Leader of the Opposition. Two-thirds of Canadians see his work in the House of Commons and approve of it. They see him as strong and as defending Canadian democracy.

That is what we are going to continue to do. We are going to ensure that legislation is effective. We are going to continue to speak out and work hard on behalf of our constituents. We are looking forward to that day, October 19, 2015, when we can get rid of the government and start having an NDP government that is going to fully respect our democratic traditions here in the House of Commons and right across the country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Obviously we studied Bill C-4 as a committee, and there was some concern that was raised that employees in federally regulated workplaces will not be able to refuse dangerous work situations. I don't believe that's true, but obviously there was some concern.

Can you re-emphasize to the committee that the changes in Bill C-4 still obviously permit any individual who believes that they're working in an unsafe environment to refuse that work and to file a complaint in the appropriate way, either with their employer directly or through the labour ministry? Because I think there's a lot of misinformation going around that somehow all of a sudden thousands of people can't refuse dangerous work now as a result of the changes to Bill C-4. Can you re-emphasize what the rules are, the changes under Bill C-4?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the committee, Minister, your virgin visit, so to speak.

Minister, I know, and I've heard you say this a number of times, that health and safety is a priority for you. However, C-4 changed the definition of danger, and that continues to concern me. I wondered if there isn't a kind of a contradiction between saying it is a priority and then making it more difficult for an employee to refuse to work in what he or she perceives as danger. Now, under the new rules, it has to be serious and imminent danger for the claim to be accepted.

So, Minister, my first questions are, please define what you consider “serious and imminent” and why did you change the definition?

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

Thank you.

To go on to GST and HST on paid parking, the measure to charge these taxes on parking provided by charities in cases where 90% or more of the parking is usually provided for free.

I recall there was a similar provision for public sector bodies in Bill C-4. I understand that measure resulted from a tax dispute with a number of municipalities, where about $50 million or $60 million of revenue was at stake. Have there been any tax disputes with charities regarding this measure, and if so, how much money was at stake?

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It is a good answer, Mr. Speaker. I will say it again, as the hon. member may not have paid attention to my previous speech. Today is day one of the debate at report stage and third reading.

I really empathize with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as we sometimes see major changes included in totally unrelated bills. For example, Bill C-4 made fundamental changes to labour legislation and justice. I would like the member to comment on this.

Bill C-4 also included two sections amending the Supreme Court Act, presumably to clarify the intent of the law. We all know the fate they met. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Could he also comment on the change that would require the Transport minister to recommend occupational health and safety regulations? This is a 270-page bill filled with details and references to regulations, and we are well aware of the government's tendency to hide things. Could my colleague also share his thoughts on this?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the very great pleasure of rising to speak to Bill C-5, which does have weaknesses—some of my colleagues have already pointed out some of them—but which seems to have drawn a consensus on the part of the labour unions and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is an extremely important issue. I have a union background myself, and as the official opposition labour critic, I believe that any progress that is made to help workers stay healthy and offer them protection and a safe work environment should be embraced and encouraged.

That is why in the NDP, we recognize that despite its weaknesses, Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction in an issue that should be above partisanship. I would like to point out that today is March 27. In one month and one day it will be the National Day of Mourning. Each year on April 28, we remember those who have lost their lives at work. It is an important day, the symbol of which is the canary, once used in the mines to indicate when the oxygen supply was failing. When the canary died, it was time to get out of the mine, and quickly.

Last summer, I had an opportunity to visit the mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, and I have to admit that there was a good reason why the first union in Canada was founded in the mines of Nova Scotia, where people wielded their picks on their knees in the dark. If they were not killed in an explosion, they died of black lung, because their lungs were full of coal dust. Things are different now. Unions have been legal in Canada since 1872, but before that, they were not. It has only been a little more than a century. We must continue to see to it that conditions for those working on offshore oil and gas projects are as safe as they can be.

On April 28, we commemorate all those who have lost their lives at work. It has to be said that there are many more deaths than commonly thought. In 1993, there were 758 recorded deaths in the workplace. In 2004, there were 928. In 2005, there were 1,097. That is 1,097 individuals, nearly 1,100 people in a single year who left for work one morning and never came home. This is intolerable and unacceptable. As legislators, we should do everything in our power to put in place regulatory frameworks so that these terrible things never happen again.

Nearly 1,100 people losing their lives in the workplace. Given that the average worker in Canada or Quebec works 230 days a year, this means five deaths every working day. Five people dead from trying to earn a living. People should never lose their lives from trying to earn a living and support a family.

Offshore workers deserve our support, and our support at this stage for Bill C-5. It is based on three major principles that the NDP shares and wishes to promote. Workplace health and safety legislation should protect workers—in this case, offshore workers—at least as well as it protects onshore workers. It is a simple question of fairness.

We understand that resources have to be more substantial. My colleague has already pointed out that it is much more difficult to help someone at sea than someone in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is within a 10-minute drive of three hospitals. Being far away at sea is no reason for a person not to receive the necessary emergency assistance and care in such situations.

Workers’ rights must be protected. This is extremely important. A workplace health and safety culture that recognizes a shared responsibility should be supported. Workers themselves obviously have a responsibility to take care. The employer has a responsibility to take every measure necessary to ensure that workers' lives and safety are not placed in jeopardy.

The government is responsible for putting legislation in place that will compel all parties to act responsibly so that when people leave for work in the morning, there is every chance that they will come home that evening. This is extremely important.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken a long time. It has been under discussion for 12 years. We are happy that it is moving forward, but it is moving at a snail’s pace. The Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party before it, could have done their due diligence much sooner.

Today, the government has placed this bill before us. Better late than never, but it has been rather a long time coming. Moreover, while the government is working with two provincial governments and the unions to improve workplace health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers, it is at the same time undermining health and safety rights in its own legislation, with Bill C-4. It is changing the definition of workplace danger that employees working for organizations under federal jurisdiction can use in order to exercise their right of refusal to work.

A worker’s right of refusal means being able to say that it seems to him dangerous to go where his employer is asking him to go, because he believes that he could have something fall on his head, say, or slip and fall, or step on a live wire.

In a budget implementation act, the Canada Labour Code was amended to change the definition of the word “danger”, which must now be a significant and immediate threat. For example, if the employee is working with asbestos and he risks having cancer in 20 years, this is not immediate. So there may be some argument about this.

Furthermore, the threat must be significant, without any definition of what a significant threat is, or consultation with business, industry, trades or unions. This has all suddenly been presented to us like a rabbit out of a hat.

In parliamentary committee, questions were asked about what constitutes a significant threat. If I lose a finger, is this significant or not? If I lose a leg, is it significant? What piece of the body has to be lost or damaged before it is considered significant?

We asked about the studies the Conservatives relied on for changing the definition and whether there was a problem with the current definition. The answer was that 80% of cases of refusals to work for health and safety reasons were not justified. We asked to see the documents, and there were not any. Their estimates were based on internal discussions. This is what we learned in committee. That is really something.

In those discussions, apparently, they heard talk of situations where the claims were not justified or where there was some abuse of the system. They told themselves they would have to get tough.

In getting tough, they are likely to endanger the health or the lives of employees who work for an organization under federal jurisdiction, and, for us in the NDP, this is unacceptable.

We think it is a shame that, on the one hand, the government is working to improve the health and safety of some workers, which is a good thing and something we are supporting, and on the other hand, it is complicating the right to refuse work for tens of thousands of people.

Even if it were true that 80% of cases were not justified, that means that 20% of cases were indeed justified, and this is what counts. This is what is important for us. The job will perhaps have to wait an hour longer. That is not important. An inspector will come and look into the problem. The important thing is that no one is hurt and no one dies on the job.

We in the NDP are going to support Bill C-5. However, I think that we should have brought in recommendation 29 made by Robert Wells, who said, “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report”.

Recommendation 29 is the only recommendation that is not included in the bill.

Recommendation 29 calls for a new, independent and stand-alone organization to be established to regulate health and safety matters in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If that is not possible, Justice Wells recommended, in the alternative, that the government create a separate and autonomous safety division in that department with a separate budget, separate leadership and an organizational structure designed to deal only with health and safety matters, and that an advisory board be established, composed of mature and experienced persons who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry.

That is very important indeed.

This is a bill that brings regulatory progress. For once, the government has worked in co-operation with the provinces, but once is not a habit.

However, one piece is missing, and that is a genuinely independent organization that would help us monitor the measures that are put in place and that is not connected to the industry or the government. In our minds, that is an essential recommendation, and we very much deplore the fact that it is not addressed in Bill C-5.

That will not prevent us from voting for the bill at this time, but we believe the government should make consequential amendments to it.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to add my voice to support this worthy legislation.

If there is one thing our government has been crystal clear about when it comes to energy development, it is that public health and safety and environmental protection are paramount. This is the very essence of reasonable resource development.

There is no question we are determined to create high-quality jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, and the energy sector has certainly delivered that to Atlantic Canadians in recent years.

Since the oil and gas industry began operating offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador in the late 1960s, the region's economy has been transformed. In 2010, the industry generated wages, salaries, and benefits worth $291 million in the province of Newfoundland alone. Not only does the sector clearly make a major contribution to the livelihoods of workers, but it also improves the standard of living of all residents in the region, and there is also no debate that we recognize that it would be irresponsible to promote development without the assurance that the health and safety of our citizens and the protection of our environment will be fully addressed. That is precisely what Bill C-5 is designated to do. It would better safeguard Atlantic offshore oil and gas workers.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports that over 5,000 individuals are currently employed in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Almost 1,000 more work in Nova Scotia's petroleum sector, and the potential is great for even more jobs and economic growth in the near future. Recent offshore oil and gas discoveries are bringing a new wave of activity into the Atlantic provinces.

There is all the more reason, then, for Bill C-5. Workers in the industry need to be protected, given the dangerous conditions associated frequently with their jobs.

Under the Canada Labour Code, workers are protected from hazards in the workplace. This protection includes the fundamental right to refuse dangerous work. As was underscored by the tragic March 2009 crash of Cougar flight 491 ferrying oil workers to offshore rigs and by the catastrophic sinking of the Ocean Ranger oil rig in 1982, worker safety must be job number one.

I can assure the House that our government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of Canadian workers and the protection of the environment. That is why we are introducing this new regime for Atlantic offshore workplaces.

Before outlining these improvements in detail, let me first explain where the federal government fits in this picture.

The Government of Canada shares responsibility for the management of the offshore with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. These responsibilities are laid out in bilateral accords with each province, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Canada's Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry is regulated by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. These boards ensure that operators and drilling contractors comply with the requirements of their respective implementation acts and exercise due diligence to prevent spills in Canada's offshore.

The Atlantic accords have been in place since the 1980s and are no longer sufficient to reflect contemporary requirements. They require modernization. The labour program, along with representatives from Natural Resources Canada, provincial energy and labour departments, and the provinces' offshore petroleum boards have identified and agreed to key areas for improvement.

First, the legislation places authority for occupational health and safety within the accord acts. If adopted, this legislation would establish an occupational health and safety framework within the Atlantic accord acts.

The new regime would apply to worker safety on-site at offshore rigs, as well as to workers in transit to or from offshore platforms.

The new regime would apply both to worker safety on site at an offshore rig as well as to workers in transit to or from an offshore platform. It would be jointly overseen by the Minister of Natural Resources and provincial occupational health and safety ministers for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

It would be enforced by their individual offshore petroleum boards.

The boards would be responsible for verifying that companies have adequate plans in place to protect their employees and to avoid dangers. This includes everything from ensuring the safe handling of hazardous materials to proper procedures related to the operation of equipment and managing facilities. Using audits and inspections, we would confirm that all applicable health and safety requirements were met and demand correction if deficiencies were found. As well, the boards would be granted increased authority, such as enforcement powers for occupational health and safety officers.

These include the powers of inspection and investigation, warrant provisions and creative sentencing measures in case of dangerous situations.

Under Bill C-5, the Minister of Labour would provide ongoing federal labour expertise, such as the development of regulations, the issuance of directives to the boards, and recommendations on the appointments of special officers.

Special officers would be appointed to avoid a serious, imminent risk to the health and safety of offshore workers.

Such a scenario would proceed following joint approval and appointment by the pertinent provincial ministers and the Minister of Natural Resources, following a recommendation by the Minister of Labour.

Along with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Labour would also co-appoint six members of a 13-member advisory council to be made up of employers, employees, and the two levels of government. The council would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas about occupational health and safety issues to ensure the effectiveness of this legislation.

Bill C-5 also introduces consequential amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code. In the event of an accident, the bill would extend the time limit to launch a prosecution from one year to two years, consistent with the occupational health and safety legislation in many provinces. The Minister of Labour would also have the right to disclose information to the public regarding occupational health and safety.

The amendments would also give the Minister of Labour the authority to share information with federal and provincial government departments as well as with international organizations if the minister deems it to be in the interests of occupational health and safety or in the public interest overall. This would make it easier to share information during a coroner's inquest or a provincial prosecution. I want to be clear, however, that personal information would continue to be protected.

I should point out several minor amendments to the legislation since it has been debated at second reading.

Most amendments are technical in nature, such as putting the word “Canada” in the title of the regulations and renumbering the subtexts of the act that were incorrectly numbered.

Some were needed to harmonize federal and provincial legislation. For instance, we had to replace the provincial “Occupational Health and Safety Act” in Nova Scotia with the correct new name of its Labour Board Act, as this province has amended its legislation recently. Federal and provincial legislation obviously must mirror each other.

Several amendments were required as a result of Bill C-4, the second budget implementation act, and changes to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

The changes proposed under the Canada Labour Code would make coordinating amendments. “Minister of Labour” would now replace the terms “health and safety officer” or “regional health and safety officer” to reflect the minister's authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions previously conferred to health and safety officers. Let me be clear that through the delegation process, decisions will continue to be made by health and safety officers with the necessary expertise.

Coordination is required around the protections within the code regarding the minister giving testimony in civil proceedings, and these amendments now refer to “civil and administrative proceedings”, which include arbitration hearings.

The improvements I have outlined respond to input received in extensive consultations in 2010 and 2011. The provinces and industry and employee groups have all expressed strong support for the changes we have proposed. They have done so because they recognize that these changes would ensure that Canada's offshore industries will operate safely and to the highest environmental standards.

Bill C-5 would create a modern occupational health and safety regime that is relevant and responsive to today's offshore oil and gas reality, and, most importantly, it would provide robust protection for Canada's oil and gas workers, ensuring their safety and health in the workplace.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadian workers are looking to us to ensure their well-being and continued prosperity. Therefore, I urge all parties to support the bill and make these amendments the law of the land.

Motions in amendment

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of many people who would have liked to speak to this bill. I will try to use my time wisely tonight to share with the House both my point of view and that of a union that is close to my heart. I am fortunate to be the NDP deputy critic for public safety. It being such a large file, one that includes police services, the RCMP and federal penitentiaries, I have the opportunity to meet exceptional people who work day in and day out to keep us safe. I salute them.

I salute the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the UCCO-SACC, which does outstanding work every day to protect us and to make our communities, our cities and our towns safe. Their work is incredibly important for public safety because they ensure that we are safe and that those detained in our prisons are as well. These people put their lives on the line every day. I work closely with them to ensure that their voices are heard in Parliament and that we understand what they face on a daily basis.

Until recently, there were three federal penitentiaries in my riding of Laval: the Leclerc Institution, the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. Unfortunately, as a result of a Conservative government decision, the Leclerc Institution was shut down last year. We still do not understand why, though, because there was a need for it, especially in light of the implications of Bill C-10, the omnibus bill implemented by that same Conservative government.

These people are incredible workers. I worked closely with Diderot at the Leclerc Institution, who is now at the Federal Training Centre. I often work with Michel and Manon, the union representatives at the Montée Saint-François Institution and the Federal Training Centre. I know that they work hard to keep us safe. A lot happens inside our prisons that goes unmentioned. No one talks about double-bunking, which puts the work and lives of our correctional officers in danger every day. No one talks about workers' safety, the new workload resulting from the implementation of Bill C-10, the restrictive measures or the budget cuts in our federal penitentiaries. That affects them greatly.

I would like to point out that “federal penitentiaries” means “federal employees”. Bill C-525 affects them directly. I would like to quote their position on Bill C-525:

Bill C-525: an attack on union democracy. Bill C-525 is the [Conservative] government's attack on the very existence of unions in job sectors governed by the Canada Labour Code, including the federal public service, which governs the job rules for 800,000 Canadian workers. Dressed up as a way to increase union democracy by the party that brought us robocalls, voter suppression, election-expense violations and the Senate scandal, the bill in fact does exactly the opposite.

I could not agree more with the UCCO-SACC. They go on to say:

[The] Conservative MP [for] Wetaskiwin introduced the so-called Employee’s Voting Rights Act as a private member’s bill...

Important to note is the fact that private member’s bills are not subject to constitutional verification by Justice department lawyers—as are government bills—to see if they conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is no doubt one reason why the [Conservative] government prefers to introduce oppressive legislation of this sort via private member’s bills.

In the case of Bill C-525, [the Conservative government] is attacking our fundamental right of association by making certification of new unions much more difficult, and conversely, the decertification of existing unions much easier.

The bill does so by adding another, unnecessary, step to the tried-and-true method of the card-check system, which opens the process up to employer intimidation. The government’s anti-democratic habits come to the fore in this part of Bill C-525. It will only require a minority of members (45%) to initiate a decertification vote overseen by the Canada Labour Board, which, you will recall from a previous tract, will now be politicized under Bill C-4.

Incredibly, Bill C-525 flies in the face of basic democratic principles by requiring that 50% plus one of all employees [and I would like to add that the principle of 50% plus one forms the very foundation of our society in our electoral system], not just those who participate in the ballot, vote in favour of the union. In other words, those who choose not to vote, or who are unable to vote, would be counted as votes against the union in certification or decertification votes.

It is incredible to think that a piece of legislation would determine the meaning of the votes of people who do not vote or who cannot be present to vote for some reason or another. In a federal, provincial or municipal election, when someone does not vote, it does not mean that he or she is voting for someone; it simply means that he or she did not vote. This decision is appalling. My quote continues:

Those who are ill, vacationing or have family emergencies may be in favour of having a union, but will be considered as No votes.

This legislation is only one part of a series of attacks by the [Conservative] government intended to weaken the labour movement and the ability of workers to organize themselves in their workplace. The process of signing membership cards is the best way to protect workers from the pressure tactics of some employers. To impose a vote is to open the door to threats and intimidation. Studies have demonstrated that the government’s proposed process leads to a 10% to 20% decrease in union membership where it has been adopted.

I would like to thank all UCCO-SACC members across Canada. I would especially like to thank the Laval members, whom I know very well: union representatives Manon and Michel. They are doing an incredible job of standing up for workers' rights and the safety of their workplace.

All three of us talked about this at length. I know that they strongly oppose this bill. I am proud to be their voice in the House today. It is incredible to think that a government like the one opposite, which constantly says it wants to protect our communities, is not helping the workers in federal penitentiaries. That is ridiculous.

I am going to talk about more than just the fact that this is going to affect conditions for unions in federal detention centres. Bill C-525 touches on other aspects. I would like to cite some statistics for my colleagues opposite that might change their minds. Perhaps they will vote against Bill C-525.

Better wages negotiated by unions inject approximately $786 million into the Canadian economy every week. That is a lot of money. If we have so much money pouring into the economy, it is because of workers who got together and decided to form a union. I would like to thank them today.

Furthermore, as a woman, I am proud to say that unionized women make $6.65 more per hour than non-unionized women. That is huge.

I know that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie wanted to talk about the World Bank, but unfortunately did not have the time to do so in his speech. Therefore, in closing, I will talk briefly about the World Bank and its views on unions.

The World Bank has pointed out the positive role unions play in domestic economies. In a 2002 document based on more than 1,000 studies of the impact of unions on domestic economies, the World Bank found that a high rate of unionization led to greater income equality, lower unemployment and inflation, higher productivity and a quicker response to economic downturns.

We should all vote against Bill C-525, which is clearly an insult to workers' rights.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague may well know, we just finished a study and are now looking at Bill C-4, which is the offshore health and safety act. We certainly did hear from Mr. Wells, and our government takes the recommendations of the Wells Inquiry very seriously. We are satisfied with the improvements to offshore helicopter safety made by the C-NLOPB since the accident occurred. We continue to work with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the offshore area is as safe as possible.

When Commissioner Wells appeared at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in December, he was clear when he said he was pleased with our offshore health and safety legislation. He was also very clear that good has come out of the government's adoption of his recommendations.

I would advise my colleague opposite to read the transcript of the meeting and inform himself of Commissioner Wells' position on what our government has done in dealing with the recommendations he made.

[Brenda Baxter]

Proposed subsection 144(1.1) is the change in Bill C-4. That's the clause referred to as a result of Bill C-4. So the change that we're referring to is to provide officers the ability to make representation at other types of administrative hearings. That could include arbitration hearings, at which they are not permitted to make representation currently.

[Brenda Baxter]

This amendment does two things. It coordinates with Bill C-4, but it also includes a consequential amendment to the Canada Labour Code to include the ability for delegated officials to make representation at civil and administrative hearings.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have a couple of things, Mr. Chair.

First of all, has Bill C-4 not already passed both the House and the Senate, and has it not already received royal assent?

[Brenda Baxter]

As with the previous amendment, these consequential amendments to the labour code were put forward in the last session of Parliament. Since then, Bill C-4 has come forward and made some changes to the Canada Labour Code. The amendment we're making here is to include “administrative proceedings”. That is the consequential amendment to the Canada Labour Code that's being made here under Bill C-5. But in addition, because Bill C-4 passed and made some adjustments, this also requires a coordination with the wording under Bill C-4.

[Jeff Labonté]

We could read the exact language that's in Bill C-4, which has already passed. We could read the exact clauses, or show them on the iPad, if someone wants to see them, to demonstrate that this is a mirror of that and that it is being imported into this particular piece of legislation for consistency purposes.

[Brenda Baxter]

The changes are to provide coordination with the changes that came about under Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2. Specifically, those amendments removed the reference to health and safety officers and replaced them with the term “delegated” officials, so the changes proposed here under the Canada Labour Code are making that same sort of coordinating amendments. They're removing the reference to health and safety officers and replacing it with a reference to delegated officials.

As well, the coordination is required around the protections that are provided to the minister and that exist within the Canada Labour Code with regard to a minister giving testimony in, as it says currently, civil proceedings. These amendments refer to “civil and administrative proceedings”, which include arbitration hearings. It's that one change to make that same reference so that “[t]he Minister shall not be required to give testimony in civil or administrative proceedings, other than proceedings under this Part” of the Canada Labour Code.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

The explanation for government amendment 10 is as follows.

First, this motion seeks to delete the current clause 120 of the bill, pages 261 and 262, as those provisions were achieved through the amendment of clause 88. That was achieved in the motion under government amendment 5. The full text of this motion also includes changes necessary to coordinate with amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which were included in Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2.

This motion seeks to coordinate amendments made by Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2—to replace the references to “health and safety officer” with the reference to “delegated” officials—with that act's amendments to the disclosure of information provisions in the Canada Labour Code. Those amendments ensure consistency with the disclosure information provisions developed for the offshore.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 added new proposed subsection 144(1.1) to provide the Minister of Labour with similar protections as those covered under proposed subsection 144(1). A coordinating amendment is therefore necessary to ensure consistency and, more specifically, to add the concept of “administrative proceedings” to proposed subsection 144(1).

The amendments in this motion neither conflict nor overlap with those from Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2.

Are there any comments or more explanation from our witnesses? Would that be possible?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Government amendment 8 is required to change the reference to the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to its new title, the Department of Employment and Social Development Act.

The title of this act was amended in the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2. This amendment is required in clause 94 on page 250.

Bilingualism in Canada's Legislative Process

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have risen on a question of privilege, and I am somewhat saddened to have to do so.

I care deeply about official languages. I rise today in the House to follow up on a recent incident by raising a question of privilege that warrants an official response. I believe that the Speaker is best equipped to deal with this matter.

Questions of privilege are of paramount importance to the democratic institution of Parliament, and the Speaker has ruled on these questions many times. I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday. I believe that the delay in raising this question of privilege is reasonable as this incident occurred just recently.

Members and senators were invited to a technical briefing on Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, organized by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, who is also the member for Nepean—Carleton. As we know, debate on this bill began yesterday and will undoubtedly continue today.

I will try to explain what happened last Tuesday and attempt to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I am referring to the privilege of receiving, in both official languages, information about bills introduced in the House when they are drafted and debated.

Briefings are crucial. They help members to prepare before debating and voting on a bill as complex as the one in question, which is 242 pages long. It goes without saying that technical briefings are very important for such massive bills that contain so many elements. It is not mandatory that ministers provide these briefings. However, this one was offered, and we noticed many issues with the interpretation during the briefing.

It seems that no one contacted the interpretation service in advance. The interpreter who arrived had not received the documents he needed to do his job. The interpretation was often inadequate, whether it was from English to French or vice versa. The interpretation from English to French was particularly poor. At times, there was little or no interpretation or it was of poor quality.

Many of the issues with the interpretation surfaced when the members were asking questions. Some of my colleagues were there. When members and senators used the microphone in the middle of the room to ask questions, the interpreter could not hear them. Obviously, he was not able to translate the questions.

That said, the Speaker will have to ascertain the facts to determine, based on the information he obtains or he receives from other members, whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege.

I would like to remind everyone of the classic definition of parliamentary privilege. I am sure you know it, Mr. Speaker. However, I will repeat it for the benefit of my colleagues. I am quoting from Erskine May:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

This is a fundamental principle of our institution, as I mentioned at the start of my speech. The privileges of each individual parliamentarian as well as the collective privileges of the House of Commons must be respected at all times.

Today, the question of privilege is very important because it is entrenched in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 133 sets out certain legislative guarantees for parliamentarians when it comes to the use of Canada's official languages. These include the right to use either language in legislative debates, the use of both languages in the official records and minutes of Parliament, and the use of English and French in printing and publishing acts.

While departmental briefings are not specifically covered by the Constitution Act, University of Ottawa law professor André Braën notes that the purpose of section 133 is to grant “equal access for anglophones and francophones to the law in their language” and to guarantee “equal participation in the debates and proceedings of Parliament”.

This leads me to conclude that this protection of official languages in the House is fundamental to ensure equality among all members. It means that those who do not understand French or English can be on the same level as other members.

For example, if we give a technical overview of a bill in English to a member who only understands French without providing interpretation, this member is at a disadvantage in the legislative process compared to others who understand English perfectly. He or she is not getting the same quality of information. I think that is a fundamental issue in Canada's legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will conclude this is a prima facie violation of privilege. This Latin expression, which means “on the face of it”, is of course commonly used.

To summarize the events, members attended a briefing on Tuesday morning, at 10 a.m. The session included paper documents that, I must admit, were properly translated. Members had been promised a briefing session to help them better understand this legislation before debating it here. However, they barely had 24 hours to review 240 pages. That is not a lot of time. However, as I said earlier, there is no requirement to provide such briefings.

The officials from the Privy Council Office who were present acted in good faith. They tried several times to correct the situation and accommodate the participants in both official languages, but they failed to do so. Even my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who could perhaps elaborate on her own experience, had to leave during the information session because there was simply no interpretation service. Accordingly, she did not have the same rights as other MPs who understand English, like myself, since I understand it pretty well. Although there was no interpretation service, I understood what was being said in English. I can understand it pretty well, but not as well as I would have understood the French.

This has been examined in various cases, including Att. Gen. of Quebec v. Blaikie et al. Chief Justice Deschênes of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld the obligation to use English and French at the same time throughout the legislative process. Any disruption of that practice violates both the letter and the spirit of section 133. This substantiates my comments.

In October 2013, my hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley also raised this question regarding Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, for which a similar information session was held for the members. Unfortunately, the interpretation services were inadequate. If I remember correctly, there was no interpretation at all. As a result, the meeting was cancelled and held the next day. In that case, the breach of privilege was avoided.

In this particular case, which is very similar, there was a major difference that might prove there was a breach of parliamentary privilege. The meeting continued despite the fact that the interpretation service was having a lot of trouble. As I said earlier, one MP even had to leave because of the poor quality of the service. I am not saying that the people there were not acting in good faith; they tried to make the situation better, but it did not work.

The bill in question deals with electoral reform, and it is very important to Canadians. The least the government could have done was to provide a technical briefing in both official languages to ensure all the members of the House are on a level playing field when they have to debate the issue. That was obviously not done.

I think a situation like that is unacceptable because it prevents parliamentarians from doing their jobs and fully participating in debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make a ruling confirming that this is in fact a breach of the privileges of members of Parliament.

I would be willing to move an appropriate motion if you ask me to do so. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your decision on the prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege that may have taken place last Tuesday.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 38, 2013.

C-19, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014—Chapter 39, 2013.

C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures—Chapter 40, 2013.

It being 5:55 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, January 27, 2014, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to establish the Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-19, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2014; and Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

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

[Lana Payne]

I haven't written out what the language should look like, but definitely I think what we see in the Newfoundland...and in the Nova Scotia...that kind of wording would be better than what we're seeing in Bill C-4, for sure.

[Lana Payne]

The language in Bill C-5 is quite strong, because all you need is to have a reasonable cause that subjects you to danger; whereas what we are seeing now in Bill C-4 places the condition when defining danger as posing an imminent or serious threat. There is a qualifier around that. I think these words almost provide an unending opportunity for debating the quantum risk of the work that is occurring, which will almost supplant the real issue of whether or not the danger exists to the worker.

Bill C-4 also has in place a very long list of almost paper procedures that you have to go through in order to prove that you're in danger, whereas this one, which I hope would reflect more what is in the Newfoundland and Labrador safety code and the Nova Scotia safety code, gives more of a sense of what's reasonable instead of putting qualifiers around it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

As you probably all know, this bill enshrines workers' right to refuse work, or in this case we're talking really about transport, if they have reasonable cause to believe that there is danger involved. The definition of “danger” is not actually in the bill, although power is given in the bill to the Governor in Council to make regulations that would provide the definition.

In your view, how should the term “danger” be defined?

Ms. Payne, you talk about the right to refuse. How is it stronger in Bill C-5, or how is it stronger than it is in Bill C-4, and what are the implications of that?

I will start with you and then I will turn to the other witnesses in the order that we've had them so far.

[Lana Payne, Atlantic Director, Unifor]

Thanks, everybody, for having us here. We really appreciate the opportunity to present on Bill C-5.

I would like to give apologies, because our presentation is only now at our translation department. We will send it electronically so that folks can have it, although I did bring the English version for your translation department.

Today, as already mentioned, I am here representing Unifor, Canada's largest energy union. My remarks, I would add, are supported by both the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia federations of labour, which were both active in their provinces with respect to consultations over the last decade dealing with an offshore oil and gas safety regime.

Over 20,000 of Unifor's more than 300,000 members work in the energy sector across Canada, including over 700 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil industry on both the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms.

It is an industry, as you in this room will know, that has known its share of tragedy over the years: the sinking of the Ocean Ranger drill rig in February 1982, and the perishing of 84 workers; and in March 2009, the crash of Cougar flight 491, with the loss of 17 workers.

The joint federal-provincial commission of inquiry report into the Ocean Ranger disaster noted that “the shock wave created by the loss was felt particularly throughout” our province. It also noted, “In that tightly-knit maritime community there were few who did not discover a link, direct or indirect, to one of those lost in the tragedy.”

Similar words and sentiments were repeated following the crash of flight 491. Perhaps this is why workplace safety in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore is such a matter of public concern as well as worker concern.

Unifor is very pleased that we finally have, with the federal enactment of this bill, real safety laws for our offshore that can be enforced rather than the guidelines that were in place for the last two decades. A safety regime tailored to the unique challenges posed by working in the offshore is a positive step, but there is still substantial room, in our opinion, for improvement with respect to building a responsive, proactive, and preventative occupational health and safety culture in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil industry.

First and foremost, it's quite unfortunate that the legislation does not address what we believe is still critically needed in our offshore, an independent, powerful, stand-alone authority in charge of safety and the environment, as was recommended by Commissioner Robert Wells, who I believe you may have heard from last week as a witness.

In this regard, Canada is still far behind industrialized oil economies such as Norway, the U.K., and Australia. Even the United States has made a move to separate safety and environmental enforcement from the management of the offshore oil and gas industry with the creation of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

The U.K. moved in this direction after the Piper Alpha disaster and subsequent public inquiry by Judge Cullen. An explosion and fire on the U.K. platform in 1988 killed 167 men. It is still considered the world's worst offshore oil disaster. It raised the issue of competing or conflicting regulatory mandates and what we today call regulatory capture.

The inquiry recommended that the responsibility for enforcing safety should be removed from the department of energy and placed with the health and safety executive, because having both production and safety overseen by the same agency was viewed as a conflict of interest. This has now become the standard in most oil-producing countries or industrialized ones.

In 2005, Australia, also heeding the advice of Justice Cullen, created the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, an independent offshore safety agency. In 2012 they added environment to its responsibilities.

In June of this year, the head of the Australian safety and environmental agency, Jane Cutler, noted that the Piper Alpha disaster and inquiry and recommendations by Lord Cullen have had a huge impact on safety regulation and enforcement in her country.

She noted, “An entrenched industry and regulatory culture is very difficult to change even when faced by clear evidence of the need to improve the human and organizational aspects of their safety programs. There is resistance to change even when there is a clear opportunity to refocus regulatory programs to emphasize the role of human, organizational and management influences on offshore safety.”

She said that as we move forward we must ensure that “safety and environmental management are treated with the same degree of seriousness as profit and loss”.

Norway is perhaps the world leader with respect to offshore safety and the environment and in its involvement of all stakeholders in developing and implementing a world-class safety culture for the offshore oil industry. In 2004 it created the Petroleum Safety Authority. In both phase one and phase two of his inquiry report, Commissioner Wells was very clear about the need for such an independent safety authority. He said, “Vigorous oversight and prompt action can avert accidents and prevent injury and loss of life.”

Commissioner Wells was also very clear about the importance of communications and engagement with workers and the public with respect to safety in the offshore oil industry. It's been three years since the release of his report and still the full spirit and intent of his recommendations have not been implemented.

I can share some examples with you about this, but I don't think my seven minutes are going to allow for time, so if someone wants to use their question in that regard, I can certainly fill in.

There are two examples I would raise with respect to that point.

First is the July 2011 near crash, the severity of which was not reported to workers or to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by the regulator or the operators. At that time the helicopter carrying crew offshore came within 38 feet of crashing in the ocean. It had dropped 152 metres in 32 seconds. Workers and the public only found out about the severity of this incident just this fall, two years after it occurred, and only because of the investigation by the Transportation Safety Board. It is also thought that this incident may have had a different result had the near crash occurred at night. You're probably aware that we still do not have night flying in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore. This is also an issue that I could speak to in any questions you might have.

Recommendation 12 of the Wells inquiry dealt with the issue of night flying, something that has been banned since February 2012 in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. He did not recommend a return to night flights, but rather recommended that criteria be worked out for cases when night flying might be imperative or during an emergency. This was not exactly the direction that was given to the offshore helicopter implementation committee at the time when Commissioner Wells filed his report. Instead, quite a large caveat was allowed around recommendation 12.

Unifor believes that an independent safety and environmental authority would respond to such cases in a different and more proactive role and fashion. In our opinion, an independent, proactive, and vigilant safety and environmental authority would begin to restore the faith of workers in the role of a regulator in protecting and acting to improve safety in the offshore oil industry. It would avoid the very real danger of regulatory capture.

There are two other points I would like to raise.

The first deals with the issue of right to refuse, which is in proposed section 205.05 in clause 45 of Bill C-5. The language in Bill C-5 is very important and quite strong. We advocated improving this given the dangers in the offshore, but we do raise a matter of concern. That is, in Bill C-4, which I know your committee does not deal with, there have been changes made to the federal labour code with respect to the right to refuse. We are quite concerned that this could impact on this legislation. We would encourage you to keep the language that is currently in this bill, because it is a lot stronger than what we've seen in Bill C-4. Hopefully, you will not make amendments to that part of the bill.

My final point deals with proposed section 205.118, which is the establishment of an advisory council for the offshore oil and gas industry. It refers to a stakeholder advisory council.

We would strongly urge that both the federal and provincial governments ensure that the union representing workers offshore be invited to recommend their own representatives to this committee. This will ensure accountability.

We would also suggest that these worker representatives report back to the workplace safety committees on the council's initiatives and activities. These and other matters do not necessarily require a legislative amendment, but could be achieved in the mandate of the advisory council.

It has been our experience that such a body could provide a proactive approach to safety oversight in the offshore, similar to the tripartite structures in other oil jurisdictions, such as Norway. The Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority notes that collaboration between employers, unions, governments, and workers are important cornerstones in efforts to establish and develop health and safety in their industry: “From an ethical perspective, it is crucial that people exposed to risk participate in decision-making processes which affect such exposure.”

How workers are currently engaged in the offshore needs to change. While we have seen some small steps in this regard, with the new management at our regulator, it is essential that structures with clearly defined roles and responsibilities be put in place to ensure an ongoing, proactive safety dialogue.

In conclusion, we are pleased that we finally have this safety regime for workers of the offshore oil industry, but we do believe that a stand-alone, powerful, and independent safety and environmental authority is not only necessary but also essential in advancing safety in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This economic resilience reflects the actions our government took before the global crisis: lowering taxes, paying down debt by $38 billion, reducing red tape, and promoting free trade and innovation.

Of course, Canada cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since July 2009, there are Canadians who remain unemployed. Much of our vast potential remains unfulfilled; consequently, our work is not done. We are not out of the woods yet. That is why today's legislation focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets in 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the Canadian economy is improving, the global recovery remains fragile. In order to support job creation, Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses to 2013. By doing this, an employer whose premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012 would be refunded the increase in their 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012, to a maximum of $1,000. It is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million alone in 2013. Through this initiative, we would stimulate new employment and provide better support to small businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When will the NDP get it? These credits simply do not work. Our government understands that Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in the emerging knowledge economy needs to be driven by globally competitive, high-growth businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could he speak to that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These measures will hit rural regions very hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, that is not all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, but I do not think that my answer will really matter.

It is a very hypothetical question because it is not going to be divided. I would have preferred removing the two little clauses about the Supreme Court of Canada from Bill C-4, but that did not happen. There is a difference between the real situation and what I would have wanted to see or what would have been natural to expect.

Are there parts that are easier to pass than others? As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am going to leave it up to the experts in aboriginal rights and devolution or transfer between a territory and the federal government. Perhaps these matters will also be raised in committee.

Furthermore, we go through these different stages to try to find the best ways of passing provisions that make sense, that remedy a certain situation and do so properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is truly an excellent question from my esteemed colleague.

I am going to make a sad observation about the implementation of the budget, about Bill C-4, which we studied in committee.

Unfortunately, we had to review, examine and vote on 472 clauses. The opposition parties introduced over 60 proposed amendments to that bill, and they were systematically voted down.

That is not even to mention the government's particularly underhanded trick of amending the rules in committee to allow independent members to submit their proposed amendments to the committee instead of here in the House. That showed a lack of respect and it reduced the powers of independent members. Those powers are widely recognized and have been in effect for a very long time.

The government respects virtually nothing, and that completely undermines our trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-15. It is a major piece of legislation, in terms of both its size and its implications for the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I would like to point out to the House that the residents of the Northwest Territories have been trying for a very long time to acquire powers that are similar to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. Their quest is entirely legitimate considering that the Northwest Territories have been part of Canada for a long time and that they are contributing more and more to our country’s social and economic sphere, not to mention the fact that, from a geographical point of view, they occupy a huge space, a very large area.

For a long time now, the New Democratic Party has been in favour of enhanced status for the Northwest Territories that will allow them to move forward. With an adequate transfer of powers, they will be able to make progress in taking control of their destiny. Above all, we must recognize that it is entirely normal, legitimate and desirable that the residents of the Northwest Territories should have control over their future. After all, they are in the best position to understand the repercussions of decisions. They are living in their reality and experiencing the problems relating to their territory and their lifestyle, as well as any changes that occur. Things are changing very rapidly in that part of Canada. They can therefore make enlightened decisions that can help them meet the challenges of the modern world, and they can do so more quickly as well.

Of course, the NDP really wants to make sure that we meet their expectations and that we meet them completely and respectfully. In talking about respect, it is not enough merely for us to enact legislation or amend a range of different laws, because a great many laws are affected by this bill. We must also listen to the various groups that make up the society of the Northwest Territories. There are many different nations located in this huge territory. In the Northwest Territories, these groups face realities that are really very different.

This brings me to one very specific element of Bill C-15. The bill replaces the Northwest Territories Act. In addition, it affects the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, and it amends other legislation such as the Territorial Lands Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act. I would like to take this opportunity to speak primarily about the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

Our work on the Standing Committee on Finance involved the consideration of another omnibus bill, the enormous Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Of course, the omnibus aspect of the bill meant that we were again faced with a catch-all bill containing amendments to legislation ranging from the Supreme Court Act to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as to the law governing labour relations in the public service of Canada.

This bill was a disgrace, and the part that involved the Mackenzie Valley really dealt with the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act. This is a very specific issue, one that is much narrower than the amendments made to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act.

In reality, the new Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act is a marketing campaign by the government. The idea of having financial resources set aside in order to mitigate the impact of the development of the Mackenzie gas project is not something new. It has been around for a long time.

Canada already had the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act. It was passed in 2006, was most recently amended in 2011 and is still in effect.

The people of the Northwest Territories and the first nations have many concerns about this gas project. It has been in the background for a number of years but has still not been implemented, and we still do not have any real idea about when it will get going.

In addition, the Standing Committee on Finance has not heard from very many witnesses about the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, despite the many hours that have been spent on Bill C-4 over the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, the committee has been able to devote only a few minutes and direct only a few questions to witnesses who are directly involved in the issue.

This is really shameful because the government, in a particularly underhanded way, hid, kept secret and failed to disclose this amendment, which should have been examined separately by the committee that was the most directly concerned, instead of being buried in the omnibus bill sent before the Standing Committee on Finance. That is really a shame.

Basically, it is a sign of contempt for the people of the Northwest Territories. Once we have completed our debates in the House at second reading and we are able to consider Bill C-15 in greater depth in committee, I hope that the government will show a great deal more respect than it did to the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to Bill C-4.

Several years ago, the Prime Minister asked the opposition parties to make suggestions and put forward ideas concerning our shared future. However, every single one of the ideas and suggestions put forward by the New Democratic Party were voted down by the Conservative members on the committee.

Were it not for the fact that Bill C-4 as a whole will have such serious, and even critical consequences, I admit that we might have laughed about the situation. It was almost comical to see my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance putting their hands up automatically.

Unfortunately, these are very serious matters. The new bill concerning the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund, that was hidden in the middle of the omnibus bill, Bill C-4, has finally been passed, even though no serious consideration has been given to it and even though there has been no consultation with those who are most directly concerned.

In addition to making proposals, as an opposition party, we tried to block the passage of six clauses in Bill C-4 that pertained directly to the Mackenzie gas project. These were clauses 282 to 287. We put forward a motion on each clause, that each one of them be deleted, considering the fact that it was completely impossible to thoroughly study the bill separately from the omnibus bill.

It is very sad that we have reached this point. The government is acting completely unilaterally and is paying no attention to any other opinions. I am not even talking about dissenting opinions; I am talking about reasonable accommodations for matters that should have been discussed and negotiated.

I must admit that Conservative government members sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance and other committees have, on rare occasions, agreed to certain minor concessions, in fact common sense suggestions. Many other common sense proposals were systematically rejected because they were not the government’s ideas, which is truly lamentable. After all, both Conservative Party members and those of the other parties represent all Canadians. Consequently, we should respect each other and the various realities and great diversity of opinion among the people of this country. It is utterly unacceptable for a party, particularly one that holds a majority, to turn a deaf ear, to refuse to listen to reason, to refuse even to hear the merits of an idea and to refuse to discuss ideas that will have an impact on thousands of people.

Coming back to Bill C-15 as a whole, I have done everything in my power to shed light on the measures that will unfortunately be adopted without any consideration for the needs and fears of the people of the Northwest Territories. There is nevertheless something positive in all this, and that is why we will support this lengthy bill at second reading. The Northwest Territories are currently governed by a constitution, by specific statutes that restrict its powers relative to those of the 10 Canadian provinces. They obviously limit the power of the Government of Northwest Territories over resources, lands and water and revenue collection. A large portion of the revenue of the Government of the Northwest Territories obviously comes from federal government transfer payments.

This agreement is linked to the resources developed and revenues derived from those territories. Although it holds out some semblance of justice, it does not enable the Government of the Northwest Territories to collect its own revenue, at least not completely, and thus to enjoy the freedom and dignity associated with that responsibility and with the consequences of making decisions with respect to its development and the welfare of its population. That will be a major challenge. That is why I have focused on a very specific aspect of this bill.

The enactment of Bill C-15 will result in amendments to 42 different acts. That is a vast legislative field. It is quite extraordinary that we have ultimately wound up with this bill. Once again, I hope that the government will seriously consider discussing this matter in committee with all parties concerned and especially that it will agree to hear, consider and respect the witnesses’ opinions on the subject of this major change to the destiny of the Northwest Territories. I have previously said so, and we made a distressing observation.

I had the honour to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights together with my colleague, our justice critic, and we had some success. However, we also saw the government close its mind completely. We found ourselves facing a very high wall. The government stuck to its position and especially abused its majority. It did not take advantage of its majority; it simply abused it in order to impose its ideas and its version of the facts.

It is entirely valid for someone to have a precise idea about a matter and to defend that idea. I will always respect that in my Conservative colleagues. However, Canada is far too big and diverse a country and has too many aboriginal nations on its land for the government to operate in isolation and to impose its will.

I am not saying that amendments to Bill C-15 are absolutely necessary. However, it would be tragic if our study led us to make amendments that were subsequently disregarded. It is normal for there to be inconsistencies. That is no one's fault; it happens in the normal course of affairs. This is an extraordinary bill, and, as is the case of any extraordinary and far-reaching bill, it is very hard to achieve perfection.

Let us hope the government will be willing to hear the other objections that are made and especially that it will consider the basic needs of the population and representatives of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and of the tribal councils, which work very hard and must bear heavy responsibility for the welfare of their communities.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking the House staff, you, and all members of the House for indulging Tuesday night in going through 284 virtually identical amendments from the opposition with regard to that budget implementation bill, all of which simply required deletion. Fortunately, those were reduced by the Speaker to some 16 to make the process more manageable. That did help us to advance the process, notwithstanding the clear efforts by the opposition to obstruct at every stage our very important economic action measures for the benefit of Canada's economy, for job creation, and economic growth for Canadians.

First let me thank all parties in the House for their co-operation on that. This afternoon we will continue and finish the second reading debate on Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act. If we wrap it up before 5:30 p.m., we will return to the second reading debate of Bill C-11, Priority Hiring for Injured Veterans Act.

Today, all parties in the House worked together to pass—at all stages—Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act. Perhaps this is a sign of the Christmas spirit spreading throughout the parliamentary precinct. I hope it will continue into tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.

As I told the House on Tuesday, the budget implementation bill has a number of very important measures that our government has advanced. Unfortunately, once again we find the NDP opposing it, despite such things as the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small business, which has the potential to benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and many thousands of employees they might hire into the future. That is something the NDP is voting against. We think it is important that it be put in place right away.

Monday will be the final allotted day of the autumn, which will see us consider a proposal from the New Democratic Party, followed by the supplementary estimates and a supply bill.

During the remaining time available to us next week, I hope to see the House adopt second reading of Bill C-15, if that does not happen today; second reading of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; and report stage and hopefully third reading of Bill C-8, the combatting counterfeit products act, which was reported back from the hard-working industry committee this morning.

Northwest Territories Devolution Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to squeeze in two questions to the minister in response to Bill C-15.

The first question is that I am confused by the fact that in Bill C-4, which was an omnibus budget bill, we incorporated a change that would have more properly been done here—the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act, which allows the minister to have complete discretion as to how the funds are used, as opposed to the previous way they were used.

This relates to my next question, which is this. Admittedly the Northwest Territories has a complex jurisdictional framework. Anyone who participated in the Mackenzie gas pipeline hearings is aware of the multiple levels of jurisdiction. However, the regional boards that were established, and which are being conflated through this act, were set up in relation to land claims agreements and were to stay in place until all land claims agreements were resolved. With land claims agreements still outstanding in the area, was it appropriate to devolve and reduce the number of boards? It is fine to say it makes the Northwest Territories more competitive, but what does it say about the consistency with agreements with the federal Crown and various complex regional organizations?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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 top 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, incredible 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.

[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.

I quote:

“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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 prebudget 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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I would ask the government House leader to wait just a moment.

The tradition in the House on motions like this is quite clear. The debate can focus on either the motion itself or on the bill that is the subject of the motion. Any debate today with regard to the motion is in order, and any debate with regard to Bill C-4 is in order.

I turn the floor back over to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are again.

The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that. This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate.

Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks.

The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away. It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days.

A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4, which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60, which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48.

This is what the government does time and again. It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process.

When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country.

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Report Stage

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[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.

[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, 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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In relation to the fact that both Bill C-4 and Bill C-5 propose to amend section 144 of the Canada Labour Code, but they do so in different ways and for different reasons, if Bill C-4 is enacted before Bill C-5, then section 144 of the Canada Labour Code will be inconsistent with other provisions of that act.

I wonder why there is no provision that would coordinate the competing amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Do you have any information on what's happening there in terms of coordinating the two?

[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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's very generous of you.

I'm going to take the two minutes to go over two questions that have come up, which I don't think have been fully answered. Hopefully, you can help us with that.

The first is Mr. Cleary's question around why an independent safety regulator was not put into the bill. Nova Scotia called for it and Newfoundland called for it. We really need an explanation as to why the federal government refused to accept what were clear recommendations from those two provinces.

The other thing that's very helpful for us to know, because we've had contradictions between Bill C-4 and Bill C-5, is to what extent the two ministries are actually working together so that Bill C-4 doesn't destroy any of the benefits that are in Bill C-5. If you could answer those two questions, that would be very helpful for us.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Labonté]

This bill seeks authority to be able to potentially change the definition of “danger”. Clearly that will have to be consistent with the amendments proposed for the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4, but I'm not an expert in that particular set of amendments.

The question of how one exercises that authority is expressed in the bill, which is that it will go through a regulation-making phase or a step, that it would be provided for comment and consultation.

[Jeff Labonté]

You're talking about Bill C-4.

[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.

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.

[Brenda Baxter]

My understanding is this is with regard to Bill C-5, not Bill C-4.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm confused and a bit baffled. Maybe someone can clarify this. You have provisions that would give the Governor in Council the power to redefine “danger” in this bill before us today. Is no one here able to speak to the question of consultation on that question? My understanding is that when Bill C-4 was before the committees in both the House and the Senate, it became clear that there had been no consultations with the employees, the unions, of the employer groups.

The question is, what's the basis for this? Does the government plan to have consultation, since it doesn't appear to have done so thus far?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I guess my concern is that the government could define “danger” and change the definition of “danger” with absolutely no consultation with employers and employees or experts, as I'm told was done in relation to the changes in Bill C-5 to the definition. I don't know if Ms. Baxter can clarify this and talk about the consultations that took place for redefining “danger” in Bill C-4 and tell us what the plan is in relation to Bill C-5.

Really, is the government planning to do consultations on this?

[Anne-Marie Fortin, Counsel, Department of Natural Resources]

When the bill was drafted, there were some issues identified by our colleagues at Labour Canada, the labour program, with regard to the definition as it stood then in the Canada Labour Code. At one point we contemplated importing the definition that existed then. We discussed and negotiated with the provinces, subject to the advice of the boards. I don't know if the labour program at that time furthered its intention to table Bill C-4, and maybe they will want to follow up on my answer, but definitely we knew there was an issue with the definition of “danger” that needed to be addressed, but we were not comfortable in not giving the power to the Governor in Council to address the issue at a later date, once there was further thought into the definition.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Clause 45 of the bill before us inserts, among other things, a new section 205.001, which in paragraph 205.001(3)(a) gives regulatory-making powers to the Governor in Council to make regulations, for example, defining “danger”. Amendments proposed, I gather, in the other bill that's related to this, Bill C-4, would amend the definition of “danger” as defined in the Canada Labour Code. In relation to this bill, is it the intention that the definition of “danger” for the purposes of the offshore accords will match the definition as proposed by Bill C-4?

Employment Insurance

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is yet another minor amendment by the Conservative government: the Conservatives' Bill C-4 will eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

The board's main mission was to guarantee that EI contributions were used solely for the purposes of the program. The decision to kill this institution is therefore worrisome, but I admit, not very surprising, coming from the Conservatives.

With the demise of this institution, is the minister telling us that the EI funding surplus will now be administered by his office, with no accountability?

Motions in Amendment

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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.

(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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader with regard to the difficulties and uncertainty of scheduling when we are not using the scheduling devices that are available to us under the Standing Orders. I am certain that he will find that he is able to cope with that, but perhaps I will take his advice and his concern about the lack of proper scheduling here under consideration and see if there is an opportunity to please him by once again returning to it.

Before I turn to the business of the House for the week ahead, let me congratulate those who won Monday's by-elections and will soon be joining us as members. Once returning officers have done their part of the job, which gives them the title upon the return of the writs of election, and after the new MPs have taken the oath, we will have their introductions here in this chamber, which will be a very special memory for them and for all of us.

Since this will probably be the last opportunity to use their names in the House, I will say that we on the Conservative benches are especially looking forward to welcoming Ted Falk and Larry Maguire. Larry proved to be an outstanding campaigner when it really counted. He overcame what expert pollsters said was a 29-point deficit in just 24 hours to win Brandon—Souris. This abrupt collapse of Liberal support must be troubling to the Liberal leader.

This afternoon, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and, again, tomorrow. If we have extra time, we will take up Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading.

Bill C-13 will, as we heard from the Attorney General yesterday, ensure children are better protected against bullying, including cyberbullying, by making the distribution of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted a criminal offence.

Following on this morning’s report from the chair of the hard-working, productive and orderly Standing Committee on Finance, we will consider Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, at report stage, and hopefully third reading, on Monday and Tuesday.

This bill would provide support for job creators, for example, by extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses; and it would also close tax loopholes, combat tax evasion and respect taxpayer dollars. Overall, it is an important part of our government's ongoing agenda to place, as our top priorities, economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity; indeed, they are priorities for most Canadians. I also will set aside Friday of next week for this important economic bill, if we need a third day to pass it.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, we will debate a bill to implement the devolution agreement reached with the Northwest Territories, for which the House adopted a ways and means motion this morning. If we can pass that bill at second reading before the end of Thursday, we would then return to the debates on Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act, and Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

To help with the committees' forward planning, Monday, December 9, shall be the fifth and final allotted day of the autumn.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been remarkable that we have gone almost two weeks without a time allocation motion coming from the government. Should I not mention that? I do have some caution in this celebration. It is some small progress made by the government that it has not brought in the guillotine on debate, has not shut down Parliament for almost 14 days.

I should probably stop myself here, because Bill C-4 on the budget returned from committee this morning, so something tells me that I will not be able to congratulate them for making it three weeks.

How much debate is the government House leader going to allow on third reading and report stage before he cuts off debate, and when can the opposition expect to have the final supply day designation?

It is worth mentioning that Bill C-4 could touch on many important things for the visiting dignitaries from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who are here all of this week lobbying the government to actually do something about affordable housing. Here is an opportunity in a bill such as Bill C-4 for the government to finally act and create those affordable housing units for Canadians.

We have met with the mayor of Nelson and committee members from Vancouver and across Canada. They have told us time and time again that the government has not shown up to this particular debate and that it is not helping the Canadians who need that help.

When will we see the bill? When will we see the final opposition day?

Hopefully we can make it all the way to the holiday season, celebrating the fact that the government has been unable and unwilling, finally, to shut down debate in Canada's Parliament. What a truly great gift that would be for all Canadians.

Finance

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to give notice of a motion, in light of what happened last week when, after the minister's presentation about the Supreme Court, we ended up sitting in camera to talk about the recommendations dealing with our part of Bill C-4. The notice of motion, which will be subsequently debated, reads as follows:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: a. wages, salaries and other employee benefits; b. contracts and contract negotiations; c. labour relations and personnel matters; d. a draft report; e. briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

I will now turn to the minister.

When you read the article in The Globe and Mail this morning, you must have been happy to see that the Privacy Commissioner seemed to support Bill C-13. Clearly, it is not enough to read the title only. At any rate, this is what she said in the article:

She said the latest version appears to be an improvement and she doesn’t fault the government for linking lawful access and cyberbullying.

I would like to say that no one is blaming the government for linking the two. Mr. Minister, the issue that was raised yesterday is that one of the parts brings parliamentarians together whereas the other part has not yet been seriously studied in committee. That is why I am telling you once again that it is important to spend the required time on studying that part. The term “lawful access“ used in this article has to do with the tools that police officers have.

Also, you must not put words in the mouth of the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, she is right in saying that a more in-depth study might reveal something else. You are not going to claim this morning that she gave you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

That said, I am very interested in the victims bill of rights, an issue you have been talking about for a long time. The same goes for your predecessors, the Prime Minister and almost everyone in the Conservative cabinet. You talked about it earlier.

Making big media announcements on some issues is one of your government’s strengths. Sometimes, I would prefer it if you gave that money to the victims.

Has your department already started to think about the funds you are going to spend on advertising? Are you going to come back and ask us for additional funding for your department to promote your victims bill of rights all over the place? By the way, I really look forward to reading it.

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

I want to thank Ms. Nash for her intervention, which also sums up, I think, the way we feel on this.

Of all the provisions in Bill C-4, those that really are most farcical are the amendments to the Supreme Court Act and the process for nomination of Supreme Court judges. I can tell you that at some point in this place, members of Parliament of all parties will be, I believe, compelled to consider the importance of committees, the independence of committees, and the appropriateness of legislation considered by committees. It's a question not only of independence of committees but also of respect for Parliament and respect for the committee process and resources.

At some point, perhaps not in this Parliament but maybe in the next, I think as parliamentarians we're going to have to have a discussion about how we can both strengthen the resources and independence of committees and truly engage them. If you go back to the Mulroney government when Don Blenkarn was chairman of finance committee, that committee regularly attained unanimous reports of the committee. It took on the government of the day and it disagreed with the government.

We ought to see committees actually taking on government policy and approaches at some point. This is serious stuff. We have a responsibility whether we're in government or in opposition as individual members of Parliament to hold government to account. We're not doing that. In the recent byelections when we campaigned, we heard people's concerns about this. It's easy to assume that the public doesn't care and to play to that apathy or to assume that apathy, but I actually believe that in the four byelections it's one of the reasons we saw support for our party go up 17% and support for the Conservatives drop 11%. I don't know why the NDP support dropped. That's another issue.

The point is that at some point maybe we should have informal discussions among us across party lines about how we can strengthen our roles as parliamentarians and strengthen the roles of committee. We should look at what is done in other parliaments and even at the U.K. model where committees are much more independent. Otherwise at some point we're going to look back at our time here. We don't want to look back with regret because we did not take seriously the institution to which we were elected and the institution for which we have a responsibility. I think this is really very serious and at some point not doing more as individual members of Parliament to fight this becomes untenable. It's just fundamentally wrong.

As a committee we do not have the expertise or resources to be dealing with a lot of these issues. It's not a joke. This is very serious. I'm not feigning concern about this. I am genuinely concerned not just as a parliamentarian but as a citizen about what's going on here. I implore members of the governing party to understand that this is a grave situation which they are complicit in and contributing to.

It's going to be awfully hard to explain to active, engaged citizens what we're doing here.

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

Mr. Chair, it ought to be clear why we've proposed this amendment. It's because the government bungled the Supreme Court appointment, which some journalists have called a spectacular mess.

We're not blaming the nominee, Justice Marc Nadon, for anything. The blame lies squarely with the justice minister and the Prime Minister, for going ahead with an appointment when there was clearly risk of litigation, and there was a question of whether Justice Nadon met the specific rules regarding who can assume a seat on the Supreme Court from Quebec.

The justice minister himself hinted the statute needed to be changed over the summer, and in the fall he released a legal opinion that the government had sought to defend the choice of nominee. The problem is that an opinion, even from a great jurist, does not make one immune from a lawsuit. The minister took the risk of making the appointment. The lawsuit challenging the government's interpretation of the law was filed, and since then the court has been sitting with eight justices and Quebec is under-represented in the nation's highest court.

Through the back door, and with Bill C-4, the government is attempting to retroactively rewrite its appointment law, while at the same time it's asking the court to interpret the law by means of a reference. The problem is that it's not even rewriting its own appointment law well, and that's where this amendment comes in. The government's rewrite is to say that the members of a bar with 10 years of standing at a bar at any time are eligible for nomination to the court. Our amendment would make it that they would have to be in good standing, and that the 10 years would have to be consecutive.

At committee we heard from Professor Adam Dodek of the University of Ottawa. He and others were asked if these changes were good ideas, and they agreed that we should want bar members in good standing only to be eligible, and it would make sense that their 10 years of membership in any bar be consecutive.

Frankly, we're trying to be constructive and help the government to deal with this issue. It's awkward, because it ought not to be before this committee and we are trying to be constructive. My colleagues, Sean Casey and Irwin Cotler, a former minister of justice during better times, have been extremely helpful and constructive on this, and it is in the interest of good government that we are proposing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That is some wonderful foreshadowing on your part, Monsieur Plamondon, because the ruling of the chair is dealing with both BQ-4 and BQ-5, as both of these amendments deal with the deletion of clauses.

BQ-4 states:That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 471.

BQ-5 states:That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting clause 472.

Because they are deletion of clauses at committee stage, the chair is going to rule both of these amendments as inadmissible.

Therefore, we shall move to amendment L-8.

Mr. Brison, please.

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

This amendment seeks to preserve the compensation analysis and research service, which the government is eliminating under Bill C-4 .

We believe that informed decisions tend to be better decisions. We think it's important that there be independent research and support for arbitration decisions. We think this clause makes no sense. I suppose if you're operating in the dark you can make whatever decision you want, but it's probably not going to be the best decision. We think the more information the better, and that's what this amendment speaks to.

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

Mr. Chair, here we are dealing with yet another Conservative omnibus budget implementation act, and a very significant portion of this act includes changes to public service labour relations. You have to ask yourself what the heck does that have to do with the budget bill, and why would a labour relations bill be dealt with in our committee. It's once again problematic that so much is crammed into this one bill with very diverse content.

Later on we'll be dealing with appointments to the Supreme Court, and we've just dealt with a section on immigration. The ridiculousness of this is very frustrating.

These changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act are very troubling, and I have to ask the government if they really want to prompt a deterioration of labour relations in the public sector. That's what's being provoked with these changes. I don't know, maybe the government thinks it's good politics to poke its finger in the eye of hard-working public sector workers, people who are paid with our tax dollars but who work very hard and do an excellent job on behalf of Canadians.

The government's belt-tightening has already seen the layoff of more than 20,000 public sector workers. Many are working very hard. We have heard a lot of complaints, whether it's from veterans, from seniors, from people trying to get access to EI, or from people concerned about cuts to search and rescue, services that have been cut and in some parts of the country are simply impossible for Canadians to get access to. These are public services. This is the work of the public sector and those are the jobs we are talking about.

This first change is about the definition of “essential service”. What the government is proposing with Bill C-4 is to give the minister sweeping powers to designate groups of workers as essential. That may sound like a good thing. We can all imagine essential workers. If your house is on fire, you don't want the firefighter to say, “I can't come right now because there is a labour issue that I'm dealing with”. There are some situations where it makes sense for there to be a designation of an essential service, but there is no definition provided here, or list of criteria that objectively one can point to, to say what would make some services essential and some not.

There is real concern that these powers will be used by the minister to designate groups of workers as essential, strictly for the purpose of undermining the ability of that bargaining unit to bargain collectively and defend their workers' rights. The definition of “essential service” that does appear seems to run contrary to the conventions of the ILO, the International Labour Organization.

This amendment would change the definition of “essential service” to reflect the definition from the ILO. The ILO provides an internationally recognized definition, and that's what is provided in this amendment.

We believe the important status of essential workers should be based on actual criteria rather than a loose definition that leaves the minister the power to designate people at will and strip them of their full collective bargaining rights. We think this is fundamentally undemocratic. It runs contrary to conventions that have been internationally agreed upon, and it is a dangerous slippery path that this government is going down.

It would give the minister incredible arbitrary powers, and as one of the witnesses said to us, it's like giving Coca-Cola, which is one of two parties in collective bargaining, in labour relations, the power to say that whole groups of employees in their workplace are designated essential and unable to exercise their full collective bargaining rights, their full labour rights, because it suits the employer, and it's convenient and perhaps advantageous for the employer. That is the power the minister is giving himself with these changes.

We think that's fundamentally wrong. We've had several labour experts testify here and tell us why that is wrong and why it's an affront to the practice of labour relations and to all of our experience in Canada and internationally.

On this particular clause, we're proposing an alternative, which is an agreed-upon international definition, which would give some clarity and some balance to the collective bargaining relationship, rather than really tipping the scales to the side of the employer, which in this case is the government.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't repeat the points that were just made by my colleague. I support them and I support this amendment.

Let me just add that the parliamentary committee tasked with undertaking a statutory review of this act has yet to report its recommendations. It's being pre-empted by the change in this clause in Bill C-4. It's unclear where the government is getting its advice, and why it's making this change and why the rush. There is a parliamentary committee looking into the Conflict of Interest Act, and we await the conclusion of its review and its report.

There have been some recommendations made by the conflict of interest commissioner, but they do not seem to reflect the recommendations she has made. As was said, it gives the Governor in Council sweeping powers to designate anyone, or whole groups of people, as public office holders, therefore making them subject to the act.

We believe the government would be far better to wait for the conclusion of the statutory review and then act accordingly.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I welcome this opportunity to comment on division 15, part 3, of Bill C-4. These provisions would amend the Conflict of Interest Act. Why they're in a budget bill is beyond me, but they are.

Mr. Chair, as members know, the act already applies to some 3,000 federal public office holders. Approximately 1,100 of these public office holders are reporting public office holders.

These amendments are inspired chiefly by the excellent work of a senior partner at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, who heads up the firm's government ethics, transparency, and political law practice, one Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to the Prime Minister of Canada and former chief of staff to the Premier of Ontario. He has presented to the committee an extremely well-reasoned brief with respect to these changes.

We know that the current exceptions under the act are narrow. They apply to full-time ministerial appointees. However, clauses 288 and 289 of the bill are going to add an additional open-ended category of membership in the public office holder and the reporting public office holder groups, specifically any person or class of persons designated by cabinet.

This pretty much means, Mr. Chair and colleagues, that cabinet's power to designate new public office holders and reporting public office holders would be unlimited and could be based on virtually anything. The minister may think that someone with blue eyes should be designated as opposed to someone with green eyes, somebody who wears black suits as opposed to blue suits. There's no criteria. It's unlimited and far-reaching. It places no restrictions whatsoever on cabinet's power to designate individuals and classes of individuals as being subject to the act.

The government has not indicated who, if anyone, might be designated if these provisions are in fact passed and come into force. The budget is silent on this point. In fact, Mr. Chair, the budget plan never suggested that the Conflict of Interest Act should or would be amended. On the contrary, the budget plan said—and here I think the budget plan was right—that other financial sector statutes should be amended to bring them in line with the Conflict of Interest Act as it presently is constituted.

The Canadian Bar Association is opposed to these changes. It wants to see other changes that would catch important offices, such as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is presently excluded from the act.

These amendments seek to circumscribe the power of cabinet to designate anybody it feels it should designate. All colleagues should be extremely worried by this kind of wording, in terms of our present and future lives.

I wanted to open up with those comments, Mr. Chair, and I welcome comments from colleagues.

Thank you.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We support each of the amendments by the Green Party that were proposed a moment ago by Ms. May.

On the merits of this division, in clause 282 in particular, the changes would concentrate more power in the hands of the minister by creating a new entity to pay organizations to carry out projects to mitigate socio-economic impacts for communities in the Northwest Territories, in place of what is currently in place, an arm's-length corporation, which I think raises serious concerns about accountability and transparency and funding decisions.

The omnibus bill before us, Bill C-4, would repeal something that created a crown corporation established to administer the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund and would give the job to the minister. The minister would have up to $500 million to play with, kind of like the EI fund which successive Liberal and Conservative governments have plundered. We don't want any more concentration of power in ministers and more political discretion given to them, and therefore, we would oppose that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Amendments PV-16, PV-17 and PV-19 are in order, but I have a ruling on amendment PV-18.

Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund to fund projects that mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to establish a committee to advise the minister on the administration of this act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

Therefore, in the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to establish a new committee, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. I therefore rule the amendment inadmissible.

I also have a ruling with respect to amendment BQ-3.

Bill C-4 seeks to establish the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund to fund projects to mitigate existing or anticipated socio-economic impacts on the communities in the Northwest Territories. The amendment attempts to increase the amount available for the fund from $500 million to $633 million.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 767 and 768:Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes to increase the amount of the fund, which would impose a charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Colleagues, we will be voting on amendments PV-16, PV-17 and PV-19, but I will allow further debate on clause 282 and these amendments.

Mr. Rankin, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, within omnibus Bill C-4, we are now at division 14, which relates to changes to the Mackenzie gas project management.

Historically, the Mackenzie gas pipeline project and its attendant governance structures have been impressive and also based on the multi-stakeholder, multi-partite relationships that exist in the Mackenzie Valley in order to ensure that the various first nations communities, the territorial governments, and others were involved in managing funds.

This moves us in the direction, as so much of this act has done, to ministerial discretion instead of the boards that were there before.

I'll move quickly through my specific amendments.

PV-16 is to amend the purpose clause of this section. It actually adopts language that is currently found in the Northwest Territories Heritage Fund Act, to include in the purpose of the act that it is for “present and future generations”. The impact of amendment PV-16 is to add the focus on future generations as well as present generations.

The changes that are being made to clause 282 are replacing lines...that essentially operate, under amendment PV-17, to inject sustainable development criteria that the minister would consider in determining which projects were eligible for contributions. We are trying to ensure, through this amendment, that a joint review panel reports and that the ongoing consultations that led us to where we are today would be honoured; and proposed new section 8.1 would ensure the criteria for determining the projects in respect of contributions; would include such things as socio-economic impacts; would consider adverse cumulative effects; would consider adverse cumulative effects not only on the ecosystem but on economic, social, and cultural well-being, inequities in relation to positive effects within and among communities, any adverse impacts of boom-and-bust cycles that tend to be attendant to projects like this, where most of the jobs are in construction and then things fall away; and adverse cumulative impacts of the project overall. That's amendment PV-17.

Amendment PV-18 amends the act in terms of the creation of advisory committees that will advise the minister on the administration of the act, again trying to counterbalance the level of ministerial discretion that is being injected here, and ensure that the fund is administered with respect to community needs. It's a response to the replacement of the corporation by the minister. It had been the corporation in the past, as I mentioned earlier, which was seen as fairly neutral and independent.

The last of this group of amendments, amendment PV-19, ensures that there will be a report tabled in Parliament to report on the use of the fund and progress that's being made in meeting the objectives of the act.

These are very consistent with the changes that Bill C-4 is putting forward, but they bring back the changes to meet the objectives of the project to date, in other words, a commitment to future generations, a commitment to sustainable development, and more public transparency as to how the minister is distributing funds found within the Mackenzie gas project's impact fund, which is being created here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

This is meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Finance, continuing our discussion of Bill C-4, clause-by-clause consideration.

Colleagues, we left off at clause 270. Will we deal with clause 270 separately?

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

Yes, certainly. I'm fine with that.

My amendments to these sections, beginning with PV-7 and going through to PV-12, are all relating to division 7, as you will know, which is an extremely important section of Bill C-4. Unfortunately, this is one of those examples of where it would have been so much more preferable to have this in stand-alone legislation.

This relates to the disposition of a substantial chunk of lands that were known as the Dominion Coal Blocks. They were tied up in very old legislation, under the Crow's Nest Pass act, and held by the federal government, but they've also been the subject of significant research and advocacy, because they are part of the proposal for Flathead national park.

They're part of a very significant and valuable ecosystem that is particularly important as a wildlife corridor. It's the Flathead and Elk valleys of southeastern British Columbia, in the riding of our friend, Dave Wilks. Mr. Wilks is well aware of the conservation values here, as are we all. It's also the traditional territories of the Ktunaxa First Nation. I know that first nation has been consulted through this process. They have been the stewards of this land for 10,000 years, so they have something to say about it, and their rights must be respected in this.

The intention of the sale is to open up mining. By the way, there are international concerns as well. UNESCO has declared the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park as a world heritage site, so there is also concern internationally about whether the development of coal mining operations in this area would in any way diminish the ecosystem values found in a world heritage site.

It's hard to overstate the significance of this particular part, division 7 of Bill C-4, in terms of the biodiversity obligations of Canada under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, under our Canada National Parks Act, and in the interests of future generations.

Mr. Chair, to give you a sense of what I'm attempting to do in my amendments, PV-7 is to create a buffer zone. There would be a two-kilometre inward buffer zone so that there would be a preservation of ecological integrity around the boundaries of wherever there was to be development of coal. We do know that Teck is very interested. This will likely be one of the ways that Canada gets itself out of deficit, by selling off our assets in this way.

The second amendment, PV-8, goes to ensuring that there would be a statutory responsibility that no negative environmental effects would be allowed to the Flathead watershed associated with the sale of the Dominion Coal Blocks.

The third amendment, Mr. Chair, goes to ensuring ongoing consultation with all the key stakeholders. I know there has been discussion, from the briefing we had with officials, but this is to make sure that continues as a matter of statutory obligation.

The next amendment, Mr. Chair, again goes to reinforcing the buffer zone so that if there is a further disposition of lands beyond the one that takes place at the outset, the buffer zones will be protected.

PV-10 speaks to ensuring that within that buffer zone there would not be any activities that would be of the nature of resource development.

PV-11 wants to make sure, and would ensure as a matter of statute, that the Governor in Council would have to ensure there were no negative environmental impacts to the Flathead River watershed from the sale.

The most interesting one, although certainly they're all important, is PV-12. I really recommend it to you because this could be very creative, and I think it will be well received by all stakeholders. It's to ensure that there be a restrictive covenant that runs with the land, so that before disposing of this land we could ensure that any new owner would be required to maintain and preserve the ecological integrity of the land.

Restrictive covenants are used quite commonly across Canada these days for conservation purposes. It would not mean that the Dominion Coal Blocks were not then used for resource development, but as the land was disposed of and sold to private commercial interests, the commitments to maintain ecological integrity would run with the land—not just in the case of a Teck, which is a company with a particularly good reputation, but in the case of others down the road—so that we would be able to protect the ecological integrity of the Flathead. With these amendments, I hope it would be possible to continue moving forward with Flathead as a national park.

These are not trivial concerns. We want to make sure that we watch for the pollution that could be taking place with toxic chemicals, which tend to be involved in acid-mine drainage, with selenium and other substances that could be very negative for the local ecosystem.

I'm getting a bit of a sign from you, Mr. Chair, that this is probably where I should wrap up.

I really hope my colleagues will consider these seriously, because they would be very well received, I think, by all stakeholders.

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

Bill C-4 would introduce electronic enforcement of the Canada Labour Code. Given that the Conservative government through Bill C-4 is already making very drastic changes to health and safety—we've talked about that; the drastic changes would reduce health and safety protections in the workplace, put workers at risk across this country—in this light, we're very concerned that the power to administer this particular act electronically could further undermine the rights of workers who want to object to dangerous situations.

Our concern is, for example, that if someone is wanting to refuse to work, there could be no visual inspection of the workplace and maybe a phone call or an e-mail might suffice, but we believe that a visual inspection is essential where there are serious problems in the workplace. That's what our amendment would provide for.

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

Mr. Chair, the notion that somehow, if you are told that you don't have a work refusal and you have recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Act is a bit ludicrous. Presumably you're refusing work because you believe that your health and safety are in danger. As we know, human rights legislation involves a very lengthy process and is the antithesis of a speedy resolution of a health and safety measure.

Frankly, it's absolutely not a solution to an appeal process. If somebody believes that their health and safety are in danger, especially if their refusal is rejected by a phone call from somebody who perhaps isn't even qualified to make that decision, goodness gracious, we could be putting people's lives at risk. I think that having some kind of basic appeal is pretty standard and would add greater transparency and safety to the workplace. I think that has to be paramount in all our minds as we contemplate this legislation.

In how many workplaces do you see safety is job one? It ought to be our job one when we are thinking through the impact of these clauses in Bill C-4. People's health, their limbs, their lives, could depend on the decisions we make. It sounds dramatic, except that bad things happen, and I think our obligation is to do the most we possibly can to ensure that people are protected and that their rights are enforced. Frankly, in a safety situation, recourse to human rights legislation, which could take years, is not a solution.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would require that any individual to whom the minister delegates his or her health and safety powers, which is the ability that would be granted through Bill C-4, in fact is qualified to exercise those powers, which I'm sure everyone in this room would think is kind of basic. If you're going to give powers to someone to enforce the law, they actually should be qualified to do so. The person who is being delegated with this power would have the appropriate training in occupational health and safety or at least have the equivalent experience. That is what our amendment proposes.

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

Yes, this is about making sure, given that the minister is concentrating all the power in his or her office, that he or she is getting a full picture of what's going on in a workplace.

Right now what Bill C-4 would do is, if there is a health and safety committee and the committee is not unanimous on a decision or points of view on something, only the majority decision or the majority viewpoint would be reported to the minister. However, there may be a diversity of opinion. There may be a minority opinion. We believe that the minister ought to get all the information. If a decision is not unanimous, we think that all the results should be passed on to the minister.

That's what amendment NDP-10 would do.

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

Under existing legislation, a health and safety officer can require the posting of notices in any location, but under clause 177 of Bill C-4, that power is eliminated.

This amendment would allow the minister or his or her delegate to require multiple postings in a workplace, as had been the case previously. One can only imagine very large workplaces with great distances between people and the ability.... I have seen situations in which something is posted, but it's in the supervisor's office, or it's in a place that's not easily accessible to the majority of workers in a workplace.

The ability to have multiple postings of notices is just a practicality. I have no idea why the government would want to eliminate that possibility. If there's a notice that can help protect people's health and safety, goodness gracious, surely we would want them to be aware of it. Or if there's an order for the employer to do something in the workplace, this is a good check and balance so that the people who work there every day can make sure that it happens.

Our amendment would basically require the status quo, that the officer have the ability to require multiple postings. This was the case previously.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Jean, for making that very important point.

What we're proposing here in Bill C-4 is designed to ensure clarity, oversight, and consistent application of the Canada Labour Code across work sites, employers, and industrial sectors. Health and safety officers will continue to play an important role in enforcing the Canada Labour Code.

Ms. Nash's and Ms. May's proposal is not feasible legally as a definition of a term. For example, “health and safety officer” cannot be included when that term is not used within the legislation. As well, the term “federal public administration” would affect the minister's ability to delegate to an employee of a province. We cannot support either of their amendments.

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

Sure. I just want to say first of all that we support the amendments put forward by Ms. May, as well as putting forward our own amendments that I'll describe in just a moment.

I want to start off by saying that I think the changes which the Conservative government is making about workplace health and safety are the most serious and dangerous changes in this bill. I'm very, very strongly opposed to them, as are many of the witnesses we heard testify before committees.

I have to say, when I first started getting involved in my union as a young person, it was as a health and safety representative in the federal jurisdiction, so on a personal level, I really valued the health and safety legislation. I saw it progressively get stronger over the years, and the changes in this legislation would in fact take the legislation back in time many, many years. Ultimately, I think it will make the workplace much more dangerous and less desirable for Canadian workers.

Fundamentally, every worker deserves a workplace that is safe and healthy, that's free from danger, free from health hazards. The obligation is on the employer to provide that safe and healthy workplace. That's their legal requirement. Working people also have rights, such as the right to refuse unsafe work, to know what they're working with, to participate in their health and safety, but how you define the right to refuse work, for example, is changing dramatically. It is becoming narrowed by this legislation. What that means is there are workplace conditions that previously would have meant that a worker can decide that it is dangerous for them and they could have had the right to say that they don't want to put themselves in that situation. With these changes, they would be obliged to continue to work.

I don't think we have an absolute epidemic of work refusals in this country. It's a pretty serious step for someone to refuse to continue to work, but when someone does refuse, it is the right that they ought to have in order to protect the integrity of their own health. It is really rolling back the clock to narrow this definition. Let's make no mistake that it will increase the risk that workers are subjected to, and it will increase the injuries. It will increase, in fact, the compensation claims and the lost time, and ultimately will be very dangerous for workers. It also doesn't make good economic sense on that basic level.

Speaking to our amendment on narrowing the definition of “danger”, we believe that providing an alternative definition that's more substantive in scope is important. Again, we think that when it comes to a person's individual health and safety, none of us wants to be put in a position where the employer is saying that you must work even though you truly believe it is going to be a serious health risk or a serious risk to your safety.

The other amendment is about the change the government is making, which is to strip health and safety officers of nearly all of their powers and concentrate them in the hands of the minister. The minister has a myriad of other things that he or she is responsible for. The minister cannot have the expertise of a health and safety officer, who is trained, who does this for a living, who is an expert, and has a track record when it comes to health and safety. It really makes no sense.

Again, as I said on a previous clause, it lacks transparency and accountability, and ultimately it would undermine the ability of people to get their rights enforced in the workplace.

Our amendment would undo the elimination of health and safety officers, while requiring that they be government employees and not be outsourced or have that power concentrated in the hands of the minister.

I want to say that one of the changes in the rules which we find is remarkable is that under the changes in Bill C-4, there would no longer need to be a physical inspection of a work site, an actual workplace; a phone call would suffice. You can just imagine this: the employer is sitting in an office and someone from the minister's office, or someone that has been delegated, phones up and says, “ Is this okay? Have you got that done? Did you do this? Are you going to do this?” “Sure, everything's fine. Good to go.”

The fact that they would not have to go there and lay their eyes right on that situation and inspect it for themselves frankly is shocking, and it's unbelievable. I just can't imagine that we would allow that situation through our laws. This is Canada, and people have a fundamental right to a safe and healthy workplace. We're strongly opposed to the changes that would be made through this bill.

We believe that our amendments and Ms. May's amendments would help correct some of these changes. Again, I would urge my colleagues across the way to put themselves in the position of someone who's trying to get a basic right enforced and that employer is sitting in the office telling an inspector over the phone that the workplace is good to go, no problem.

Hopefully, you will support our amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order.

We are resuming debate on Bill C-4, with clause-by-clause discussion. We left off at clause 176.

Colleagues, we have a number of amendments. We have Green Party amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and we have NDP amendments 7 and 8.

This is a grey area but I'm proposing, and hopefully it's agreeable to you, that we give Ms. May a maximum of five minutes to address all of her amendments in this clause, if she can do that in one fell swoop. Then we will go to the NDP, and they'll address their amendments.

Ms. May, you may address your five amendments, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I am very happy that Mr. Keddy spoke again because that shows the lack of rigour on the government side.

I would just like to remind the committee that we are looking at an omnibus bill. Once again, it is because of omnibus measures, not to mention the rush and the debates being cut short, that this type of measure was passed. It is very interesting because, during the hearings on the consideration of Bill C-4, a number of very credible witnesses warned us about the dangers of having a bill that deals with a number of different pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, it has not been studied in sufficient depth, despite all the serious thought and effort that has gone into it.

So we are forced to correct it after the fact, after all the costs have been incurred by various players in the community, as well as by the government and taxpayers, of course. It is very important to point that out.

In closing, I would say that this is just one measure among many that the government had to correct and that it will have to correct in the future. In addition, there is no mention of the major dangers that were brought to our attention by a number of witnesses, meaning the referral of some measures to court because they are not consistent with some of our country's fundamental laws. The outcome is costs, exclusion and hardship for people.

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

What we are proposing with this amendment deals with rate changes. The minister under Bill C-4 would have the power to substitute in any year whatever rate he wanted for any reason he deemed to be in the public interest.

We think there should be some accountability that goes with that power. We're concerned that it opens the door to continuing politicization of premium rates and potential future abuse of the system to create surpluses to be used for non-EI purposes, which is the situation I just described with the $57 billion that Conservatives and Liberals used for balancing budgets and giving corporate tax cuts.

Our proposed amendment NDP-6 would require the minister to report to Parliament on the reasons for substituting a rate. If the minister wants to change the rate, he should have to, at a minimum, tell Canadians why he wants to change the rate, and what the impacts of the substituted rate would be compared with what was recommended by the EI commission. We believe this would bring much greater transparency, and with the EI funds that's greatly needed, given that it is moneys that come in from workers and employers across the country, and given the shocking history of abuse of the EI funds by successive governments.

We feel that if the minister is going to have these increased powers, which basically override the EI commission, which he has been disregarding anyway, that he should have to justify a substituted rate that he's recommending and say why this will have a positive impact versus the rate that the EI commission is recommending.

We think that greater transparency and accountability are what Canadians are looking for. I would urge my colleagues, especially in the Conservative Party, to vote in favour of accountability and transparency.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, the motion put forward by the member opposite would effectively increase the maximum deduction available in respect of restricted farm losses to $40,000. The amendment in Bill C-4 proposes to increase the maximum deduction from the existing $8,750 to $17,500 in order to reflect inflation. The motion of my colleague across the table is inconsistent with the increase, which is already in the clause.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, we are continuing our study of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Colleagues, we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

I'll remind you as your chair, that I'm operating according to the motion, moved by Mr. Saxton, and adopted by this committee on Tuesday, November 5. It's quite a lengthy motion. I know you are quite familiar with its contents.

We have a number of amendments proposed by many of the parties here with respect to certain clauses. My advice to the committee in terms of how we propose.... You obviously have a copy of the agenda in front of you. The agenda highlights which clauses have which amendments attached to them. If any of you need any additional information, please highlight that to the clerk. We have our legislative clerk here as well, if you need any procedural advice with respect to amendments.

I will delve into clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, short title, is postponed. Therefore, I'm going to move to clause 2.

I do not have an amendment until clause 14, so, colleagues, may I...?

Ms. Nash, go ahead, please.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good afternoon. Bonjour.

I'm particularly pleased to be here today to share a few of my thoughts on my 2012-13 annual report, which I tabled in Parliament on November 7.

First, I'd like to recognize the recently re-elected chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Honourable Michael Chong. Mr. Chair, I'm confident your knowledge of our official languages and your invaluable leadership on key issues such as bilingual education will serve the committee well in its deliberations during this current session of Parliament.

This past February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked me to stay on as Commissioner of Official Languages for an additional three years. I was honoured to accept. Over the course of my first mandate as commissioner, one of the questions that I have often received is the most general and difficult one: how are we doing in terms of official bilingualism? The answer is often unsatisfying—it depends.

My seventh and latest annual report will attempt to explain that answer in some detail. The report was conceived as a summary of my seven years as the Commissioner of Official Languages. Even though my mandate has been extended for another three years, I feel this has been a useful exercise to examine the progress—or lack of progress—made during these past seven years.

As I begin my second term, I can look back on the successful outcomes that have resulted from our investigations and proactive interventions. Seven years ago my investigation into complaints by official language minority communities following the abolition of the court challenges program of Canada, and my subsequent seeking of intervenor status before the Federal Court, showed that the government had not respected its obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act. Mobilization by these communities resulted in an out-of-court settlement that established the language rights support program.

Last year my investigation of the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General added credence to a private member's bill that was passed unanimously by Parliament and now requires all agents of Parliament to be bilingual at the moment of their appointment.

In addition, my office's collaborative work with federal institutions and the organizing committee of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games led to a very successful event presented in both official languages, with the unfortunate exception of the cultural component of the opening ceremonies. The invaluable lessons learned from this experience resulted in the production of a practical guide to promoting official languages for any organization hosting a major sporting event in Canada.

This past summer Canada Games organizers in Sherbrooke used the guide and were clearly successful in promoting both official languages during this national event, proof that we have made great strides.

I can also point to our investigation into the decision to move the Quebec City Marine Rescue Sub-Centre to Trenton and Halifax, which led to the postponement of the move until emergency services on the St. Lawrence could be guaranteed in French.

As well, when CBC/Radio-Canada's decision to eliminate virtually all local programming at French language radio station CBEF, in Windsor, generated 876 complaints in 2009-2010, I asked the Federal Court whether I have the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints. This was confirmed by the court in a preliminary decision.

There have also been a few outcomes during my ten years that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter.

This year, my office completed a study on the bilingual capacity of the superior court judiciary, which I presented at the Canadian Bar Association's legal conference in August. This marked the first time I worked on a joint project with my provincial counterparts in New Brunswick and Ontario. The impact of this study and its recommendations are crucial for Canadians who would use the court system. This is why we are urging the Minister of Justice to act quickly on the recommendations in the study, in close collaboration with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as with the chief justices of the superior court.

When I first came aboard in 2006 there were some pleasant surprises. I found that there was much less resistance to the Official Languages Act inside federal institutions than I had expected, but from time to time there are incidents that indicate that officials simply don't understand what it means to have two official languages with equal status.

Last month, there was an incident here on the Hill that I must admit I found completely unacceptable. A briefing for parliamentarians on Bill C-4, the omnibus bill, was made available only in English. An MP complained, officials objected, and another MP complained that he didn't understand the conversation. The briefing was delayed for a day.

Frankly, I thought that unilingual briefings had gone the way of typewriters and that “French to follow” was a thing of the past. I thought that Parliament's unanimous decision to ensure that agents of Parliament were bilingual was recognition that Canadians, not to mention parliamentarians, have an absolute right to equal quality of service in the official language of their choice. The fact that a member of Parliament even had to ask for a briefing in French in 2013, 55 years after simultaneous interpretation was introduced into the House of Commons and 50 years after the launch of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, is deeply disappointing.

Despite these embarrassing lapses, most federal institutions and most public servants want to do the right thing. Sometimes they simply have trouble getting the tools they need and developing the reflexes to use them. To do our part, my office developed online tools for federal institutions and employees, including a self-assessment tool for managers to evaluate whether their behaviour supports the use of both languages in the workplace and, more recently, a tool to develop effective language training practices.

There have also been some disappointments. The complaints I've received, coupled with the findings of our various studies and audits, tell me that much remains to be done in order to meet the obligations and the spirit of the act fully. When federal employees provide services to Canadians, active offer is still the exception, not the rule. It also remains difficult for air travellers to be served in the official language of their choice in Canadian airports. Too often, people have to ask, and, too often when they do, they face incomprehension or delays.

In the public sector, it's quite common for leaders to say a few words in French and then continue uninterrupted in English, as if the use of French at a public event were merely a symbolic gesture rather than the natural expression of a Canadian language. Even here in Ottawa, I get the feeling that speakers, even if they are bilingual, are hesitant to speak French in public.

As well, federal institutions have been uncertain about how to take positive measures for the growth and development of official language minority communities, as required by the 2005 amendment to the Official Languages Act.

Five years ago, the government issued its Roadmap for Linguistic Duality, which expired this year and was replaced with the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages, which runs through to 2018. During this time, we have experienced a period of financial instability, heavy federal investment in infrastructure projects, the Strategic and Operating Review and the Deficit Reduction Action Plan.

Generally speaking, official languages have not been targeted, but there has been collateral damage and unintended consequences for official languages stemming from closures and cutbacks. The result has been a subtle erosion of bilingualism through the transfer of federal offices from bilingual to unilingual regions, the reduction of language skill levels required for bilingual positions, the pressure on public servants to produce documents in English only, and the regular failure to offer a sufficient number of training programs in French.

We also see the posting of senior management positions where both official languages are described as an asset rather than a requirement, or described as a requirement and then not considered as such. The consequence of all this is a quiet undermining of the use of both languages in the workplace, and of the ability to offer services in English and French.

My work over the past seven years has shown me how much leadership matters in federal institutions. As commissioner, I will continue to stress the importance of second language learning, whether in our universities or in the public service, and I will continue to position the use of both official languages as a key leadership competency.

What lies ahead in the field of official languages? What challenges will need to be addressed over the next three years of my mandate?

Immigration and the demographic change it brings are critical issues for minority-language communities and for the country.

Social media will continue to transform the way that government deals with citizens. Essentially, the public expectation for an immediate response in either official language is greater than ever. Social media represent both significant challenges and tremendous opportunities in terms of language policy.

We know the Pan American Games will take place in Toronto in the summer of 2015, as well as a series of major anniversary events leading up to the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017. This is an opportunity for renewed engagement and leadership from the federal government. Throughout the planning stages and delivery of these events, it will be critical to respect the needs of both official language communities.

As reflected in my annual report, I've made recommendations in the following six areas: language training in federal institutions; the “Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018”, specifically the need for a new management and accountability framework; immigration policies and their impact on francophone minority communities; initiatives to raise the level of bilingualism among Canadians and reverse the decline in bilingualism among anglophones; the bilingual capacity of our superior court judiciary; and the impact of budget cuts on federal institutions' abilities to respect their obligations.

I believe we're now past the point where Canadians are shocked to hear the other language. This became quite evident to me this summer at the Canada Games in Sherbrooke. Both languages were used interchangeably during the opening ceremonies and elicited similar responses from those in attendance. Our official languages are a defining characteristic of our Canadian identity. We need to feel that both languages belong to us and are part of our sense of national identity, even if we don't speak one of them.

One challenge that remains, I feel, is for all of us to embrace fully linguistic duality as a core Canadian value, no matter what language we speak. As the committee begins a new session, it will no doubt be considering where to focus its work. I have raised a number of issues, including those areas where I made recommendations. I hope the committee finds this useful in determining which topics are deserving of its attention.

On that note, Mr. Chair, I will conclude my remarks and be pleased to answer any questions you and your colleagues may have.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Pruden, you've seen the collective bargaining process first-hand, both in the private and public sector, so I think you're qualified to comment on how this process can sometimes be very inefficient and time consuming. Measures in Bill C-4 streamline the collective bargaining process. For example, negotiations will now start exactly one year before the expiry of the current agreement and arbitration boards and public interest commissions will now be able to take into account an employee's overall benefit package when determining fair compensation.

Do you agree with changes like these that not only streamline the process but also bring them into line with the private sector and provincial government practices?

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

Thank you.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

I was struck during the presentation by the witnesses today.

Ms. Blais, you called the process around Bill C-4 an assault on due process. We've had several witnesses, whatever their view is on the specifics of this bill, who have expressed genuine concern about the process of omnibus bills. This is the fourth omnibus budget bill that we're dealing with. But I've also heard concern about lack of due process when it comes to lack of consultation.

I'll ask my question to the three of you here in the room with us—Ms. Roy, Ms. Blais, and Mr. Barrett. Is this because labour relations right now are at such a critical point that the government has no time for due process? Is this a house on fire? Are we so inundated with federal jurisdiction strikes and rampantly escalating pay raises and workplaces run amok that the government has no choice but to come in wielding a pickaxe, which is a short form for omnibus budget bills? Is there any rationale that you can see for the government embarking on this process?

[Robert Murray]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We at the Frontier Centre are proud to have been invited to speak today because we feel that Bill C-4 represents a series of essential changes and clarifications to a variety of aspects of Canadian government.

As requested, my comments here will be limited to part 3, divisions 17 and 18, which seek to modernize the collective bargaining and recourse systems available.

Popular interpretation and criticisms of divisions 17 and 18 seem to focus on an effort by the government to limit or eliminate labour rights, particularly from unionized workers, in an omnibus bill. For the most part, I would say the provisions of divisions 17 and 18 are aimed to create efficiencies in the labour processes, particularly in recourse mechanisms, and will in some cases reduce unnecessary duplication or confusion.

Clearly, the most controversial aspect of these sections is that which focuses on the ever dubious essential service designation. We at the Frontier Centre believe the time has come for a public debate about the right to strike in the public sector, and we welcome the opportunity to comment, though at the outset I would also urge caution with any expansion of the essential service designation.

There is no doubt that the essential service designation is important and could be more widely applied in the federal government, but there is a risk in overutilizing the concept. First, the clear expansion of government power in this area as a result of Bill C-4 is in some ways problematic and really needs to be thought through further. Also, if overused, unproductive negotiations could continue for unusually long periods of time, unless parties agree to a final-offer selection of binding arbitration at the outset.

While we do support the arbitration process and believe that unions have historically done well under the process, I would stress that it is a key right of the employer to designate a service as essential, though any expansion of the designation or a reduction in the ability of unionized workers to strike or to access labour rights will clearly face significant opposition. As such, a long-term, honest consultation process should be embarked upon, which I believe this committee is trying to get at, but I hesitate to say will not go far enough in that consultation process.

Curtailing or limiting the right to strike or access to grievance arbitration will never be appealing to unionized workers as it is a vital last-resort option in times of difficult labour processes. I do believe the use of strikes has become far too overutilized. It is now seen as a tactic rather than a last-resort option. As such, we would support efforts to further limit the ability of a party to strike in some cases. As such, we would also urge that there would have to be curtailment of the ability to walk out simultaneously.

In any public sector work stoppage, it is not the government that is hurt, it is the taxpayers. Canadians pay a very high premium for what are supposed to be world-class public services and should not have to face close-downs because of labour instability. We see little need for taxpayers to pay for services they have no access to, and it's time for these issues to be tackled.

Further, it is very much in the public's interest to have certain services declared as essential, but the government must prepare for the myriad of court challenges that will come as a result of expanding the designation. Ultimately, if this bill is to move forward, the success of a court challenge would, at least in part, be dependent upon how much consultation has actually taken place and how impartial that consultation process truly is.

Other aspects of divisions 17 and 18, such as the expanded use of conciliation, the extension of bargaining timelines, streamlining recourse and grievance processes, and the consolidation of matters into one board are all very useful in their own right in some cases, though each must be considered and valued on its own merit.

Ultimately, what we see the government is trying to do in divisions 17 and 18 is very positive, though we have questions regarding why this is being embedded in an omnibus budget bill. The status quo is not working well for any party involved in negotiations at this point in time, and it's certainly a time for alterations in the ability of public sector employees to strike and their access to certain labour recourse mechanisms to be reviewed, so as to not hold taxpayers hostage.

Even so, legitimate, fair, and transparent practices are by far the best ways to achieve labour peace. We would hope that these underlying values are being contemplated—

[Gareth Neilson]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After reviewing Bill C-4 we were pleased to see some necessary changes made to labour relations and arbitration systems. We believe it's the right direction for the Canadian government to take at this time. Having said that, today we'd like to comment on income inequality, fairness in pensions, and keeping our seniors out of poverty, as we feel that these are issues the government needs to look at a little more carefully.

When we do talk about public sector compensation, it seems fashionable today to compare their compensation with the top 1% in our society. That is a completely false comparison. The richest in our society are rarely concerned about what the average public sector worker makes. Similarly, it wouldn't be fair to judge what a public sector worker makes by the poorest in our society, because it would be a complete imbalance.

What we are suggesting is that the committee focus on the average working Canadian when analyzing what compensation is equitable for a public sector worker. Since 2003 we've seen a significant increase in public sector compensation. According to the PBO, the average civil service employee now makes in excess of $77,000 per year. What makes that both alarming and unfair, in our opinion, is that the average private sector worker in the country today is making just in excess of $40,000. In other words, the private sector worker is making about 48% less than the public sector worker. I think in the previous panel one of your witnesses testified to that. He realized that the pay was so much spread apart between the public and private sectors.

At a time when inflationary trends are causing financial challenges for the average private sector worker, we do think it's very important for the government to fix this fiscal imbalance. I think there are some measures in this bill that certainly could do that.

The effect of rising salaries in the public sector has also had a very negative effect on pension programs. For every dollar that you give a civil servant in salary, the pension fund has to find $16 for that worker in retirement. When our pension system was created, the expectation was that an employee worked for about 30 years, would be retired for a few years, and then pass away. However, today our life expectancy is so much higher. A recent actuarial report that we have seen showed that the average life expectancy for a female public sector worker was 89.4 years and for a male it was 87.3.

Now, of course, we find ourselves two years into the baby boom retirement tsunami, and many of the pension plans are broken. It seems that the only answer to that has been to increase the contribution rates. That's not going to work. Over the last 10 years, in fact, we've seen contribution rates increase by over 130% into these pension funds, and now it is a fact that Canadians invest as much into public sector pension funds as they do into their own RRSPs. Again, this is unfair to the average private sector worker. As they struggle to pay the bills and have nothing left to contribute to their own pension fund, they have to match the contributions dollar for dollar of the public sector worker. According to the PBO, when you include pension matching and when you include some of the benefits, the average civil servant is costing taxpayers $114,000 per year. In fact, last year Canadians contributed over $34 billion into public sector pensions.

At Fair Pensions for All we believe that every Canadian should be able to save for retirement, not just the wealthy and not just those who are in government.

There's also been a lot of talk about the big CPP recently. We reject that out of hand. We ask you to do the same, because we see that as basically a backdoor bailout of public sector pensions and we would suggest you ignore that.

[Isabelle Roy]

Okay.

The bill strips the tribunal of any jurisdiction in relation to allegations of violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act in the workplace for federal public service workers, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the new board. Under the present federal human rights scheme, a finding of discrimination against an employee may attract a direction that the employer cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to redress the practice. This power is not provided to the PSLREB in Bill C-4.

The proposed legislation will extend the discretion to dismiss grievances on the basis that they are considered trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith to the employer. Traditionally this was a power granted to independent bodies, like the CHRT or the PSLRB. It's unprecedented to give the employer this ability to unilaterally dismiss grievances before they're even heard. Don't be surprised if there's an increase in the number of grievances that end up in front of this new board for that very reason.

In conclusion, Bill C-4 erodes the associational rights of public servants to fair collective bargaining and their individual rights to prompt, efficient, and unbiased dispute resolution.

Division 17 constitutes an unjustified violation of the freedom of association guaranteed by the charter and is unconstitutional.

Divisions 17 and 18 should be separated from Bill C-4 to allow for proper consultations with stakeholders so that a true modernization of labour relations in the federal public service can take place, as opposed to proceeding with this regressive proposed legislation.

Thank you.

[Isabelle Roy, General Counsel, Legal Affairs, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to make these submissions.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada represents about 55,000 professionals across the country in the public sector, most of whom work in the federal public service. Our members are directly affected by Bill C-4, in particular divisions 17 and 18, which amend the PSLRA and the PSEA, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is our contention that the proposed legislation significantly impairs the right to collectively bargain, to the point where it in fact constitutes a violation of the freedom of association, protected by paragraph 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the International Labour Organization’s convention 87, among others.

Our criticism starts with the process itself. Like my colleagues, we feel that burying such important amendments in omnibus legislation is certainly not the proper way to go about this. Instead, the changes should have formed part of a stand-alone piece of legislation that would have allowed for the meaningful consultation with subject-matter experts that we're used to in this country when it comes to these types of changes.

This government's approach of imposing sweeping changes without consultation with stakeholders has been severely criticized by the International Labour Organization and is considered to be an attack on freedom of association in different contexts.

The amendments to the PSLRA contained in Bill C-4 will result in collective bargaining that is in fact devoid of any fair and independent dispute resolution mechanism in the event of impasse at the bargaining table. That, in our view, is a violation of the right to collective bargaining that is protected by paragraph 2(d) of the charter.

Bill C-4 proposes to make conciliation/strike the default process to resolve disputes, while at the same time it grants the employer exclusive and unfettered power to determine which positions are to be designated essential.

Should the parties to collective bargaining eventually find themselves before an arbitration board—or even a conciliation board, for that matter—Bill C-4 proposes restrictions that give the employer considerable leverage throughout that dispute resolution process as well. The process will become less fair and more politicized.

These changes dilute the value of objective analysis of relevant economic factors and replace factual evidence with ideological preference.

Put differently, Bill C-4 completely stacks the deck in favour of the employer. It corrals unions to the conciliation/strike route while keeping exclusive and unchecked control over how many workers actually get to go on strike in the hands of the employer and the employer alone. The bill goes further by ensuring that arbitration or conciliation boards have their hands tied by the government of the day's desire to pay—not the ability, which is the proper standard.

The proposed system forces confrontation and results in a serious impairment of the freedom of association protected by the charter. Beyond these associational rights of public servants, the bill also attacks individual rights of our members.

Bill C-4 calls for the PSLRB, the Public Service Labour Relations Board, and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal to be consolidated to form a new entity, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board.

While the purpose of these types of exercises is usually to find efficiencies, this legislation is actually going to have the opposite effect. There are currently long delays, both at the PSLRB and the PSST, and it is not apparent how merging these two entities will shorten those delays.

In fact, compounding these problems, this legislation will probably increase the volume of complaints by forcing similar individual grievances to be filed separately instead of using the policy grievance tool, which was a tool that was developed under the 2005 Public Service Modernization Act and had resulted, in our view, in a lot of efficiencies by handling a number of individual matters in one policy grievance.

The proposed legislation strips the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal—

[Lisa Blais]

The latter had the right to strike forced upon them in 2003 by the Charest government as a way to avoid binding arbitration. It culminated in strike action by almost 1,500 Quebec government lawyers in February 2011. The situation broke the bond of trust between these lawyers and the government and jeopardized many serious criminal prosecutions.

On a completely practical level, how can the government save money by forcing employees to strike? I just referenced the importance of preserving the right to strike. The point is, Bill C-4 will force some of us to strike. Let's remember that when unions were first given this choice in 1967, it was meant to address the imbalance of power in the federal public sector context. Arbitration has consistently been the preferred route for the AJC and for most public sector unions. This civilized approach to labour disputes preserves services to the public and ensures federal workers and their families are treated with respect, dignity, and fairness.

[Lisa Blais, President, Association of Justice Counsel]

Thank you. I want to thank the committee for this opportunity.

The AJC is the exclusive bargaining agent for 2,700 federal lawyers. We're prosecutors, we're counsel at the Department of Justice, and we also provide legal services to various tribunals and agencies.

Before becoming a so-called union boss, I was a drug prosecutor enforcing the government's tough on crime legislation. I will be returning to my prosecutorial role at the end of my term with the AJC.

To begin, I would be remiss as the representative of federal lawyers if I didn't address the issue of due process. I know you've heard a lot on that, but it bears repeating because it's so fundamental to who we are as Canadians. Make no mistake, using massive budgetary omnibus bills to significantly alter several long-standing and complex pieces of legislation is an assault on due process.

Bill C-4 contains many elements that have absolutely nothing to do with budgets or finances. Respectfully, we question how a bill that is 308 pages long, contains 472 separate clauses, affects at least 29 different pieces of legislation, and amends or repeals 70 legislative measures can seriously be considered a true budget bill, or seriously considered at all, folks, in light of time constraints and debate limits imposed on this entire process.

We know that omnibus budget bills are not new. In 1994, then MP Stephen Harper criticized such a bill—which was 21 pages and entirely related to budgets—as being, and I quote, “so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles”.

The scope and breadth of Bill C-4 negates your ability to even know its full impact. Further, division 17 of the bill brings drastic amendments to the PSLRA, a fundamental piece of legislation, albeit not perfect, that has been a reliable tool for labour relations for the past 50 years. These amendments, make no mistake, denude employee protections and powers. I will elaborate upon that in a moment.

Due process has taken a hit, folks, since the law reform commission was forced to close its doors in 2006. Never have we needed more such an informed and independent voice. Contrary to past practice, these amendments were crafted without any consultation with any stakeholder—not with unions, not with labour law specialists, not with academics, not with anyone.

We question this bill's constitutionality. Advanced consultations would have minimized the vulnerability of these changes to challenges under paragraphs 2(b) and (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our highest court has confirmed on several occasions that collective bargaining is the fundamental right of every Canadian employee. This right can be limited only minimally, and only in exceptional circumstances. This bill bestows upon the employer the exclusive right to determine who can arbitrate, who can strike, who is essential.

Further, when a union is allowed to participate in interest arbitration, the adjudicator's ability to consider relevant factors has been severely constrained to the point where it can be argued that the outcome is already determined. Bill C-4 contravenes several of our international labour obligations as well.

Let's talk about costs. You are a finance committee, and that's the lens through which you are all tasked to look. For a government that constantly trumpets its desire to streamline operations and save money, Bill C-4 will have the opposite effect. Let me tell you why. Changes to the PSLRA remove the workers' right to choose between interest arbitration and strike action. What does that mean? Forcing federal workers to strike rather than go the interest arbitration route will affect the services Canadians receive and serve to frustrate labour relations even further.

We need only remember the Quebec prosecutors and civil lawyers who were recently forced into this exact situation.

[Steven Barrett, Managing Partner, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you

Thank you for inviting me to appear.

I've been a labour lawyer involved in collective bargaining for government employees in the broader public sector for almost 30 years. I also have considerable experience in appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights cases. I hope my remarks will be helpful to the committee.

I did watch the webcast of the earlier hour and a half, so I hope I won't be unduly repetitive.

Parliamentary tradition, which has been followed and respected historically over the past 50 or so years, by both federal Liberal and Conservative governments, has been to propose legislative changes to the rules governing collective bargaining for federal government employees only after expert independent study and widespread consultation. As the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in a submission to this committee, proposing and then burying fundamental changes to collective bargaining in omnibus legislation hardly respects this tradition.

But this isn't just about respect for tradition and democracy. It's also about widespread recognition that in labour relations, given both the sensitivity of the collective bargaining balance and the importance of the employee and employer interests involved—as well as the public interest—changes to the existing scheme should only be made after receiving expert independent advice, ensuring widespread meaningful input, comment, and debate. This is especially the case, members of the committee, where one of the parties to the collective bargaining process—the employer—has, respectfully, an inherent conflict of interest as both employer and legislator, and so normally wants to ensure that it isn't acting and doesn't appear to be acting in a one-sided manner.

For this reason, while you can never guarantee a mutually acceptable agreement on labour law reform, and government obviously has the right ultimately to act, the Canadian tradition has been for a good faith effort to be made. Against that standard, Bill C-4 falls well short—at least the labour relations we're talking about. For the first time in the history of legislative reform to federal public service collective bargaining legislation, the government, as employer, is proposing to use its legislative powers to unilaterally alter a long-standing balance in the legislation without any prior consultation, study, or even a half-hearted attempt at building and achieving consensus.

Now, it's an axiom in labour relations, born of real-life experience, that balance and mutual acceptability is of utmost importance to collective bargaining stability, industrial peace, harmony in the workplace, and basic fairness—all goals that we share.

Here we have the employer using the government's legislative authority to undo and upset the rules that the parties have lived with for almost 50 years, since 1967, especially when it comes to choice of procedure, a prominent feature of the federal model: interest arbitration or strike conciliation. Parliament decided on a choice of procedures model, which balances respect for the right to strike with the recognition that many public servants are averse to what they consider to be the adversarial, more militant strike/lockout method, so that arbitration was a sensible and constructive choice to give them for resolving disputes.

No one is suggesting that the existing rules are perfect. Some bargaining agents believe that certain rules, including the government's power that it already has to determine unilaterally the level of essential services, are problematic. Others believe the Canada Labour Code should apply. And of course the employer no doubt has changes that it would like to see made.

No one is opposed to true and authentic modernization or to balanced changes. But if change is to be made, it ought to be carefully thought out. As detailed in my brief and in the submissions of many others, the proposed legislation can only be described as an attempt by one party to the bargaining process to rewrite the rules of the game in as lopsided a manner as could be conceived.

If we were in a schoolyard, it would be viewed as bullying of the worst kind. Closer to home, it's like Senator Duffy being permitted to rewrite and legislate the Senate's residency requirements.

[Edith Bramwell, Coordinator, Representation Section, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

The way in which Bill C-4 changes essential services is such that there is no definition anymore according to which the government can be held accountable as an employer when it designates its employees as essential.

What we had in the previous legislation was a reference to the safety and security of the public. The definition is actually somewhat broader than that, but those are the key terms. That's gone now, and what we have is wording that says that an essential service under clause 294 of Bill C-4 is anything the Government of Canada has determined is essential.

That has a very broad sweep in both directions. It means that the Government of Canada, as employer, can unilaterally declare an entire bargaining unit of any type of employee essential. I think that's what has been focused on.

It can also say that any type of service provided to Canadians is not essential. For example, the government could decide that the production of EI cheques, a topic which was referenced by the speaker, is not essential.

[Robyn Benson]

What I'd like to say is I think the President of the Treasury Board, quite frankly, enhances the toxic work environment. He is out in the press talking about his employees, my members, abusing sick leave, surfing the net. He has utter disregard for them, and I think, quite frankly, he is disrespectful.

I say that here in all honesty because I've said that to him. I've had a meeting with Mr. Clement and I asked him to cease and desist, because that makes your work environment that much worse. Do you want to go to work for an individual who is on CBC talking about how you're not doing your job, when in fact many of our members have unpaid overtime, and the list goes on?

What will happen with Bill C-4, because there has been no consultation—and I'm hoping you remove those two sections from the bill—is that once again it shows an utter disrespect for the membership. They know when we've had consultation. We actually go out and talk with our membership in terms of preparing our consultation and our briefs—for example, under the Public Service Modernization Act.

Quite frankly, our members are going to work to serve Canadians, and if there are issues within the workplace, it's because of comments made by the President of the Treasury Board.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Right. So your statement that the government can choose whatever it likes as essential is a bit misleading when there are definitions of what's essential in place. They're in the code of...subsection 119(1) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

My next question is for Gregory Thomas of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Gregory, welcome. First of all, Bill C-4 will require that all forms of compensation are taken into account in the determination of fair compensation. This includes more than just wages; it includes other benefits that employees receive.

In your calculations of total overall compensation, you also obviously took into consideration other benefits in addition to just wages. Do you believe this will achieve fairness for both the employee and the employer, to take into consideration all compensation?

[Chad Stroud, President, Local 2182, Unifor]

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I'm Chad Stroud, the president of Unifor Local 2182. I represent the marine communication and traffic service operators of the coast guard. We are an essential service at this time.

Unifor is Canada's largest private sector union with more than 300,000 members. It also represents public service employees such as my group, the printing services group, non-supervisory employees, Transport Canada air traffic control employees, and the House of Commons technical group.

Unifor brings a modern approach to unionism: adopting new tools, involving and engaging our members, and always looking for new ways to develop the role and approach of our union to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Unifor objects to the amendment of important labour relations legislation, without full consultation with stakeholders, by way of an omnibus budget bill. We feel it is important to register our concerns regarding the process through which federal budget legislation has been implemented in recent years.

We are especially concerned with measures that affect collective bargaining legislation and changes in very important health and safety regulations and practices defined under multiple pieces of legislation.

In our view, it is entirely inappropriate to implement important policy changes on matters such as these through a composite budget implementation bill without full research, consideration, or fine tuning, and with debate frequently ended through invoking closure.

The Public Service Labour Relations Act, in its enactment in 2003 as part of the Public Service Modernization Act, followed extensive consideration and consultation beginning in 2000. The PSLRA then featured a mandatory five-year review. That five-year review resulted in the “Report of the Review of the Public Service Modernization Act, 2003”, which was released in 2011. That report followed appropriate consultation by the review team.

Notably, the amendments to the PSLRA now set out in Bill C-4 are not amendments that were recommended by the review team after consultations with all stakeholders and careful review of the PSLRA. The amendments now set out in Bill C-4 are not the product of any consultative process.

Clause 294 of Bill C-4 would amend the PSLRA by deleting the existing definition of essential service as

a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.

It would replace that definition with one that describes an essential service as anything that the government in its exclusive right determines will be necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public.

Clause 305 of Bill C-4 would amend sections 119 to 134 of the PSLRA to provide that the employer will unilaterally determine what is an essential service and what level of essential services will be supplied during a labour dispute.

Unifor and other bargaining agents can have no confidence that the unilateral power that Bill C-4 would grant the government to determine what is an essential service will not be abused in the absence of a cooperative effort to identify real essential services that ought to continue during a labour dispute, assisted where necessary by the PSLRB.

The proposed amendments to section 103 of the PSLRA will eliminate interest arbitration as one of the two methods a bargaining agent may, as a right, select as the process for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. Instead, all disputes will by default proceed by the conciliation and strike/lockout process, absent an agreement between the bargaining agent and the employer to use arbitration as the process.

Unifor is troubled by these amendments that will erode the independence of interest boards of arbitration. Clause 310 of Bill C-4 proposes to add new section 158.1, which directs the chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to review arbitration awards to determine their compliance with the listed criteria in section 148 and permits the chair to direct the board of arbitration to review its decision and to provide further justification on a new decision. Vesting such a power of review in the chair of the Public Service Labour Relations Board would raise real concerns about the independence of the arbitration process as a legitimate process for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes and real concerns about the fairness of proceedings in which parties may be deprived of an opportunity to be heard before an award is reviewed and amended.

Unifor does not support the elimination of the compensation analysis and research services. Such services are within the board's current mandate and would be eliminated by clauses 295 and 296 of Bill C-4.

Unifor opposes the restriction on union policy grievances that could be the subject of an individual grievance. This appears to be a measure that could force bargaining agents to file—

[Robyn Benson]

If that's not bad enough, Bill C-4 expands the current limits on what the public interest commission and arbitration boards can consider when making their awards.

I just want to mention what the worst of it is. Policy grievances were introduced when the Public Service Labour Relations Act came into effect. They were used to streamline the grievance process. It made the process more efficient and it was cost-effective to the employer. Now they've taken that right away and they want only individual grievances to be filed.

Bill C-4 will make widespread fundamental changes to the labour relations laws covering all federal government workers.

I ask that you remove divisions 17 and 18. I also ask you to engage in real consultation with the bargaining agents, employer groups, and labour relations experts.

Thank you.

[Robyn Benson, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that the changes in Bill C-4 to the Public Service Labour Relations Act were introduced without any consultation whatsoever with labour, and this, quite frankly, is unprecedented.

The government ignored the broad consultation that normally takes place when changes to labour law are being considered. For example, the 2003 Public Service Modernization Act was only introduced after almost three years of discussion and studies involving stakeholders, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and the academics.

This time the government developed its plans in secret, behind closed doors. Right after the throne speech I contacted the Treasury Board president's office. They said it was premature to bring in changes. Then without another word, the government deliberately included the changes in a budget bill so that they could be fast-tracked without the discussion and open debate they deserve.

Minister Clement and his colleagues may be pleased with what they see as another blow to the labour movement, but these changes will have a very direct impact on their employees. The changes send a strong message to public service workers that their employer doesn't respect their work and the services they provide to this country.

Bill C-4 essentially ignores the fundamental principles of freedom and association and the right to strike. It rewrites the rules that affect bargaining, the choice of dispute resolution, essential services designation, and arbitration. The entire framework of the current Public Service Labour Relations Act is based on, “a commitment from the employer and the bargaining agents to mutual respect in harmonious relations”. It also recognizes that collaboration and consultation are “a cornerstone of good human resources management”.

Bill C-4 makes it plain that this government isn't interested in mutual respect or harmonious relations.

Our written submission contains details of many of our concerns. Today I'll talk about just a few of the key concerns.

First, concerning the designation of essential services, our union believes that during a strike, services should be maintained at a level that ensures there is no possible danger to the safety and security of the Canadian public. As an example, PSAC members were on strike the morning of September 11, 2001. We brought our picket lines down immediately and our members returned to work quickly and without question.

PSAC has worked with the employer to ensure that the safety and security of the public would never be compromised should a strike take place. In fact, we've agreed to thousands of positions being deemed essential. We take balancing the interests of the public, our members, and the employer very seriously. But apparently that's not good enough.

Bill C-4 gives the government the power to unilaterally decide who is essential and what services are essential. Employees declared essential can be asked to perform all of their duties, not just those that are essential, and to be available 24/7 to perform them should a strike take place. The right of the employees' union to challenge the government's opinion about what is essential before an independent labour board has been removed. It has been removed even though the current law and jurisprudence require the labour board to err on the side of the safety and security of the public. Balance and fairness are gone. The government can behave unreasonably and it can't be held accountable because there is no avenue for appeal.

Legal experts have said that a union's right to choose arbitration creates a level playing field because it balances Parliament's ability to legislate an end to a strike and order arbitration. Bill C-4 takes away the right to choose arbitration. Now it will only be available if the employer agrees, or where the employer has designated 80% of the bargaining unit as essential.

It's not hard to imagine a government using its new powers to designate just under 80% of a unit. This leaves the remaining workers with a limited ability to strike, and then they can't choose arbitration.

[Benjamin Dachis, Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute]

Hello and good morning.

Thank you very much for inviting me here today to speak to you. My name is Benjamin Dachis. I'm a senior policy analyst at the C.D. Howe Institute. For those who are not aware of us, the C.D. Howe Institute is an independent, not-for-profit organization that aims to raise Canadians' living standards by fostering economically sound public policies.

I'm the co-author of a paper related to the matters under discussion here today, specifically those in division 17 of Bill C-4. The paper is “The Laws of Unintended Consequence: The Effect of Labour Legislation on Wages and Strikes”, published in 2010. It is available on the C.D. Howe Institute website. It's a little long for translation, so I brought some copies along with me as well if people are interested.

I am working with co-authors on an expanded academic version of the paper as well, which I can speak to during questions if you are interested.

We can summarize our results, which I'll get into in some detail later. First, we find that relative to the workers with the full right to strike, workers who are subject to an essential services designation have lower wages otherwise. Second, workers who are subject to compulsory arbitration have higher wages than workers with the full right to strike. Third, placing workers under compulsory arbitration reduces the likelihood of bargained contracts in the future and creates a greater reliance on arbitration.

Between 1978 and 2008, about 4% of public sector contracts that we observed were settled with a strike, whereas about 8% were settled with arbitration, 11% were settled through legislation, and over 60% were freely bargained. Over the last 30 years, governments have generally taken two approaches: limiting the ability of workers to strike, or the consequences of a strike. This is apart from back-to-work legislation, which I can discuss later if you like, and the results of that legislation.

The first approach is the essential services designation. In these cases, workers are allowed to strike, but some portion of the workers are legally obligated to continue providing services. The proposed language in the bill that we're discussing today will enable the government to place more workers and positions under this designation.

The second approach is to forbid strikes and to require remaining disputes to be decided through arbitration. The bill as written will require that when more than 80% of a bargaining unit is designated as essential, disputes will be decided through arbitration without the option of a work stoppage. Our work looks at the consequences on wages of workers and their strike behaviour when governments apply such rules to their workers.

We answer this by comparing the nearly 6,000 major public sector labour contracts that were settled between 1978 and 2008 with what happened when workers were subject to the regulations. Controlling for other factors—and I can get into details of that if you like—we find that when a workforce is subject to an essential services designation, compared with workers with the full right to strike, their real wages are about 2% lower than otherwise.

On the other hand, we find that when workers are subject to compulsory arbitration, that increases their real wages by about 1% relative to workers with the right to strike. We also find that using arbitration in the previous contract reduces the likelihood of a freely bargained next contract and more than doubles the likelihood of using arbitration again to settle the next contract. This suggests that a move to arbitration will beget a cycle in which parties return again and again to third-party intervention to settle their disputes.

Others have found that mandatory arbitration led to an increase in other types of disputes, such as work to rule or other work slowdowns. In sum, a move to increase the number of bargaining units that have some workers—that is, less than 80% share—who cannot go on strike will likely reduce wages, but placing more workers under compulsory arbitration will likely increase wages and lead to a great future reliance on arbitration and potentially other disputes.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to taking any questions.

[Gregory Thomas, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the 84,000 supporters of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we welcome the opportunity to speak about the changes in Bill C-4, and we thank you for inviting us.

There's no question that something has to be done about the work environment in the Government of Canada. It's a toxic environment. Workers can't work. Leaders can't lead: 193,000 full-time equivalent workers and fewer than 100 dismissals.

When leaders lead and managers manage, they get human rights complaints. They get grievances. They get group complaints, individual complaints, policy complaints, and very often these things end up in the Federal Court of Canada. It's a toxic, terrible environment.

Whether these solutions will be effective, who knows? Government is a highly complicated organ. But what we do know is that people don't like going to work in the Government of Canada.

This report, produced by a management committee, PSMAC Subcommittee on People Resourcing, reported this: 50 million days worked in the Government of Canada; 7.6 million paid leave days taken; 2.1 million paid holidays.

Taking out paid holidays, 15% of the days that Canadians paid for were not worked in the Government of Canada.

But we know that in the departments of government where people have strong commitments to their mission—the Attorney General, the environment department—absenteeism is much lower and people have a commitment to the job. Their commitment to the mission surpasses the horrors of spending a day working in government employment.

So we're happy that the government is taking seriously its obligations to do something. When this government took office, the average compensation for a federal government employee was $86,000 a year, all in the cost to Canadians of having one worker work for the government all year. Five years later, from 2006 to 2011, that had gone up to $111,000. The Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that it will be $129,000 per employee by fiscal 2015 if nothing is done. So there's an urgent problem.

I'll just close with one case summary. There's a foreign service worker with a six-figure job description who was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to have spent more than half of his time...or 75% of his time, for seven months, surfing the net, reading news and sports, and downloading questionable material. This was proven. He was dismissed, and he was reinstated by a Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator. You know, there isn't anybody working out of government who could get a deal like that.

We urge leaders of all parties to create a work environment where Canadians can go to work for the Government of Canada, do an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, be treated fairly, and have an avenue of appeal, if they feel they haven't been treated fairly, that's effective, efficient, quick, and just.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to welcome all of our guests here this morning. We have two panels.

Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the study of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.

We have six presenters at our first panel. We have Professor Ian Lee from Carleton University; from the Canadian Labour Congress, the secretary-treasurer, Mr. Hassan Yussuff; from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Mr. Gregory Thomas; from the C.D. Howe Institute, Mr. Benjamin Dachis, senior policy analyst; from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the national president, Ms. Robyn Benson; and from Unifor, the president, Mr. Chad Stroud. Thank you all for being with us here this morning.

You will have a maximum of five minutes for an opening statement, and we'll begin with Mr. Lee, please.

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

One should add that several regions depend on seasonal industries such as tourism, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and so on.

Ms. Yalnizyan, I quite liked your presentation on what a budget bill should be. Minister Flaherty appeared just before you did. We asked him why provisions on health and safety, which can be found in divisions 17 and 18 of part 3 of Bill C-4, are in a budget bill. He answered that ultimately the government wants to be accountable and that spending is involved.

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, anything can involve spending and therefore end up in a budget bill. The government could conceivably only present one budget implementation bill per session and include all the legislative provisions that it wants to bring forward for the entire session.

Do you agree with my reasoning? Could that be the logical conclusion?

[Dr. Michelle Gauthier, Vice-President, Public Policy and Community Engagement, Imagine Canada]

Thank you Mr. Brison. I would also like to thank the committee for having invited us this evening.

When I appeared before you to speak on behalf of Imagine Canada during the pre-budget consultations, I said that we had to change the way we think about the charitable sector's contribution to Canada and to the whole world. Charitable and not-for-profit organizations employ two million Canadians, represent more than 7% of GDP, and involve 13 million volunteers. We create jobs, we stimulate economic growth, and nine out of ten Canadians believe that charitable organizations are an essential part of our quality of life.

It is in that context that we would like to speak to one part of Bill C-4, that is the enhancement and extension of the Hiring Credit for Small Business.

As committee members are aware, the hiring credit for small business would provide a rebate of up to $1,000 to eligible employers whose EI contributions increase from one year to the next. Despite the name of this initiative, this provision is available to all small employers including those in the non-profit sector. This initiative is most welcome and yet reinforces my point about changing our mindset.

When the credit was announced in the 2011 federal budget, given its labelling, charities unfortunately did not take note immediately. It was only when Imagine Canada made inquiries months later that we learned, albeit happily, that it applied to our sector as well.

We appreciate that the credit was designed and implemented without discriminating between for-profit and not-for-profit employers. Greater clarity, however, about its applicability to our sector would have enabled the government to recognize more publicly its support for charities and non-profit organizations' roles as employers. In a climate where every dollar counts, greater clarity would also have enabled organizations to make payroll decisions with the immediate knowledge that the credit applied to them.

For policies aimed at promoting jobs and growth to achieve their full potential, we need to make sure not only that they are inclusive, as was done in this case, and most appreciated, but also that they are described and marketed accordingly.

Using the most recent information available to us on staffing and payroll costs, we've assessed the potential impact of the renewed and extended hiring credit for charities. Based on the level of employer contributions paid in 2011, we estimate that almost 40,000 charities could benefit from the hiring credit included in Bill C-4. This represents almost 90% of all the charities that have paid staff. That's 40,000 charities in every community in Canada that will find it a little easier to meet their payroll obligations if they, for example, turn a part-time job into a full-time job, take on new staff, or provide staff increases.

While this is not a magic bullet for charities, it does suggest how government can, through instruments at its disposal and programs already in place, add another plank to its support for charities as engines of economic and social prosperity.

In addition, charities will continue to pursue earned income activities and access to grants and contributions and to depend on the generosity of Canadians supported by the federal government through tax incentives such as the new super credit and the proposed stretch tax credit.

We encourage the government to extend the sector-neutral approach taken with the hiring credit to other policies aimed at job creation and economic growth.

As I explained in my recent testimony, there are numerous federal initiatives that could help charities expand their earned income activities, and thus their financial sustainability and their ability to create jobs.

We look forward to working together to ensure that federal programs such as the Mitacs-Accelerate program, the Business Development Bank, the Community Futures program, and the industrial research assistance program, to name just a few, could assist charities as employers and social entrepreneurs, and that they be fully and unambiguously open to them.

Addressing this issue across all government programs would further reinforce the positive support provided the hiring credit in Bill C-4.

Mr. Chairman, good people doing good things here in Canada and elsewhere in the world are an important part of the story of charitable organizations, but the story is much more than that. The story is about jobs that we create throughout the country, about the economic activity and opportunities that we create, and the enormous and positive impact that we have on quality of life. In short, it is a story about building a stronger Canada and working with Canadians, the private sector and all levels of government to achieve that.

I would like to thank you for this initiative that goes in the right direction and maximizes the contribution of charitable organizations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Scott Brison]

On Bill C-4, the Budget Implementation Act, we're very pleased to welcome Armine Yalnizyan, senior economist from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; Monique Moreau, senior policy analyst for the CFIB; Michelle Gauthier from Imagine Canada; and Marie-Hélène Arruda from the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, réseau québécois.

We'll begin with Ms. Yalnizyan. These will be five-minute rounds initially, and then we'll go to Q and A.

Welcome.

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

Minister, your argument with the provinces is that increasing payroll premiums would be bad for the economy, yet Bill C-4 actually keeps payroll premiums artificially high for a longer period of time.

Why not simply allow EI premiums to self-balance with payouts as the account moves into balance in 2015? If your argument to the provinces is that artificially high premiums on jobs or wages will hurt the economy, why are you keeping them high yourself in Bill C-4?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, according to your recent update the EI account will move back to balance in 2015, instead of the previously predicted 2016.

You had promised to set the EI rate at a break-even level once the account was balanced, but Bill C-4 actually freezes EI premiums at an artificially high rate until the end of 2016. That will result in $5.6 billion more in payroll tax than what is required to pay out the benefits during that period.

You've called EI premiums a job-killing payroll tax. The recovery is a tenuous one. Why don't you let the EI rates fall in 2016, instead of keeping them higher into 2017?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I call this meeting back to order.

This is meeting number ten of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, we are continuing our study of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013.

We are very pleased to have with us today the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance.

Minister, welcome back to the committee.

I understand that you will have an opening statement for the members. Then we'll have questions from your colleagues here.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here on this second panel today, here in Ottawa and in British Columbia. Thank you so much for participating in our panel discussions on Bill C-4.

Colleagues, I will suspend for a couple of minutes, then we'll come back with the Minister of Finance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting back to order, the tenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, continuing our deliberations of BillC-4.

I want to thank our second panel for being here today.

We have, first of all, from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, the executive vice-president, Joyce Reynolds. Welcome.

We also have Mr. François-William Simard, Director of the Federation des chambres de commerce du Québec.

Welcome.

We have, from GrowthWorks Atlantic Ltd., the president and CEO, Mr. Thomas Hayes. Welcome.

From iNovia Capital Inc., we have the president, Mr. Chris Arsenault.

We are scheduled to have, by video conference from British Columbia, Wildsight's executive director, John Bergenske. I'm hoping he's going to show up here as we deliberate.

Each of you will have five minutes.

We will start with Ms. Reynolds.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. Merci.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being with us here in Ottawa and Toronto and Calgary, and for participating in our deliberations on Bill C-4.

I will now suspend the meeting for two or three minutes and we'll bring our next panel forward.

[Gabriel Hayos]

First, I would tell you that I think Canada is actually doing on its own, unilaterally, a very good job. We have a general anti-avoidance rule, and you see the rules that are introduced in Bill C-4. I think the issue on an international basis is the ability of these different countries to collaborate where there are asymmetries between the rules of one country and another. At the moment I think the OECD has, while it's an ambitious plan, the only approach that will properly address this area.

In my view, Canada has to be very careful to not jump the gun in this area because, at the end of the day, there's still an issue of our tax system being competitive with other countries, and we want to make sure that we do things collaboratively and in a coordinated way. So that would be my comment to you.

[David Spiro]

In my remarks, my intention was to mention the fine tuning, and this goes on in a number of different venues including the joint committee of Mr. Hayos's group and the Canadian Bar Association—lawyers and accountants with expertise in tax. They sit down, and they work very closely with the Department of Finance to fine-tune these rules so they don't exceed the scope of the policy.

In other words, if there are transactions caught by these rules technically that don't offend any policy, and therefore shouldn't really be caught by those rules, then there needs to be some amendment or modification, and those take place over time. Those are the technical amendments the Department of Finance people often come in and testify about, and they do this in the case of Bill C-4 as well. There are a number of those cleanup measures and amendments in addition to what was announced in the budget.

I wasn't speaking specifically about the thin capitalization rules. I was speaking about any of these amendments where sometimes the scope of them exceeds the policy or the mischief the Department of Finance seeks to address.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you.

To the chartered professional accountants, I want to pick up on the same line of questioning that Mr. Spiro answered. It's a great challenge for any government to make sure that taxpayers are confident in the tax system and that the tax system has a huge degree of integrity, quite frankly. One thing we've been doing to improve that public confidence is to try to track down Canadians who are investing their money abroad, oftentimes hiding that money abroad. I think we've done that.

Bill C-4 extends, in certain circumstances, the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return. We heard from Mr. Spiro on that.

I'd like to hear from the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, on reporting specified foreign property and how those changes should affect that reporting.

[David Spiro]

As you know, the Canada Revenue Agency administers and enforces the Income Tax Act. They have a daunting task, especially when taxpayers do not fulfill obligations imposed on them under the Income Tax Act, particularly with respect to assets that they own offshore that may produce income that's taxable in Canada, because they are Canadian residents so all their worldwide income is taxable in Canada, sometimes with credit and sometimes not. But in any event, they have to report all of that income.

That form, T1135, which is called the foreign income verification statement, is an important part of that effort in terms of enforcement and tracking assets and income.

In Bill C-4 it has been proposed to extend the audit period, essentially, the period that the Canada Revenue Agency has to look at the taxpayer's affairs for a particular year. If the taxpayer hasn't reported income from a specified foreign property in their return for the year, and hasn't filed that form T1135, or hasn't filed it with all the required information on it, that then extends the audit period effectively for three years from the date on which the form was filed or was filed properly. That's an important enforcement tool for the CRA to have in its tool box in order to track down foreign income that should be reported on Canadian tax returns.

[David Spiro]

Well, Mr. Chair, I believe the Department of Finance would have all the numbers in terms of taxes to be recovered respectively, as a result of these changes, of plugging the loopholes, which I believe is an important part of preserving the integrity and fairness of the entire tax system. The government has been very diligent over time in addressing those kinds of concerns.

I think there are some measures in Bill C-4 that are anticipatory. The Department of Finance has picked up signals, either through the Canada Revenue Agency and its relationship with them, or on their own, that certain things might be on the verge of taking off in terms of fiscal effects. Others are simply things that have been in effect, like the leveraged life insurance schemes. Those have been used for many years and I'm sure the cost of that has been significant over the last number of years.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. This is a very exciting session. I wish I had a lot more than five minutes and I would love to have an hour with each of you to go over all the fine points.

I do want to focus my questioning on Mr. Spiro.

Our government, as you know, is committed to a fair tax system and we've been very earnest in closing as many loopholes as we can possibly identify. There are some that we closed in Bill C-4, which have been overly exploited in the last number of years—somewhat outdated—for example, synthetic dispositions and leveraged life insurance arrangements.

Could you comment on what those loopholes were costing the federal treasury? And how important was it to actually close those?

[Gabriel Hayos, Vice-President, Taxation, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for inviting the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada to comment on Bill C-4, which implements certain measures from the 2013 budget. I'm pleased to be with you via video conference this afternoon.

In my role as vice-president, taxation, I oversee the activities of CPA Canada’s tax committees, including the tax policy committee and the commodity tax committee as well as the Canadian Bar Association/Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada joint committee on taxation.

We are generally supportive of the bill. It introduces technical tax provisions that are focused primarily on protecting the tax base. They include restricting corporate and trust loss trading; broadening Canada’s thin capitalization rules; ensuring that capital gains tax cannot be avoided by a taxpayer entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of a property; eliminating unintended tax benefits related to leveraged insured annuities and leveraged insurance arrangements; clarifying legislation to respond to court decisions; and restoring the intended tax policy results in the areas of farm losses, non-resident trusts, and future reclamation costs.

As you can appreciate, these can be very complex issues. If I could make one observation, it is that the proposed legislation was released on September 13 and the comment period ended October 15. The bill was then tabled three days later. I think we all would have benefited from a longer period of time to fully analyze, digest, and comment on legislation of such complexity.

CPA Canada has provided comments on some of these provisions through written submissions of the CBA/CPA Canada joint committee, including derivative forward agreements, synthetic disposition arrangements, and amendments to the thin capitalization rules.

Our comments were of a highly technical nature and detailed our concerns that in many instances the provisions are too broad in application. Consequently, they capture circumstances that do not appear to be intended by the government’s public policy objectives. The joint committee will continue to work with Finance to modify these rules appropriately while ensuring that the tax base is protected.

We note that Bill C-4 makes certain changes to the capital cost allowance rules. Our comment here is focused on what has not been done. We believe that in future capital cost allowance rates should be reviewed for all classes of equipment so that they correspond to the true economic life of the asset. Updating CCA rates would encourage manufacturers and others to invest in the most modern, productivity-enhancing equipment available, thus ensuring their competitiveness in a truly global economy.

Finally, I would like to comment broadly on the introduction of various anti-avoidance rules in Bill C-4. We support these changes, but they open up the broader issue of anti-avoidance rules and tax evasion. Last week, CPA Canada released a white paper entitled “Corporate tax evasion, avoidance and competition: Analyzing the issues and proposing solutions”. I believe all members of the committee have been sent a copy of this paper.

The topic of tax evasion versus legal tax planning and the related concept of corporations paying their fair share of tax is big and is getting bigger. In fact, the OECD is working on behalf of the G-20 to develop global solutions aimed at stopping tax evasion. Our white paper offers some food for thought to Canadian policy-makers and influencers, and I commend it to you. We would be pleased to return to this committee sometime in the future if you decide you would like to explore the issues of tax evasion and tax planning.

Mr. Chairman, I wish you and your colleagues well in your deliberations on Bill C-4, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Michael Colborne, Partner, Thorsteinssons LLP]

Thank you.

Honourable members, thank you for inviting me to speak today on Bill C-4.

I'm a tax lawyer with a law firm that is Canada's largest law firm that practises exclusively in the area of taxation. I act for large and small mining companies both Canadian and foreign-based. That role I'm privileged to say has taken me around the world. It has taken me everywhere from the Atacama Desert to the far north of Canada. I spend a lot of time in remote and rural Canadian communities.

You can probably guess what I'm going to talk about today. I am going to talk about the aspects of this bill that deal with certain measures that repeal some deductions for mining companies. But before I get into that I'd like to start by saying it's fair to say, in fact it's fair praise to say, that this bill contains a lot of good measures. Like Mr. Mintz I'm a fan of tax neutrality. I am actually a fan of the invisible hand, and I do see the benefit of a broad base and a low rate. However I'm not an economist. I'm a simple lawyer and in some circumstances I can be convinced that there are exceptions to these rules and they should be made for circumstances where it's merited.

One of these I share with long-standing government policy is the marriage that we've had in place since at least 1972, and indeed in other forms before that. This measure is something that we call accelerated capital cost allowance and we also have accelerated deductions for certain types of other investments made by mining companies in relation to the construction of new mines.

Essentially what these measures do is allow you to take your capital out before you share the profit reward with the government in the forms of tax. These rules are being proposed to be repealed by the budget and I'll be magnanimous about this and say that the government is being very generous in terms of the way they're phasing the rules out. They recognize the fact that the timelines to build mines are long and a significant capital decision has been made long before the decision to repeal the rules was made.

I find it a bit ironic though that the proposal is made at a time when build costs are at an historical high and while mill prices, which are always volatile, are perhaps more volatile than ever in a situation where we have Canadian companies looking at investing in very mature areas like Canada where projects require very complex engineering and a lot of capital, and are very risky.

I think the historical reason for these rules is pretty clear in the record going back to 1966. You can read the Carter Commission and there are lots of reasons for these, but ultimately the government settled on these rules because they recognized that it was a good policy to provide an incentive for people to invest in capital-intensive, highly risky ventures in remote areas in rural Canada. They are a deliberate and conscious departure from tax neutrality. I think that government after government has realized to date that this departure is merited.

The reasons for the departure stated in the budget papers are that the repeal of these rules puts mining on the same footing as the oil and gas industry and it furthers the government's environmental objectives. I'm not an economist but I can tell you anecdotally that I don't think that we're comparing apples and oranges when we compare conventional oil and gas, or even oil sands oil and gas, and hardrock mining in mature areas of Canada. I will leave that to experts to think about.

As for the environmental objectives it's not entirely clear to me what the correlation is. The government says this is to assist their medium-term goals for the use of inefficient fossil fuels. At the same time the government is doing what I think are very good things in terms of funding and encouraging work training and the like in communities that service mining. So we have two messages that are being given by the government here and I don't see how they correlate to environmental objectives.

It goes without saying that mining companies are very large investors in rural and remote Canada, northern Canada. They may be the very largest outside the oil sands. I have read, and I am told by my friends, that some advocacy groups purport that some of the mining companies in Canada are the largest employer of first nations persons. I can tell you by having gone to talk to mining engineers and dealing with communities in terms of the impact benefit agreements that the effect that these employers have in these rural communities is enormous.

I've seen the other side of it—

[Yvon Bolduc, Chief Executive Officer, Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving us the opportunity to come speak to you about the consequences of eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds and about the offer we have made to the government.

First, I would like to give you a few figures about the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. The fund has more than 615,000 shareholders, or nearly 15% of the Quebec workforce, principally from the middle class, people who are unionized and non-unionized. The proportion of unionized workers to non-unionized workers is around 50-50. 205,000 of our shareholders had never contributed to an RRSP before becoming shareholders of the fund. The FTQ also has 2,395 partner companies, principally SMEs in all the regions of Quebec, and it has invested $5.5 billion over the last 10 years, of which $2.2 billion were invested in venture capital.

Now I would like to explain first the consequences of the measure, and also to talk to you about the offer we have made to the federal government. As concerns the consequences of the measure, you have to understand there are three groups that will lose out: Quebeckers with savings, the Quebec economy, and finally, the entire venture capital industry in Canada.

Quebeckers with savings will lose a tax incentive that allows hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers to better prepare for retirement. In reality, these peoples' taxes will increase. Furthermore, the Quebec economy will lose out because eliminating the tax credit will reduce our cash inflows, which will immediately and significantly reduce our ability to invest in the economy. Finally, venture capital in Canada will also be affected. With less money to invest, there will be no choice but to significantly reduce investments in venture capital, and consequently, our fundamental role as a fund.

I will conclude my presentation by explaining the offer that we have made to the federal government.

Our proposal was as follows. In return for maintaining a tax credit and a review of the program in 2018, labour-sponsored funds in Quebec would firstly reduce the immediate cost for the government by 30%. This decrease could come from a cap on our cash inflows and, if necessary, a reduction in the rate of the tax credit.

Secondly, we would invest two dollars in venture capital for every dollar of tax credit for the duration of the venture capital action plan. More specifically, we proposed to the federal government to invest $400 million in private funds outside of Quebec and $550 million in private funds in Quebec—funds that would have the opportunity to invest across Canada.

Finally, we would also invest directly $1 billion in venture capital businesses in Quebec.

Labour-sponsored funds in Quebec have offered the federal government a total of $2 billion in venture capital, in exchange for reducing the tax burden and reassessing the situation based on the program's 2018 results.

In conclusion, I would repeat that if the bill is adopted in its current form, our cash inflows will be reduced by around $4.5 billion over 10 years, which means $4.5 billion less in retirement savings for Quebeckers. It also means there will be around $3 billion less to support SMEs or private funds over the next 10 years.

I respectfully entreat the committee to remove all provisions dealing with this tax credit from Bill C-4, and to urge the government to consider the offer of the Quebec labour-sponsored funds. At the very least, your committee could amend the bill to reflect the offer we have made to the government.

Thank you for your time. I am ready to answer your questions.

[David Spiro, Dentons Canada LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will preface my comments by noting that I'm here as an individual. I'm not here as a representative of my firm or of any of my clients. Accordingly, my comments and answers to questions will reflect my own personal views only.

By way of background, I've practised in the field of tax law for nearly 25 years. For 13 of those years, I practised with the Department of Justice in Toronto. Both before and after my time with the federal government, I've represented taxpayers and tax controversies and litigation with various tax authorities, including the Canada Revenue Agency.

Having seen the world from both sides, then, I'd like to offer a bird's-eye view of certain amendments to the Income Tax Act in Bill C-4, particularly those that are commonly referred to as loophole-closing provisions. In general terms, those provisions aim to preserve Canada's broad tax base so that our low corporate tax rates can be maintained. If our tax base is compromised in any significant way, new taxes will have to be imposed or rates of existing taxes will have to rise in order to make up the difference.

In today's competitive global marketplace, it's more important than ever for Canada to maintain its corporate tax rates at the lowest possible level to enhance job creation and investment in Canada. Of equal importance is the integrity and perceived integrity of our tax system. Canadians must be confident that all taxpayers are subject to the same set of rules. When some taxpayers take advantage of benefits that were never intended for them, other taxpayers lose confidence that the system is, indeed, just, equitable, and fair.

The loophole-closing provisions in Bill C-4 include measures aimed at precluding the enjoyment of unintended benefits from the use of, or avoidance of, various provisions of the Income Tax Act. For example, Bill C-4 aims at ending the use of leveraged life insurance arrangements by investors who took advantage of multiple tax benefits offered by various provisions of the Income Tax Act that were never intended to be used together.

Other provisions of Bill C-4 deal with character conversion transactions. Through the use of derivative forward contracts, investors could effectively convert ordinary income into capital gains, only one half of which would be subject to tax. Bill C-4 proposes to put all investors on a level playing field, so that ordinary income cannot be converted into capital gains through the use of derivative forward contracts.

Other provisions of Bill C-4 deal with synthetic disposition arrangements. Because the Income Tax Act is generally based on the legal attributes of transactions, one could avoid realizing a capital gain and thereby defer tax by transferring all, or substantially all, of the risk of loss and opportunity for gain in respect to a property, while at the same time retaining bare legal ownership of that property. Until there's a disposition in law, no capital gain will have been realized. From an economic point of view, though, the taxpayer has effectively disposed of that property. In those circumstances, Bill C-4 would deem a disposition to have occurred and a capital gain to have been realized as soon as the risk of loss and opportunity for gain is eliminated.

To prevent profitable corporations from artificially reducing taxable income by purchasing losses from other companies, the Income Tax Act restricts the use of losses where one corporation acquires legal control of another. In law, control is acquired when one corporation acquires more than 50% of the voting shares of the other. Bill C-4 proposes to treat the acquisition of economic control of a corporation in the same way as the acquisition of legal control for purposes of these rules. So when a corporation acquires more than 75% of the economic value of another company, the acquisition of control rules would be triggered, thereby precluding the acquiring corporation from using the losses of the other. Bill C-4 also proposes to extend the same acquisition of control rules to trusts. For trusts, the rules would be triggered when a majority interest in the trust is acquired.

Finally, there is an incentive for non-residents to fund their Canadian subsidiaries with as much debt as possible, as interest is deductible in computing taxable income in Canada. To preclude the undue extraction of profits from Canada, the Income Tax Act has thin capitalization rules that require that a certain debt-to-equity ratio be maintained by Canadian subsidiaries owned by non-residents. Bill C-4proposes to extend those thin capitalization rules to trusts resident in Canada, as well as non-resident trusts and branches of non-resident corporations.

Additional fine tuning to these rules may be required going forward, to the extent that any of these amendments affect transactions that are not offensive from a policy point of view. The Canadian Bar Association and the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada have a joint committee that works closely with the Department of Finance to reduce the extent of any unintended consequences that arise from such changes.

Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call to order meeting number ten of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, we are continuing our study of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us in Ottawa, as well as Calgary and Toronto.

Colleagues, we have about five hours of hearings ahead of us, so I look forward to spending this half day with you.

First of all, I want to thank Mr. David Spiro for being with us here today.

We also have with us Mr. Yvon Bolduc, from the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

Welcome, sir.

From Calgary, we have Professor Jack Mintz from the School of Public Policy—welcome, Mr. Mintz—and by video conference from Toronto, we have Mr. Michael Colborne, partner at Thorsteinssons. Also from Toronto, we have Mr. Gabriel Hayos, vice-president, taxation, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada.

Welcome to all of you.

Gentlemen, you have five minutes maximum for your opening statements and then we'll have questions from members.

We'll begin with Mr. Spiro, please.

Labour-sponsored Funds

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 will eliminate the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds. The Conservative government recognized that small and medium-sized businesses in Canada do not have enough venture capital to start up and bring their ideas and products to the market.

What solution did the Conservatives come up with? Strangely, they want to eliminate a tax credit that has been very effective in sustaining venture capital funds. This change makes no sense and it will hurt all Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular, as they represent 90% of the Canadians who use this tax credit and often put the shares directly into their retirement savings plans.

It is high time that the government reconsidered its ill-advised decision in light of the proposal supported by Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I would like to believe that the Conservatives have had a revelation, a eureka moment. Then they would understand that it is important to protect our workers. Unfortunately, if we look at Bill C-4, which I spoke about and which was introduced just before Bill C-5, and if we consider all of the measures that have been implemented by the Conservatives since they won a majority, I have a hard time believing that is the case.

I am not overly optimistic that this government will protect workers in sectors outside the gas and oil industries. Since the start of the Conservative mandate, workers in the federal public service in particular have become this government's scapegoats for absolutely everything. Measure after measure is being adopted to eliminate positions, reduce the quality of working conditions and so on, all because it is easy to do.

I would really like to see the Conservatives bring in more measures to improve working conditions for workers in all sectors, but that is not what we are accustomed to under this government. Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is just a one-off. However, I will give them the benefit of the doubt. We can only hope that things will improve and that the Conservatives will start listening to the workers in various sectors, the people they represent in their ridings. It will be up to the Conservatives to prove that they really have the best interests of Canadian workers at heart.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting Bill C-5 at second reading. Before beginning, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the extraordinary member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

The bill before us today is important. It is the result of negotiations that have gone on for a long time now, for more than 12 years in fact, between the governments of Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill seeks to remedy long-standing issues in existing legislation relating to health and safety standards in offshore areas, with regard to the oil and gas sector.

If passed, Bill C-5 will enshrine safety practices in legislation, and it will establish a framework that clarifies the individual and collective roles of the federal government, the provincial governments, regulatory agencies, operators, employers, suppliers and workers.

There are three key principles that underlie Bill C-5. First, the legislation relating to workplace health and safety must protect workers in offshore areas as well as workers on land. In addition, workers have the right to know, to participate, to refuse, to be protected from reprisal and to receive adequate protection. Finally, it is necessary to support an occupational health and safety culture that emphasizes shared responsibility in the workplace.

The NDP is proud to support Bill C-5, which will make it possible to establish a stronger system for the protection of workers, which the NDP has been demanding for a very long time now. Clearly, in our view, the bill still does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction just the same. That is why we are going to support it. We hope we will be able to work with our colleagues from all parties to improve the bill and ensure that in offshore areas the workers in the gas and oil sector will enjoy adequate workplace health and safety protection.

Quite frankly, I find it rather refreshing that the Conservatives are introducing a bill that provides greater protection for workers' rights. This is surprising. We are not used to seeing the government take this kind of approach—quite the opposite.

Indeed, since winning a majority, the Conservatives have introduced a growing number of measures to erode protections for workers and undermine their rights, which is very unfortunate. This represents a small change in direction. However, we should certainly not forget the various measures the government has taken to effectively undermine the protection regimes in place for our workers in various sectors.

I am particularly thinking of Bill C-377, an underhanded and mean-spirited bill designed to cripple Canadian unions by creating a massive bureaucracy they have to comply with, under the phony pretext of increasing the transparency of organizations. However, everyone knows full well that the Conservatives' real objective in introducing such a bill is to undermine the unions' ability to appropriately represent their members and defend their rights.

We know that the members opposite may find this concept difficult to understand, because in fact, none of them are participating in today's debate. We are talking about protecting workers and implementing very important measures to protect the people who work in the oil and gas industry—which the Conservatives care deeply about. However, they do not even bother to rise, to represent their constituents and defend the rights of workers.

However, they have no qualms whatsoever about introducing a growing number of measures to undermine the rights of workers in various industries. To be honest, this makes no sense at all.

I can mention another measure that attacked workers' rights, namely the special legislation passed by the Conservatives during the Canada Post lockout in June 2011. This legislation forced the employees back to work, obviously under worse conditions, while reducing their pensions and their protections, which were in fact acquired rights. The Conservatives gave themselves the power to gut certain measures that had been negotiated between the employer and employees. The Conservatives, however, clearly decided to circumvent all that.

This also brings to mind the recently tabled Bill C-4, which ironically weakens workers' health and safety protections. It also allows the minister to decide, unilaterally in a totally arbitrary way, which public services to designate essential, thus limiting the actions workers will be able to undertake to defend their rights or demand better working conditions.

Finally, who could forget how the Conservatives have gut the employment insurance system? They are leading a direct attack against seasonal workers all across the country. The Conservatives are not only failing Quebec and the eastern provinces: every part of the country will feel the impact of the employment insurance reform.

In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, not a day goes by without someone phoning or visiting our office because they are adversely affected by the EI reform, a reform the Conservatives pushed through without consulting the provinces, the territories or labour organizations.

All these examples illustrate the Conservatives' general attitude. Luckily, there is a tiny glimmer of hope now, since Bill C-5 would provide some workers with additional protections. Let us seize this ray of hope.

The NDP will support this bill. I must say again, though, how disappointed I am that the Conservatives are not taking part in the debate on Bill C-5. It may be that they have forgotten how debates work, or that they have no idea how to defend workers' rights, since they have never done it before. Why start now? Even though the Conservatives are introducing a bill about workers' rights, they are so close to big corporate bosses that they can no longer rise in the House and defend workers' rights, even when they should be standing up for their constituents.

NDP members will keep up the good work, doing their best to stand up for Canadians, including those the Conservatives should be standing up for. Today's debate is important. It is a shame so few government members are actually taking part in the debate.

Let us get back to Bill C-5. As I said earlier, this bill will improve the lives of offshore workers in some ways. However, it does have some shortcomings, the most significant of which is the fact that the government refused to create an independent, stand-alone safety regulator for the offshore zone. The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have repeatedly called for this, but the Conservative government refused at every stage of the 12 years of negotiations.

In his June 2010 report, the hon. Robert Wells made several recommendations, including recommendation 29, which he believed to be the most important one in the report. The recommendation called for the creation of a new, independent and stand-alone organization to regulate safety issues in the offshore. This organization would have to be distinct and independent from all other bodies regulating offshore activities and would be solely responsible for regulating safety issues. Similar organizations exist in Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. The United States is also considering setting up this type of body in the Gulf of Mexico. The Conservatives, however, have refused to even consider the idea. That is not how an NDP government would have handled things. We think it is important to create that kind of body. We will work toward that, which means that we will continue to pressure the government to create that kind of body, and we will continue to support our provincial partners as they work toward that goal, which is very important.

Various accidents and tragedies have occurred on our coasts, some of them fatal. Several of my colleagues have talked about that in the House, including my colleague from St. John's East. Despite everything, despite the Wells report and despite the fact that people from across the country have repeatedly asked the government for this, the government will not budge. Such an organization is not included in the bill and will not be created.

I think that is a shame because there are some measures in Bill C-5, measures that protect worker health and safety, that the NDP can support. We will be happy to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

It is not easy to take the floor after such a passionate speech. However, this is an issue that affects us all. Although Bill C-5 is especially important to the Atlantic provinces, we all have a role to play in the overall issue of workers' safety. We definitely need to do more to improve working conditions.

As my colleague said, it is unfortunate that other than this bill—and not to mention the fact that Bill C-4 is undoing some of the work of Bill C-5—the government is not listening to these concerns. I could list numerous examples to demonstrate why I am saying that.

The most important aspect for me is my own riding. When I am replying to people's letters or attending events, I often hear people saying that they get the impression that businesses in our communities are increasingly being given carte blanche. The example that comes to mind in the rail industry is this summer's tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. It is just one example of how deregulation can affect the public. I believe it is relevant because the issue of workers' safety is part of that domino effect.

The federal government is failing to provide leadership when it gives carte blanche to the oil and rail industries. Consequently, those industries will abandon their employees, the workers.

With that in mind, as legislators, it falls to us to ensure that regulations allow people to work in the safest environment possible. Will we ever ensure that 100% of people are protected and that there will be no workplace accidents? Of course not. There is always a potential for risk.

Still, that argument is not enough to convince us, as legislators, to abdicate our responsibilities. That is why we can be proud of the work done by various levels of government with respect to Bill C-5. This excellent example also proves to the government that it is a good idea to sit down with provincial governments from time to time to get results like the one before us today.

That being said, despite the good work that seems to have gone into this bill, it is important to note that there are still some shortcomings. The most significant of these is the absence of the well-known recommendation 29 from the Wells report, a recommendation that speaks to a situation that arises frequently with this government.

This recommendation sought to create an independent organization responsible for workplace safety. Every time anyone recommends setting up an independent organization to evaluate safety or anything else, the government seems to get nervous. We know how it treated the parliamentary budget officer, an independent officer of Parliament who had a job to do in Canadians' best interest. There are other examples too. I remember a bill on military police introduced about a year ago.

Even in that case, the government was not ready to include an independent ombudsman in the bill, a person who would have the power to conduct independent evaluations on behalf of the people. After all, as politicians, we are not always in a good position. Even within these institutions, and particularly within a company, people are not always equipped to make decisions that are not influenced by their own biases. That is why it is important to pay attention to this recommendation.

We would sure like to ask the government member why our recommendation was not included in the bill. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will get an answer unless a Conservative member finally decides to participate in the debate. Since returning to the House and since the Speech from the Throne marked the end of prorogation a few weeks ago, we have heard very little or nothing at all from government members about quite a few bills, including this one.

When the time comes to do our job as MPs, deal with such issues and speak to the shortcomings of a bill, even if we support it, we are unable to ask questions and to have a healthy debate. In the end, we are forced to point out flaws of a bill to government members who, in this case, remain silent.

The bill is at second reading stage. However, when we are in committee, I hope that we will hear more from government members and the parliamentary secretary who are on the committee. Our concerns might finally be addressed. Even though this is a step in the right direction, we would like to know why the government did not choose to follow through and implement all the recommendations in order to have a much tougher bill with respect to workers' rights.

When it comes to the rights, health and safety of workers, we cannot take half measures. However, we will not reject this half measure, as it does represent a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the NDP believes that we must implement all of the recommendations. We firmly believe in this philosophy, and we will put it in place when we form the government. If a recommendation is found to be lacking, we will at least rise in the House, out of respect for workers, and explain the government's viewpoint, or why some recommendations were set aside.

In conclusion, I would like to use my last two minutes to expand on a point that I made in my speech. This issue primarily affects my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces, but when it comes to the people of Chambly—Borduas, legislators have the mandate to protect not just oil company workers but also the people who work for any of the big businesses that we welcome into our community. That is my first concern about this bill.

These companies have a business to run and it is good for the economy to welcome them into our communities. However, in my opinion, as the MP for Chambly—Borduas, if these companies are going to set up shop in our communities, they must be good corporate citizens and respect the legislators' intent to implement regulations so that they understand that our constituents are the ones working for them and who make it possible for them to do their job and make a profit. It is a symbiotic relationship, a two-way street. In that respect, I do not think that we are asking for much.

We hope that they will agree to this type of proposal and that they will play an active role in it. We often hear what labour federations have to say on this subject, but it is important that the companies play an active role in the health and safety of their workers, who are the Canadians that I have the honour of representing.

It is extremely important.

I am now prepared to take questions from my colleagues.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech on safety, particularly in our offshore and in industry throughout Canada, was very passionate. I thank him for his kind remarks concerning my involvement in this.

I note the member talked about the recommendation of Mr. Justice Wells to have an independent safety regulator, what he called his “most important recommendation”. It was supported by the federations of labour in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador most strongly, but it is not implemented here.

I would point out another problem that we have discovered since the legislation has been tabled, which is the so-called “budget implementation act”, Bill C-4. I do not know what this has to do with budget implementation.

This bill is designed to give stronger powers to health and safety officers named in the act, with amendments to such in section 144 of the Canada Labour Code to give certain powers and immunities to health and safety officers. However, it is contradicted by Bill C-4, which also amends section 144, but, in fact, it takes the words “health and safety officers” entirely out of the Canada Labour Code and gives all of their powers to the minister or his delegates.

I am wondering about two things.

I know this is a technical point, but what does that say about the current government's approach to legislation when this bill, which is very much the same as Bill C-61 in the last Parliament and has been around a long time, can be thwarted by a budget implementation bill, one of these omnibus bills that would amend the Canada Labour Code and dozens of other acts? What does it say about the Conservative government's handling of these important matters?

[John Beckett]

No. It's interesting you refer to the chart. The chart actually refers to all work in Canada, where the injury rate has gone from 50 per 1,000 workers to 14.7 per 1,000 workers. The majority of that work is in the provincial jurisdiction, where the proposals in Bill C-4 exist already.

I take a little bit of faith in the fact that the general responsibility system is working well in most Canadian workplaces, which is no interference with government officials, so that these changes, from my perspective, will have no negative impact on the rights of workers to refuse work.

[John Farrell]

FETCO supports a tripartite process to review labour legislation. We are supporting certain...the provisions of this legislation, which we happen to agree with. The horse is out of the barn, and we're asked to respond to Bill C-4.

[John Beckett]

Okay.

My last comments are around improving the performance of the government system. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 remove the responsibility formerly delegated to health and safety officers and gives that responsibility to the minister.

FETCO supports the provisions in the proposed legislation that are designed to improve the efficiency and allocation of resources by the Minister of Labour. Those positive measures include allowing the combining of identical or substantially similar health and safety matters, and allowing the minister to rely on the findings of previous investigations.

[John Beckett, Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)]

Thank you.

I going to start with strengthening the internal responsibility system. The legal duties and responsibilities of employers, supervisors, and workers overlap and complement each other in the pursuit of the highest possible health and safety outcomes. Together they create what's known as the internal responsibility system. This concept is as fundamental in health and safety law as is the concept of due diligence. The internal responsibility system is a key component of a well-functioning occupational health and safety system that exists to ensure that workers are safe and their health is protected.

Inherent in the legislative system are mechanisms for workplace parties to resolve issues. Those mechanisms include shared rights and responsibilities. Employers are required to provide a safe workplace, and workers have rights to know, rights to participate, and rights to refuse dangerous work. Most importantly, the right to participate requires workers to do their utmost to ensure that the highest possible standards of health and safety are maintained in the context of each unique workplace.

Also inherent are engagement mechanisms for resolving issues as they arise. This is a shared responsibility of employers, employees, and the joint health and safety committees or the health and safety representatives.

Bill C-4 would improve the internal responsibility system. The employer and employee, and workplace safety representatives and health and safety committees, are required to work together to resolve issues at the workplace without the need for intervention of government-appointed health and safety officers. The primary mechanism to resolve workplace health and safety issues has always been the health and safety committee. Canadian employers and unions have invested heavily in the training and processes to ensure that health and safety committees are effective. Bill C-4 strengthens the role by requiring employers to engage both the employer and employee members in the assessment and resolution of unsafe work and work refusals.

I now turn to the changes to the definition of danger. The definition of danger is changed in Bill C-4 to “an imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person”. The definition does not diminish the right of employees to refuse unsafe work, nor will it diminish protection provided by the Canada Labour Code.

The current broad definition invites an assessment of speculative risk based on potential hazards for future activities that inevitably contribute to unnecessary work refusals. Speculation about unsafe conditions that do not pose an imminent or serious danger should be resolved by the workplace parties through the health and safety committees without the need to exercise the right to refuse or government intervention.

Now, refusing dangerous work is not something either party takes lightly. The current process is a three-step process that involves the workplace parties. This process is enhanced in Bill C-4 by requiring written documentation by the employer, and it enhances the role of the health and safety committee in resolving work refusals. You have been given a slide that explains the revised system and how it would work by comparing the existing and proposed processes. I'd be happy to review that during the question period, if asked.

The first step in the process to resolve or refuse requires the workers to contact their supervisor and indicate their concerns. The majority of refusals are resolved at this stage. If not, the next step engages the health and safety committee to do further investigations and make recommendations. This is the mechanism in the internal responsibility system designed to have workplace parties resolve issues. The proper role of government is to intervene only when the internal responsibility system fails. This has not been the case in the federal sector. Too often, labour affairs officers have been injected into the process too early, which undermines the responsibility of employers, employees, and their representatives to seek appropriate solutions together.

The workplace parties are better equipped to assess and manage these risks than health and safety officers, because the assessment of health and safety risks often requires specific expertise and technical knowledge about sector-specific workplaces. There are many examples of early inappropriate intervention by health and safety officers that diminish the effectiveness of the federal health and safety regulatory system.

Asking government officials to intervene in speculative risks is asking them to become experts on issues where evidence is often minimal or non-existent. That is the responsibility of the workplace parties.

In the provincial jurisdictions, the ministers of labour and workers compensation boards have developed protocols that are similar to those proposed in Bill C-4 to ensure that there is minimal interference in the workplace health and safety internal responsibility system. Danger is not defined in most provincial jurisdictions. Where it is defined, it is defined narrowly as an imminent danger to life and health.

[John Farrell]

Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee, for allowing us to address you today regarding Bill C-4.

My name is John Farrell, and I'm the executive director of FETCO. I'm accompanied by John Beckett, who is the vice-president of training, safety and recruitment for the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, and the chairman of the FETCO occupational health and safety committee. He is also the employer spokesperson on employment and social development Canada's regulatory review committee, and a member of the council of governors of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

FETCO consists of most of the major federally regulated employers in transportation and communications and represents 450,000 employees in the federal jurisdiction.

FETCO first became aware of the proposed changes to part II of the Canada Labour Code after Bill C-4 was introduced in the House of Commons. We attended a meeting of ESDC's regulatory review committee. The regulatory review committee is a tripartite process based on a consultative model and allows both employers and labour representatives to provide expertise and guidance to the labour program with the objective of continually improving health and safety in federal workplaces.

FETCO supports the proposed changes because they strengthen the internal responsibility system, improve the overall efficiency and management of health and safety—they have safety officers in the field—and will strengthen the role of health and safety committees.

We'll now look at each of these components of the proposed legislation in more detail. I'll turn over that responsibility to John Beckett.

[Bob Kingston, National President, Agriculture Union]

My focus will be on the presentation that was done on the 19th. I believe that this committee and the minister have been ill-served by some of the information that has been coming out about its shortcomings.

What you heard from the department was incomplete, would be the politest way I can say it. These are not just my opinions; these are facts. You can verify every one of them yourself.

First, on the right to refuse being unchanged, it is still there. As was already referenced, the minister now has the right in the proposed amendments to dismiss without investigation. That is simply unheard of in any jurisdiction. This is a first, and it's a shocking first.

You can find that on page 180 of Bill C-4 in subclause182—

[Chris Aylward, National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. My name is Chris Aylward, and I am the national executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Bill C-4 would change health and safety protections that were put in place in 2000 after extensive consultation with labour, employers, and government. This time there has been no consultation with workers or employers or to our knowledge with federal health and safety officers. The regulatory review committee, a tripartite body that addresses emerging health and safety concerns in the federal sector, has received no complaints about the administration of the code, nor has the minister's advisory committee or the labour operations practice committee.

Our first concern is that the new vaguely worded definition of danger will result in a very narrow interpretation of what is considered to be a workplace danger.

Courts typically take a cautious approach to interpreting the definition of danger. The jurisprudence interpreting the definition of danger has evolved in the last 13 years. This jurisprudence would have no value if the definition of danger were fundamentally altered.

Our previous experience with the term “imminent” shows that it has been interpreted to mean “almost immediate”.

For our border services officers and our park wardens, the bullets would have to be whizzing over their heads for the danger to be deemed imminent. Gone is the recognition that the outcome of exposure to a hazard might not occur immediately. Gone too is the explicit language that recognizes that a worker's reproductive system is worth protecting from potential threats.

We are also concerned about the new section that allows the minister to stop further investigation of a work refusal, where she deems that refusal to be trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

First, an employer could discipline workers who fear for their health and safety without an impartial investigation taking place first. This fear of reprisal would undoubtedly deter refusals to work and endanger workers.

Second, there would be no statutory right of appeal of the minister's decision. That would effectively undermine the right to refuse dangerous work. All that would be left is a narrow scope of review by the court. Judicial review, by its nature, is deferential to the first level decision-maker, in this case the minister or her delegate.

Third, workplace health and safety committees are proven mechanisms to address ongoing workplace concerns. Bill C-4 would eliminate any incentive for an employer to do meaningful consultation and collaboration on workplace issues. The employer could refer such matters to the Minister of Labour, who could silence all health and safety concerns by saying the concerns were trivial.

We have heard it said that these measures in Bill C-4 were prompted by the fact that 80% of all work refusals and appeals result in decisions of no danger. The implication is that the current definition of danger is too broad.

Decisions of no danger don't mean there isn't a problem. Decisions of no danger could just mean that the danger was less serious. In many cases, decisions of no danger were also accompanied by directions written to employers to comply with the law. In other cases, employers were asked to give assurances of voluntary compliance. In the last two years, more than 5,000 assurances for voluntary compliance have been issued per year. The link between these assurances and decisions of no danger is what this committee really needs to consider.

Another concern is that the bill would change all references to “health and safety officers” to “the minister” and allow the minister to delegate her powers to anyone she deems qualified. The current health and safety officers are neutral, trained, and specialized. They have the authority to monitor workplaces and issue directions. They help make sure employers take their responsibilities seriously and don't cut corners that could inadvertently harm their workers. With the new provisions, they could be replaced with ad hoc private entrepreneurs. These entrepreneurs would be dependent on the government for their next contract and would be reluctant to issue a direction against it. There is very strong evidence that actual citations and penalties reduce the frequency or severity of injuries in the workplace.

In the last several years, the ratio of employees to federal inspectors has increased dramatically as the number of inspectors has steadily been reduced. In 2005, the ratio of employees to federal inspectors was 6,607:1. In 2007, it was 8,057:1.

Finally, I want to say a word about virtual inspections. Clause 212 of Bill C-4 will allow the minister to electronically administer or enforce the provisions of the code.

Let's put this in context. We've steadily lost health and safety officers across the country. There are more demands for intervention, and the officers have new administrative burdens and pressure from management to do the work from their desks to save travel dollars.

Realistically, how can an officer investigate a safety complaint without meeting with the parties in the workplace to assess the circumstances? Where is the data that shows replacing a visual inspection with a virtual inspection won't lead to an increase in injuries or loss of life on the job.

In conclusion, we ask that the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code be withdrawn from Bill C-4. Any proposed changes should be subject to thorough tripartite consultation before any legislation is introduced.

Thank you.

[Hassan Yussuff]

In the interests of time, I will conclude.

In summary, the changes contained in Bill C-4 serve to: water down protection for workers from dangerous work by redefining "dangerous work" to the most narrow definition possible; render less effective the legislative measures to deal with dangerous work and work refusals under the unproven guise of improving effectiveness; undermine the system of accountability and enforcement that keeps workplaces safe; and place the lives of workers in the federal sector needlessly at risk.

Thank you so much.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress and its 3.3 million members, I want to thank you for providing this opportunity for us to summarize the impact of Bill C-4, the provisions that make changes to the occupational health and safety regime for workers under federal jurisdiction as defined in the Canada Labour Code, division V.

The health and safety changes to the Canada Labour Code should be taken out of Bill C-4 in their entirety. If the government believes the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code should be amended, it should respect the tripartite process that has effectively operated for decades in this area. We are not aware of federally regulated employers or unions requesting these changes that would gut the principle of the right to refuse dangerous work, making it the weakest in the country. This is of particular concern given Canada's commitment to ILO convention 187.

By redefining “dangerous work” in the code, clause 176 of the bill basically narrows the scope of application that allows workers to exercise their right to refuse dangerous work. The right to refuse work would now only apply to workplace conditions that cause so-called “imminent or serious threat” to the worker. The right to refuse would no longer apply to conditions that pose future dangers, such as exposure to hazardous substances, such as asbestos or cancer-causing chemicals, or those that cause reproductive harm and create mutagenic effects, which are changes that can be passed on to other generations through genetic mutation.

The proposed new definitions will have the effect of setting aside decades of jurisprudence that has clarified the meaning of dangerous work. The new wording opens the door to years of possible legal haggling before implementation can take place.

Changes in clause 180 of Bill C-4 would remove many of the powers of health and safety officers to review or investigate complaints and recommend remedial actions from employers to stop intolerable conditions. These changes would transfer powers to the minister instead, thus creating a new time-consuming bureaucratic hurdle. Many decisions will now be exercised through political direction, at the whim of the politicians of the day.

Subclause 182(1) would give power to the minister to not undertake an investigation, and provides no avenue of appeal for the worker.

Subclause 181(2) would transfer the employer's responsibility to initiate formal investigations over to the workplace health and safety committee, or to the health and safety representative. Ironically, subclause 181(1) of the bill repeals the very part of the code that currently empowers the health and safety committee to require employers to stop dangerous activities until rectified.

Therefore, more responsibilities would now be vested in the committees while at the same time eliminating its powers to effectively act. The linchpin in the authority of health and safety officers to investigate is thus undermined by the new discretionary power vested in the minister.

To a large extent the bill eliminates the flexibility in the current law that takes into account the diverse dimensions of federal workplaces. The new provisions would eliminate flexibility in responding to dangerous work, and introduces the possibility of unnecessary delays.

For example, a current option to involve the workplace health and safety committee in an investigation would now become a strict requirement. However, there are many workplaces where a health and safety committee or health and safety representative are not present.

In like manner, clause 181 will amend the code to require a written report of the employer after investigating a refusal to work, an unnecessary step that only can delay important decision-making.

The government states that these changes will enhance the effectiveness of what it calls the internal responsibility system, the IRS, which is set up to encourage worker-employer cooperation for solving health and safety issues through predefined procedures. The suggested changes will not improve the effectiveness.

The government also claims that in the last 10 years, 80% of refusal cases have turned out not to be dangerous, and thus the reason for these amendments. However, no review, no audit, and no research by the department has been made public for stakeholders to assess. Our requests to the government for such information continue to fall on deaf ears.

We are aware of only one government audit in this area, and the conclusions are known to be faulty. The audit tallied refusals where inspectors had not found a strictly defined requirement for immediate action. Not included in the audit were the number and types of orders that inspectors nevertheless issued as a result of investigating the same refusals, which are important to include, as they are indicators of health and safety violations.

Nevertheless, despite the government's assertion that 80% of cases found no danger, by their standards, one in five cases were determined to be dangerous. Is the government really willing to risk the lives of 20% of workers in the sector found to be in dangerous work situations?

In principle, we agree that work refusal should be better understood, with a view to focus on the most serious cases, but setting priorities, including changing legislation, should be based on reliable and verifiable data. Indeed, reliable data clearly shows that the current regulatory framework is associated with reduction of injuries.

Mr. Chair, I must express disappointment in the government's handling of these proposed changes. Until now, Canada has been a model in the international community for its commitment to tripartite decision-making and consultation with respect to health and safety. Neither we nor the employers, nor any credible stakeholder party to the regulatory review processes overseen by the HRSDC labour program either knew about or had the chance to review the proposed changes prior to the introduction of the bill. We are left to wonder who called for these changes and in whose interests do they serve.

This is all the more disturbing when one considers Canada's ratification two years ago of the ILO convention 187, which is a new framework for occupational health and safety. In its report submitted to the ILO earlier this month, our government unabashedly referred to Canada Labour Code, part II, as it currently exists, to show its compliance to that convention. In that convention, Canada is committed to undertake measures in full consultation with stakeholders through tripartite processes. The government has dismally failed to do so by proposing unilateral amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today we're continuing our study on the subject matter of clauses 176 to 238, divisions 5 and 6 of part 3 of Bill C-4 , a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

For our first hour today we have witnesses from a number of organizations. We have Mr. Chris Aylward from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and appearing with him is Mr. Bob Kingston. We also have Mr. John Beckett and Mr. John Farrell from FETCO, Mr. Hassan Yussuff and Mr. Jeff Bennie from the Canadian Labour Congress, and Dr. Katherine Lippel from the University of Ottawa.

Panellists, because we have limited time, one hour, and we're squeezing four different panellists into the presentations, I'd ask you if you could to limit your comments to a maximum of seven minutes. Five minutes would be better, as it would give us more time for questions. You can judge accordingly, but I am going to be very strict on the time and not allow you to go over seven minutes.

We will start with Mr. Yussuff, if you're speaking on behalf of your group.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I apologize, but the time is up.

That was a very interesting panel. Thank you so much for being with us. If you have anything further you wish to submit to the committee, please do so. We look forward to seeing some of you here again on Bill C-4.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Jim Stanford, Economist, Unifor]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting Unifor to your hearings.

We agree with the supposition of the meeting that economic growth and job creation are the central goals and should be the central goals of a federal budget policy.

Unifor is Canada's largest trade union in the private sector of the economy. We represent over 300,000 members in over 20 different sectors. We were formed earlier this year through the merger of the former Canadian Auto Workers and the Communications, Energy and Paper Workers. I do want to recognize my colleague with me today, Dave Moffat, assistant to the president of Unifor and the top negotiator and official in charge of our energy, communications, and media sectors.

I must make one note regarding process. I know that in addition to these pre-budget hearings your committee is also investigating the current budget implementation bill, Bill C-4. Representatives from Unifor will appear before you next week to express our views on certain aspects of that legislation, but we do want to register as an organization our concerns regarding the process by which these budget omnibus bills, such as C-4, are being used to change far-flung pieces of legislation that have no direct relation to a budget bill. In our judgment, some of the issues tackled by your committee through the C-4 hearings should be considered more directly and fulsomely through a normal legislative process.

On the issue at hand about economic growth and job creation, we have a written submission that has been distributed. Let me briefly highlight four points from the written document, and I refer you to the document for more details.

First of all, in terms of the status of Canada's overall labour market, it is often claimed that our labour market has done very well, sometimes supported by discussion about absolute increase in employment or percentage growth in employment. That is not the best way to measure labour market performance either over time or across countries, for the simple reason that we also have to take into account growth in the working age population, which is the pool of workers who are available for those jobs. A better measure is the employment rate, which considers the level of employment relative to growth and labour in the working-age population, which is relatively rapid in Canada's case. We have one of the fastest rates of population growth in the developed world.

In that regard, I'll refer you to figure 1 at the end of our brief, which shows the evolution of the employment rate in Canada since the years before the recession to present. As the recession hit, the employment rate fell rapidly, by 2.5 percentage points of the working-age population. That was the most dramatic and rapid decline in the employment rate since the 1930s. With the initial stimulus effort, fiscal and monetary interventions and other measures, that recuperated in the first year and a half of the recovery by about half of a percentage point, or about one-fifth of the way back. What's very important to note, though, is that since late 2010, for three years now, there's been no increase in the employment rate at all, so from a jobs market perspective relative to our population growth, the recovery has completely stalled. This picture is in fact a perfect L. In regard to my colleague's presentation recently about an L-shaped recovery, this is a perfect L. The only reason the unemployment rate has declined gradually over the last three years is the decline in labour force participation, which is nothing to be proud of.

I'll also refer you to table 1 at the back of the brief, which compares Canada's performance in the employment rate to the other industrialized countries of the world. Again, if we adjust for the differential population growth rates in different countries, Canada does not rank at the top, or even near the top. We rank 20th out of 34 countries in terms of the change in the employment rate from 2008, when the recession hit, to 2012 most recently. This shows that the argument of our labour market problem being one of a mismatch between available workers and available jobs, or certainly a shortage of workers or even a shortage of skills workers, is quite misplaced. That is a misdiagnosis of the problem and could lead to incorrect policy responses, including some of the measures the federal government has taken clearly aimed at trying to push a labour supply, whether that's temporary migrants, or changes to the EI rules, or other measures. In fact, I would argue there are over 20 unemployed Canadians effectively for every available job vacancy.

The general thrust of fiscal policy should be to address the main problem in the job market, which is a lack of jobs. So it's job creation and an expansionary program, and we have five dimensions of that written in the brief. In general, I think the continued emphasis on fiscal austerity, which has been indicated by the finance minister, is quite misplaced. We will balance the budget a year early; we will underspend our budgets in several key areas; and then we will further decline program spending relative to GDP in the years even after a balanced budget.

That is a very hollow victory at a moment when over two million Canadians are effectively unemployed. I think the continuing decline in program spending as a share of GDP after the balanced budget has been attained will reduce our GDP growth by up to half a point of GDP a year. I think that continuing austerity is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

Thank you for having us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'd like to call this meeting back to order. I would ask our witnesses and colleagues to find seats as soon as possible, please. Thank you. I'm sorry, but we're very tight on time today.

Colleagues, briefly, have you had a chance to review this budget? Are there any questions? This is for Bill C-4. The amount requested is $26,400. Are there any concerns about it?

Ms. Nash.

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

Thank you very much.

I am going to ask Mr. Lavoie, Ms. Kozhaya and Ms. Labrecque all the same question.

As you know, Bill C-4, which we will begin studying next week, contains a government measure to eliminate the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds. The measure is especially relevant for Quebec, since 90% of the tax credit goes to Quebec funds.

Where do your respective organizations stand on the subject? In your view, how important are labour-sponsored venture capital funds to Quebec's economy? What do you recommend as far as this measure is concerned?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

We can start this fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Thank you all for being here today.

According to our agenda, we'll spend the first hour studying the possibility of suggesting amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance. In the second hour of our meeting, witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will join us for an information session, which will be followed by a question and answer period.

For this first hour of our meeting, which will run until noon, I'd like to remind everyone that on November 5, the Standing Committee on Finance sent us a letter inviting us, should the committee so wish, to convey our recommendations, including any suggested amendments in relation to clauses 174 and 175 and 290 to 293 of Bill C-4.

In carrying out its work, the committee may choose to hear witnesses—which we did in the last two meetings— may choose to recommend changes or propose amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance, which will then take these into consideration during its clause-by-clause study of Bill C-4.

For the first hour of the meeting, we have with us Mr. McNamee, Director, Immigration Strategies and Analysis, Ms. Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, Ms. Imrie, Director General, Passport Program Transition Office, and Ms. Dikranian, Senior Analyst, Passport Program Transition Office. Thank you for being here this morning.

These witnesses are here to answer questions and provide clarification on any topic that may influence our decision to send amendments, suggested amendments or suggested changes to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Honourable members of the committee, the floor is yours. I'm waiting to see if you have any suggested amendments to send to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The time we have doesn't let us take full advantage of your expertise, and that's too bad, because these are very important issues.

Last Tuesday, I asked the minister the following question, but I didn't really get an answer. According to Professor Dodek, it is problematic that clauses 471 and 472 were submitted to Parliament at the same time as a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada took place. Bill C-4 needs the Minister of Justice's agreement, and it needs to be established that it complies with Canada's constitutional laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular. At the same time, the minister checks with the Supreme Court to see whether these two provisions are compliance.

Do you think that constitutes a problem?

My question is for all three witnesses. Let's start with Professor Pelletier.

[Pierre Thibault, Assistant Dean and Counsel, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, hon. members, thank you for inviting me to give testimony before you today on clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4.

In order to stay on time, I will first look at the scope of the proposed amendments and then briefly talk about why sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act cannot be amended on a purely legislative basis.

Last October 22, the Minister of Justice of Canada introduced declaratory amendments to the Supreme Court Act. According to those amendments, a barrister or advocate with at least 10 years standing at a bar can be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In terms of Quebec, barristers or advocates who have been members of the Barreau du Québec for more than 10 years can also be appointed to the Supreme Court. It should be noted that this is not a formal amendment to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act, but rather a declaration by the Government of Canada and subsequently by the Parliament of Canada if Bill C-4 is passed. That is how those two sections will be interpreted.

As Professor Pierre-André Côté explains, the legislator sometimes passes declaratory legislation. This is what he says:

No formal constitutional provisions prevent the legislature from at times interpreting its own legislation, although this is in principle the responsibility of the courts. Interpretive or declaratory acts serve “...to remove doubts existing as to common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute”.

Furthermore, it is important to point out that a declaratory piece of legislation applies retroactively. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled on the Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd. case. This was in 2013. Justice Wagner, who is from Quebec, wrote the following for the majority:

It is settled law in Canada that it is within the prerogative of the legislature to enter the domain of the courts and offer a binding interpretation of its own law by enacting declaratory legislation... In enacting declaratory legislation, the legislature assumes the role of a court and dictates the interpretation of its own law...As a result, declaratory provisions operate less as legislation and more as jurisprudence. They are akin to binding precedents, such as the decision of a court...Such legislation may overrule a court decision in the same way that a decision of this Court would take precedence over a previous line of lower court judgments on a given question of law. It is also settled law that declaratory provisions have an immediate effect on pending cases, and are therefore an exception to the general rule that legislation is prospective. 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...

Chief Justice McLachlin points out the impact of declaratory provisions. She agrees with Justice Fish on this point, although she disagreed with him in this decision. She says:

I agree with my colleague Wagner J. that the legislature has the power to enact declaratory provisions which have a retroactive effect, and that such provisions apply to all pending cases.

With respect to those who think differently, I feel that Parliament is fully entitled to pass declaratory provisions. In that regard, I think clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4 are perfectly valid.

The second issue I would like to address is the amendment to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act, the amendment to section 6 in particular.

This section has been amended seven times since 1875, basically because of technicalities, with the exception of the 1949 amendment, which increased the number of judges from Quebec to three. In 1985, when the last amendment was made and when the legislation was revamped mostly with technical amendments, the words “Court of Appeal” replaced “Court of Queen's Bench”. Let me draw your attention to two unsuccessful attempts at making major amendments in 1987 and 1992.

With the advent of the Meech Lake accord in 1987, an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 was proposed to incorporate sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act by adding something about the territories and federal courts. Subsection (1) of the new section 101B stated:

Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.

Subsection (2) stated:

At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.

This constitutional amendment was supposed to clarify the situation of federal court judges. It also meant that the legislator or the constitutional constituent did not intend to exclude territory and federal court justices from being appointed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this provision never came into force, because the Meech Lake accord was not duly ratified by the legislative assemblies of Newfoundland and Manitoba within the required timeframe.

The same provision was reconsidered in the Charlottetown accord, to no avail. This time it was because of the October 1992 referendum when Canadians and Quebeckers said no.

However, those attempts at amending the Constitution enable us to draw two conclusions about section 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

First, it is not unreasonable to think that this is a constitutional provision. However, we must point out that the doctrine is divided. Professors Peter Hogg and Benoît Pelletier, my colleague, feel that the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada can be amended through legislation by the Parliament of Canada, basically because the Supreme Court Act is not mentioned in the schedule referred to in section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In their work entitled Droit constitutionnel, professors Brun, Tremblay and Brouillet feel that the composition of the Supreme Court, including the civil law component, is protected under the Constitution. That is also the opinion of Professor Monahan and of Warren Newman, a Government of Canada lawyer who has expressed his personal view in a scholarly article published a few years ago. Mr. Newman's conclusion was that the civil law component of the Supreme Court is protected and that an amendment to section 6 of the Supreme Court Act would require the consent of the 10 provincial legislative assemblies and of the Government of Canada.

As a result, I feel it is accurate to conclude that federal court judges could be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In our view, that is an accurate interpretation, whether teleologically speaking, as my colleague Benoît Pelletier pointed out, or broadly speaking, as a constitutional provision must be interpreted.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in the next few minutes.

Thank you.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Are you politicizing the Supreme Court of Canada by putting the answers you want to hear into Bill C-4? Are you aware that you are not complying with the separation of powers? The basis of our entire democratic system is now at stake.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Look, that may well be. The fact remains that we want to expedite the process and get the result, and the result means having a full complement of judges.

There are only nine judges. They have a tremendous workload. There are tremendously important cases, including a Senate reference that you're aware of, for which we want to have, and pardon this expression, but all of the horses in harness pulling and doing the work that we've asked of them. They're currently short-handed. The reason that we put this declaratory provision in the BIA was to do it as quickly as possible. As you know, our legislation is denoted with numbers. This is Bill C-4, meaning this was the fourth bill brought before Parliament in this session. It was the earliest opportunity that we could bring this matter before the House of Commons, and ultimately the Senate.

That was the path we chose. Could it have been done in a stand-alone way? Yes. It probably would have taken longer. This was a way to expedite this process, ultimately get what we think is a very straightforward decision, a similar decision from the court. Then this Supreme Court justice, this very eminently qualified individual, will take his place on the bench and they can get on with their very important work with all of the judges in place.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Minister. I am not as grateful to you for the situation we find ourselves in concerning an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada.

When Professor Dodek testified here this week, he raised quite an interesting point. He wondered how you could do these two things at the same time. I am sure you will tell me it is a matter of your authority to do so.

Bill C-4 has been tabled in the House of Commons. In your capacity as Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice, all government bills receive your seal of approval indicating that they are in compliance with the legislation, the regulations and the Constitution. I doubt that you let Bill C-4 through without having consulted all the people in your department and done all the usual checks.

At the same time, you are submitting a reference to the Supreme Court in which you ask about the government's jurisdiction.

That's the question you're asking the Supreme Court of Canada:

Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2?

Back to Professor Dodek, how can you claim with Bill C-4 when it's filed in the House that it is in order, but at the same time ask the Supreme Court whether you are in order? I have a bit of a problem seeing some logic between the two.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Yes. Thank you very much, colleagues, and Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here with Laurie Wright to speak to you about the declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act proposed in division 19, part 3 of Bill C-4, and the Economic Action Plan 2013, No. 2.

Colleagues, these declaratory provisions have been introduced to clarify the most basic criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court and are the same regardless of the appointee's province or region, and to ensure that any future government can continue to draw from the ranks of the most talented and experienced jurists who currently sit on Canada's federal courts in filling vacancies on the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Chair, esteemed colleagues, I am hopeful that public consideration of these provisions in Parliament will also help the public to better understand the work of the federal courts and remove any doubt as to the eligibility and suitability of its judges for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, including as members of the court for Quebec.

Colleagues, in the government's view, the eligibility of the federal court judges to fill any vacancy on the Supreme Court should not be in doubt. It is solidly supported by legal opinion prepared by respected former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie, which itself was supported by his former colleague, the Honourable Louise Charron, as well as by noted constitutional expert, Professor Peter Hogg.

However, as you are no doubt aware, Mr. Chair, colleagues, despite the weight of legal 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 for Quebec. In order to resolve this critical matter as soon as possible, the government is proceeding on two fronts.

As you know, the matter is referred to the Supreme Court of Canada to confirm, first, the meaning of the statute, and second, Parliament's authority to enact legislation that requires that a person be, or has previously been, a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years’ standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or to enact the declaratory provisions under consideration here today before you.

On the other front, the Economic Action Plan 2013, No. 2 was determined to be the most expeditious and most efficient way of introducing declaratory provisions and ensuring that they are enacted on time to guarantee that federal court judges can be considered in the process of filling upcoming Supreme Court vacancies, the first of which arises next April.

These declaratory provisions clarify—without making substantive changes to the existing law—that individuals with at least 10 years at any bar in Canada, including the Quebec bar, at any time during their career, are eligible to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.

It's very straightforward language.

Mr. Chair, I would like to stop here for a moment and make the point that it may appear a bit technical, but it is of central importance to this committee's consideration of clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4. The provisions that these clauses introduce differ in quality and, consequently, in effect from the types of statutory amendments generally considered and debated by Parliament or by a committee such as this. These provisions are declaratory in nature and, as such, they do not amend the Supreme Court Act in the way that a standard statutory amendment would.

Typically, statutory amendments enact new provisions or change existing provisions in a way that makes the result different in substance from the provisions they would replace, modify, or amend. The nature of the proposed declaratory provisions is to explain the proper interpretation of the law from the time it came into force and effect.

Essentially, it is language that adds to the meaning in a way that will bring about greater understanding.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently explained the impact of declaratory provisions in its 2013 decision in Régie des rentes du Québec v. Canada Bread Company Ltd. The court stated in that case:

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.

In keeping with the purpose of a declaratory provision, clauses 471 and 472 confirm the basic requirement that judges must meet to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. These provisions will make it clear that the current wording of these sections does, in fact, allow for judges of the Federal Court to fill Quebec vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada, as long as at some point in their legal career they had been members of the Quebec bar for a minimum of 10 years. This ensures that current and former members of the Quebec bar are treated in the same way as current and former members of any other province. So it is to keep consistency and parity with all provincial bar associations.

I should explain, Mr. Chair, that the wording of these provisions has changed very slightly over the course of the past century as a function of legislative revision and consolidated exercises performed for all federal statues. However, there have been no substantive changes. We're talking about changes here after a considerable period of time for the purposes of clarification.

Successive pieces of legislation empowering Parliament have established that any changes that occur during these revision exercises are not intended to be substantive. The rule reflects an important principle. Given Parliament's role in enacting the laws of Canada, it should be inappropriate for mere housekeeping matters to change the law.

This principle is reflected as well in long-established rules of statutory interpretation that routine statutory revision and consolidation do not result in substantive legislative amendments.

That's what we're talking about here today. It is not a substantive change but a declaratory statement to clarify existing law.

Mr. Chair, I want to point out as well that the appointment of federal court judges to the Supreme Court of Canada is in no way novel. Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein, a current and esteemed member of the court, was a member of the Manitoba Bar, appointed to the Federal Court, then to the Federal Court of Appeal and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006. Before him, Justices Frank Iacobucci and Gerald Le Dain, both members of the Ontario Bar, followed the same route to the Supreme Court.

It should be neither surprising nor unexpected that Supreme Court vacancies have in the past been filled from the ranks of Federal Court judges. This is not without precedent.

Experience in the Federal Court enhances rather than negates a long-time advocate's qualification to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada. I say that because the Supreme Court regularly hears appeals from decisions of the federal courts. In 2012 alone, the Supreme Court heard 10 appeals from decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal, as compared to 15 from the much larger Court of Appeal of Québec.

As I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Chair, it has been suggested in particular that judges of the Federal Court ought not to be appointed given the requirement under section 6 of the Supreme Court Act that three of the nine judges of the Supreme Court be appointed from Quebec.

The argument is that since Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction where the Quebec civil code applies, only those who practise law in Quebec at the time the appointment must be filled or who sit on a Quebec superior court are qualified. However, Mr. Chair, this argument is demonstrably without merit, not least because it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the work of the federal courts.

Let me explain. Judges of the Federal Court have jurisdiction over a wide and diverse area of law, and the principle of bijuralism means that they must regularly apply federal law in accordance with legal rules and principles in force in the province from which it arises.

For matters arising from Quebec this means that judges of courts, like the Federal Court of Appeal, must routinely interpret Quebec's civil code in deciding matters arising in complex and diverse areas such as tax law, copyright, and bankruptcy. That is why, like the Supreme Court Act, the Federal Court Act requires that there be a minimum number of judges on the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal who have also been members of the bar from Quebec at any time. There are ten on the Federal Court and five on the Federal Court of Appeal. In essence, it's the same type of composition. There is mandatory membership on the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal from Quebec.

The object of this statutory requirement is precisely the same as that of section 6 of the Supreme Court Act. It is to ensure that those courts have the requisite bijural capacity to deal with matters that arise from both civilian and the common law systems that define our system of administration of justice. To exclude the eminent Quebec jurists appointed to the Federal Court in satisfaction of such a requirement for consideration for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, and satisfaction of an essentially similar requirement, evidently makes no sense. Indeed, it could only serve, in my estimation, to weaken the guarantee provided by section 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

Moreover, as the Hon. Robert Décary, former justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, has recently and eloquently observed (in La Presse on October 25, 2013), to suggest that a judge of the federal courts trained in civil law does not have the level of expertise in civil law that section 6 is intended to protect is to ignore the practical reality of Canada's, and the world's, legal landscape. In his words, Quebec's civil law:

…has made its mark in the world. It borrows from common law and it lends to common law.

Which lawyer or judge in Quebec can claim today to live exclusively in the world of classic civil law? Divorce law is federal. Our administrative, criminal and penal law is Anglo-Saxon in inspiration. Commercial law is increasingly international. Human rights are global rights.

In addition, Mr. Chair, and to conclude, taking a restrictive interpretation of section 6 of the Supreme Court Act would exclude not only judges from the Federal Court but also many other candidates from appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. For example, judges of La Cour du Québec would be excluded as they are neither judges of the Superior Court or the Court of Appeal, nor are they currently advocates. This restrictive interpretation would lead to an absurd result that has been noted by other constitutional experts. Later this morning, I understand, you'll hear from Professor Benoît Pelletier. In an interview on Radio-Canada on October 23, he stated:

The interpretation that prevails, I believe, or should prevail, when one looks at the spirit of the provision is that you just need to have been a member of the bar for 10 years, but you do not have to still be one today.

Mr. Chair, by taking this legislative step and also by referring this question to the Supreme Court of Canada, our government is defending the eligibility of members of the bar in all provinces and territories to sit on the highest court of the land. Members of the Quebec bar should be, and are under law, treated the same as lawyers in other provinces and territories in Canada.

Our government looks forward to a prompt, conclusive resolution of these questions ensuring the continued eligibility for appointment to the Supreme Court of eminent jurists of Canada's federal courts. This could only help ensure that the Supreme Court will maintain the long tradition of independence and excellence that has made it the envy of both the developed and developing democracies.

Mr. Chair, I thank you for your indulgence.

I'd be pleased, of course, to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number six of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the subject matter under clauses 471 and 472 of BillC-4 a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.

Our first witness today is our minister, the Hon. Peter MacKay, and with him from the Department of Justice is Laurie Wright, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Public Law.

We have the minister for about an hour.

Is there any opening comment you would like to make, Minister?

[Sari Sairanen]

I have certainly not used the word “catastrophic”. Those are your words. However, we do oppose the changes to the health and safety provisions contained in Bill C-4.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I'm moving forward now, Mr. Chair, on Bill C-4.

I have a quote from Mr. Dias, from a Unifor press release. It's on Bill C-4. They say, “The government should look to strengthen health and safety provisions, not destroy them.”

Do you agree with that quote?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is clearly not a question about the issue and the study we are having right now. We're talking about Bill C-4. We're talking about specific articles of this bill, about health and safety issues.

I think my honourable colleague here just wants to make political points and embarrass the witnesses. It's not fair and it's not the job of this committee.

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

Thank you.

When the staff came to talk to us on Bill C-4, they talked about 80% being frivolous, and yet we know that there is no data available for voluntary compliance, and that a lot of those issues do occur. And my experience—I agree with you—in my previous life has been that normally people will carry on working in places where there could be danger. It takes a lot of education, and a lot of courage to take that next step.

Changes to the definition of the word “danger” are puzzling to me. We're saying it's not really going to change anything. I usually think if it isn't going to change anything...

[Sari Sairanen, Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Unifor is the largest private sector union, with 300,000 members, with over 80,000 women and men working in the federal sector, which includes rail, transportation, airlines, and communications, just to name a few. On behalf of our members, we are concerned that Bill C-4 is not consistent with enhancing workplace protections and will roll the dice with the health and safety of our federal workers.

At the outset, it is worth noting that none of these changes were the product of collaboration or even consultation. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 alter health and safety protections that have only recently been put into place in the year 2000. That is a relatively short amount of time in the life of a piece of legislation. The Canada Labour Code changes of 2000 were reached after extensive consultation with labour, employers, and government, and were themselves a microcosm of what can be achieved through a tripartite system of collaboration.

Words do matter. They certainly matter when they're the words that make up our laws and legislation, and in particular with the laws and legislation that protect workers and public safety.

When we look at the definition of danger, the proposal is a narrower interpretation of what is considered to be workplace danger. Making changes to the wording of a law is to change its original meaning. Gone is the recognition that the outcome of exposure to hazard might not occur immediately. Gone is the explicit language that recognizes that a potential threat to a worker's reproductive system is worth protecting. That threat of exposure to mutagens is a very real threat.

On the right to refuse, as we look at how the right of refusal happens in workplaces, the government maintains that 80% of all work refusals are not justified and are frivolous. What is that number based on? We don't know what the number is based on. Far from progressing frivolous complaints to HRSDC, we are of the opinion that workers are reluctant to invoke their right to refuse even in the face of bona fide dangerous work. Therefore, instead of watering down safety rights around unsafe work, we should be enhancing them, ensuring that workers feel safe from reprisal by reporting unsafe work. In addition, we should be enhancing enforcement and inspection, not rolling back the clock on hard-fought health and safety gains.

When we look at the work refusal investigation, the employer will prepare a written report—this is something new. The workplace committee will prepare a report—this is something new. The employer may provide further information and request reconsideration—again, something new. The employer shall make a decision—something new. If the employer disagrees, it will notify the worker in writing—something new. If the worker continues refusal, the employer will notify the minister and provide a report—something new. The minister will decide whether to continue.

The new emphasis on the immediacy of the danger to the worker is lost in the new prolonged procedure for addressing that danger. Formerly, the legislative process lent itself to taking minutes or hours to determine if the safety officer was required. However, the new proposal, with an emphasis on written reports, would appear to take hours or days, especially in the case of a 24/7 operation, such as the railways or even airlines.

We're quite concerned with the potential of the minister's refusal to investigate work refusals. We're concerned not only by the paper obstacle that seems to be in the new proposal, but also the vulnerability to discipline. To classify as trivial, vexatious, or in bad faith does not certainly bring forward confidence in workers to bring their issues forward. Also, there is no statutory right to appeal from the minister's decision. In addition, the internal responsibility system points out that everyone is concerned with health and safety. Certainly the new proposals are not in that direction. Health and safety officers are neutral and trained. How is a minister going to fulfill that position?

Healthy and safe working conditions are the right of every worker, and a scheme that strips those rights away and puts workers in harm's way is, in a word, a deadly combination.

When we look at some of our workplaces, for example, at CP Rail, despite ever-increasing pressures to increase production and perform new processes, in 2013 to date our membership of 2000 workers under federal jurisdiction progressed two work refusals under section 128, both resulting in directions under paragraph 145(2)(a) for the employer to stop the dangerous activity—only two work refusals in such a large body. We would therefore argue that any attempt to water down the language in such important legislation is unacceptable. Laws and regulations are only as strong as the education and enforcement that go with them and how those laws and regulations are practised in a workplace and enforced by those charged with the protection of our well-being as workers.

We cannot rely totally on employers to make our workplaces safe, because employers have, by their existence, a goal that competes with safety and is to make a profit. We should accept that as a given and build from there. This is also why we need vigilant and proactive government involvement. This does not happen by watering down rights and, in essence, the legislative authority held by those charged with enforcing our safety.

Since 2000, while lost time to injuries in Canada has been steadily declining, fatalities have remained fairly constant, with over 900 deaths each year. It must be noted that the current legislation, with its superior protections for workers, has failed to reduce these fatalities. This begs the question of why we are not instead looking for ways to enhance worker occupational health and safety, rather than eroding their workplace safety rights. We therefore oppose the changes to the health and safety provisions contained in Bill C-4.

That concludes my report.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I raised the concern in my speech that the changes to the definitions in Bill C-4 would weaken the rights that have been provided to offshore workers: the right to refuse and the right to work safely. That is a concern.

As the member said, we need to make sure that people are held accountable and that we have safe and healthy workplaces. That is what this legislation is all about, to make sure we never have an Ocean Ranger again, to make sure we never have a Cougar flight 491 again in the offshore, to make sure we never have a disaster the scale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the gulf.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his remarks. As a former miner myself, I was in the Brunswick mine in 1976 when six people were killed underground in 18 months. That is why we passed legislation on the right to refuse work.

I remember the Westray act, which—as the hon. member said just now—was designed to help the loved ones of the people who worked there. In Bill C-4, we see that the government wants to change the definition of unsafe work. It says that people are refusing too much work.

Is Parliament able to take the responsibility for passing a bill that actually does not make responsible people responsible? It is irresponsible on the part of the government to introduce bills that will encourage companies to adopt unsafe work practices. That is what will happen, just as it happened at the Westray mine, at the Brunswick mine, and at many other places of work. With the Conservative government, we are moving backwards.

Does the hon. member agree with me?

[Kin Choi, Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour Program, Compliance, Operations and Program Development, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us.

I am happy to be appearing before you as the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Labour Program. I am joined by my colleague Brenda Baxter, Director General of the Workplace Directorate.

For over 100 years now, the labour program has been protecting the rights and the well-being of both workers and employers in the federally regulated sectors. This includes creating and maintaining safe and healthy workplaces.

The changes that are being proposed in part 3, division 5, of Bill C-4 will strengthen the longstanding commitment even more.

The role of the Labour Program is to support workplace parties in order to enable them to meet their obligations and ensure that the Canadian Labour Code is respected.

I think we—and I mean the larger “we” in the federal jurisdictions—do a pretty good job overall. For example, the number of disabling injuries in the industry under federal jurisdiction has steadily declined by some 22% from 2007 to 2011, but we certainly need to do more, as every accident is one too many.

Here are the amendments to the Canada Labour Code that we're proposing: first, to strengthen the internal responsibility system; second, to clarify the definition of danger; and third, confer to the Minister of Labour the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers.

These amendments will place the onus on resolving workplace safety issues where it belongs: with employers and employees. Specifically, workplace committees and health and safety representatives will have a greater role to play in resolving refusal-to-work situations.

The new process would enhance the internal responsibility system, which would improve protection for Canadian workers and allow the labour program to better focus our attention on critical issues affecting the health and safety of Canadians in their workplaces.

Amendments are proposed to clarify the definition of danger, since over the last 10 years over 80% of refusals to work have ended with no danger decisions, even accounting for appeals.

That has no impact on employees' right to refuse dangerous work. That is a fundamental right that will remain in the Canadian Labour Code.

Those amendments will also help us increase the support we provide to health and safety officers, in addition to promoting consistent decision making across the country.

The Minister of Labour would have the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions to health and safety officers, who would continue to do their important job of ensuring that workplaces are fair, safe, and productive. This is not about cutting costs, and it's certainly not about reducing the number of health and safety officers. These changes will simply ensure that the time of health and safety officers is used more proactively and effectively to enforce our regulations and to promote prevention.

It's important to point out that the fundamental rights and the protection mechanisms set out in the code will remain unchanged. The amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedures and practices in order to accelerate and increase the quality of decisions and results. The recourse mechanism will remain accessible to all parties.

Again, let me reiterate that fundamental rights and protections for employees remain enshrined in the code.

We are convinced that the changes we are proposing will improve outcomes for the workplace.

We would be pleased to respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 4 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today we are continuing our study on the subject matter of clauses 176 to 238, divisions 5 and 6 of part 3 of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

For our first hour today we have witnesses here from the department, Mr. Kin Choi and Ms. Brenda Baxter.

I will turn the floor over to our officials for their presentation.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This is a piece of legislation that exists as a result of negotiations that have been going on for literally 12 years between the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. It mirrors legislation that has already been passed in both of those provincial legislatures, so we will not be amending it here. If we were to do so, it would mean that they would have to go back to the drawing board.

Bill C-5 is an attempt to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry, which have been separated and left to regulation. That is a problem that I have certainly seen with other legislation. In my former jurisdiction of Nova Scotia, the government for 20 years did the same thing with the Trade Union Act, on the one hand, and with health and safety legislation on the other. What we found out, certainly in the case of health and safety legislation, was that it was not good enough to do it all by regulation. We had to make sure that the rules of the road, the principles, were properly articulated. The regulations would be there to make sure that those principles were carried forward.

It is good to see that the three governments involved here see that this is important to have done. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The bill would put the practice into legislation based on three basic principles. Number one is that offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protection that is at least as good as what exists for onshore workers. This is a situation that has existed for far too many years and is finally being addressed here. Number two is the protection of employee rights; that is, to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal will be covered in the bill. Number three is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibility in the workplace.

We support this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction for offshore safety, but more work still needs to be done. We hope that the federal government continues to work with the provinces to strengthen offshore safety regulations and that an independent stand-alone safety regulator is created for the future. That last point is something that came out of the Wells commission that recommended that a stand-alone regulator be put in place. It was something that was not agreed to by the parties and therefore does not exist. We think it is very important. I am going to speak a little more about that here this afternoon.

As usual, a bill like this comes to the floor of the legislature as a result of hard lessons, and in this case, lessons learned from years of offshore tragedies.

It has been more than 30 years since Canada's worse offshore disaster. In 1982, 84 people were killed when the drill rig Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland. A royal commission was subsequently convened in 1984, and that commission criticized the industry for poor safety training and equipment and lax inspections.

I want to take a moment to read a section from a book that was written by a good friend of mine, someone who lost her brother in that disaster back in 1982.

Susan Dodd wrote an exceptional piece of work called The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, which not only talks about that disaster, what led to it, what resulted from it, and the devastation it caused to the families involved but very much documents the problems that resulted as a consequence of legislators not paying attention. It was a result, frankly, of the power of the oil and gas sector to basically have its way and go about its business and of governments saying, “Thank you very much. We'll take some royalty revenue from you, but we'll try not to get in your way”.

I want to read, if I may, a passage from the book, which I think underlines why it is so important that we not only pay attention to the bill but that we also think about the role we play here as legislators to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide the laws, the regulations, the rules of the road, and the protections that would ensure that people living and working in this country and for this country are safe.

Let me quote:

The shock of the Ocean Ranger disaster was not that oil production was dangerous, but rather the realization that governments had betrayed people's faith. People trusted governments to use reasonable regulation to mitigate the risks of oil jobs. That trust was misplaced. There were no provincial safety regulations in the Newfoundland offshore when my brother and his eighty-three co-workers died.... Time and again, publics trust governments to ensure that companies operate with reasonable prudence. Time and again we are shocked by a new disaster caused by corporate negligence. We say we will “never forget.”

We do it all the time in this House.

Then we forget. And then it happens again.

The author goes on to talk about the fact that the most recent example is 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, resulting in the worst U.S. marine oil spill in history.

It is a fascinating book. I urge all members, or anyone interested, to take a look at it. Again, it is The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, and the author is Susan Dodd.

It is particularly important for those of us living on the coast, and in my case, living on the east coast. We know that Shell has invested over $1 billion to further explore an oil field off our coast. BP, in another area offshore, is further investing nearly $1 billion in exploring a similar development.

In other words, we cannot pretend that it is not coming again, that we are not going to be out there again. There are rigs out there off Newfoundland. We know that there are drilling rigs and exploratory rigs out there. There is equipment moving around our coast. We need to make sure that the people working in our offshore and the people servicing the offshore are provided with the necessary protections to ensure that these kinds of disasters do not happen again. It is important that we do that now.

I should say, of course, that a more recent review of offshore safety came in 2009, after the crash of Cougar Flight 91, which killed 17 people. The Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash made a number of recommendations, most notably the creation of an autonomous and dedicated safety regulator, which is not included.

My colleague, the member for St. John's East, raised a question in the House today about a recommendation that has gone before transport to ensure that airplanes and helicopters are able to operate an hour after they no longer have any oil or have run dry. It is an important safety measure that would have ensured that the disaster I referred to, Cougar Flight 91, did not happen. We continue to ask the government questions about why it is that it is unwilling to introduce that particular requirement for the offshore.

While I am disappointed, as others on this side have said, that this bill does not call for an independent safety regulator, I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Again, it implements many of the principles of occupational health and safety. As I have said, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers. The protection of employee rights to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal needs to be included.

That is an issue that has been raised in this session of the House in relation to Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill. In there are changes that lessen the responsibilities of health and safety inspectors. We are concerned about the implications those changes would have on Bill C-5. As I said, this bill talks about setting up a balance between health and safety protections onshore and offshore and about providing clear protection of the rights of employees to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal. We are concerned that the omnibus budget bill, in fact, lessens those rights in federal jurisdictions and therefore may have some implications here. I understand that in a recent briefing on this bill, we were unable to get answers to those particular questions, but we will continue to ask.

Finally is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

As I have suggested to members, we will continue to see further exploration, further development of natural resources, off our coasts. We need to make sure that we provide the environmental protections necessary, if we are going to go forward, to ensure that no problems exist and that no problems are created that endanger our natural resources, coastlines, industries, fisheries, environment, marine life, or oceans. It is an issue that has come up on the east coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

We know that the issue of the development of the Old Harry site is a controversial one. It is controversial for reasons like this. We must make sure that we have protections in place for the people who work on any particular drill site and that the environmental protections are in place before any company is allowed to proceed with any development.

In the Gulf, as we have heard in this House, if there is an oil spill, God forbid, it takes upward of a year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence to empty and the water to cycle around. It would be absolutely devastating to Quebec, New Brunswick, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, of course, to the waters that flow into and out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is important that we pay attention to how we are moving forward and ensure that all of our laws are properly constructed to cover any potential problems that may exist.

This is a situation where laws are just now catching up with a disaster that happened 30 years ago, in which 84 people lost their lives. We have to be able to respond more quickly. We have to make sure we can look forward and learn from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let us not wait until the worst case scenario actually presents itself, and let us bring legislation forward to prevent the kinds of disasters we have talked about, which happened in the past and are happening in other jurisdictions.

That is why we need to move forward and work closely with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. On another offshore related issue, the Province of Nova Scotia has extended a moratorium against oil and natural gas development in Georges Bank. That area was determined to be extraordinarily vulnerable, a very sensitive ecosystem, very much a nursery for the fishery throughout the east coast. It has been determined in the past by both the federal and provincial governments working together that we needed to prevent any industrial development in that area of the ocean.

As well, the Province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation to make sure that will not happen, but the federal government, this time, has failed to work with the Province of Nova Scotia. We will continue to push the government on that question. The moratorium must be extended to protect the industry that now exists, the fishery, to protect the ecosystem, to protect our oceans and to protect our environment throughout the east coast.

Again, that is another part of the legislative framework that needs to be put in place to ensure that, as developments continue to move forward, we have the protections in place to ensure that damage is not done to what already exists and what might exist well into the future.

Both BP and Shell Oil are set to conduct new deepwater oil exploration off Nova Scotia for the first time since 2005. We believe that our workers deserve nothing less than to feel safe not only in their workplaces but, in the case of the offshore industry, in transit to the workplace as well.

I hope the government will continue to work with the provinces involved to make sure that offshore safety regulations are strengthened and that we can avoid offshore tragedies like Cougar flight 91, the BP spill in the Gulf, and the Ocean Ranger disaster.

It was a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to any questions.

[Gordon Griffith, Director, Education, Engineers Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Gordon Griffith and I am the director of education with Engineers Canada.

Engineers Canada is the national body that represents the 12 provincial and territorial regulators of the engineering profession.

These regulators are responsible for licensing over 260,000 engineers in all fields across Canada.

The regulators help keep Canadians safe by making sure that licensed engineers are held to the highest standards of engineering education, professional qualifications, and professional practice. I will focus my remarks on clauses 290 to 293 of Bill C-4 regarding changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to the proposed expression of interest system.

More than 20% of professional engineers in Canada have been trained internationally. Our constituent associations process about 5,500 applications annually from immigrants. This is among the highest number for regulated professions. Obviously the question of how to efficiently assess and license engineers educated overseas has been top of mind for our members. As a result, the engineering profession has shown leadership in foreign credential recognition and continues to innovate in the areas of assessing credentials and undertaking the core activities required for licensing.

Alongside the interest of internationally educated engineers coming to Canada to practise, our sector, like so many others, is facing a looming skills shortage and a skills mismatch. A high number of retirements are expected in the period of 2011-2020. Some estimates indicate that approximately 95,000 engineers could fully or partially retire. Today, there are approximately 60,000 undergraduate students in accredited engineering programs across Canada. These graduates will somewhat help to address the shortage. Our 2012 labour market study reveals that in most jurisdictions there will be shortages of engineers with five to ten years of experience or specialized skills, while new graduates from engineering programs may have difficulty finding jobs. There will be an estimated 16,000 new engineering jobs. Recruiting into the profession will require focused attention by regulators, employers, academia, and governments.

The expression of interest system will, in our view, help bridge the gap for those employers looking for experienced engineers with specialized skills. The one concern we have with the expression of interest system is protecting the ability of regulated professions to keep Canadians safe. The high standards for entry into the engineering profession are in place to protect the public interest. Engineering is integral to so much of what makes Canada a desirable place to live: safe and clean water, reliable infrastructure and transportation networks, and research and development in everything from biomechanics to environmental engineering. Our high standards should remain intact.

In order to help support the work the federal government is undertaking toward the expression of interest system, the engineering profession is looking at how best to assess international engineering graduates prior to their arrival in Canada. We want to do what we can to help individuals with the right qualifications to be as license-ready as they possibly can be before arriving. This includes leading the way toward best practices for engineering regulators; developing a competency-based assessment process for assessing work experience; and developing a Canadian framework for licensure, a dynamic model of regulation that will enhance their ability to regulate the practice of professional engineering to better serve and protect the public interest.

Engineers Canada believes there is value for the economy and value for the engineering profession in better engaging employers in the immigration process and in making sure that those with the skills needed most are moved through the immigration process efficiently. We have been pleased to be part of the consultations on foreign credential recognition, the federal skilled worker program, and the round tables held around the expression of interest system, and we look forward to continuing to lend our expertise. A modern responsive immigration system will better integrate immigrants into our economy and society.

By working with the federal government, we can avoid delays for candidates, for regulators, for the government, and for potential employers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I will be happy to answer any questions.

[Sarah Anson-Cartwright, Director, Skills Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Hello. Thank you for this invitation to appear on behalf of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I am Sarah Anson-Cartwright, director of skills policy. I am pleased to provide the Canadian chamber's comments on the expression of interest system, which is the subject matter of clauses 290-293 of Bill C-4.

The Canadian chamber supports these amendments and welcomes the new expression of interest, or EOI, system. We believe it will improve Canada's selection of skilled immigrants to meet our labour market needs, and it will improve immigrants' economic and employment opportunities in Canada. There will be both efficiencies and a competitive advantage to Canada by introducing an EOI system. The research is clear that immigrants who arrive in Canada with a job offer in hand fare better economically, and in terms of employment, than those who do not.

In a 2012 report for the Maytree Foundation, authors Naomi Alboim and Karen Cohl write:

There are clear advantages to involving employers up front especially if it results in a good job that matches the immigrant’s skills and expertise. An evaluation of the Federal Skilled Worker Program shows that those who arrived with validated offers of employment were the most successful immigrants within that program. Similarly, an evaluation of Provincial Nominee Programs shows that provincial nominees achieve positive and immediate economic advantages because most already have employment or employment offers.

By introducing an EOI system to programs in the economic stream, the advantage of employer nomination and other criteria for longer-term goals can be realized.

This year the Canadian Chamber passed a policy resolution on the EOI system. The resolution mentioned several key benefits to employers with the system, but it also recognizes the broader context for considering permanent residence by noting that “A demand-driven process will still require attention to other aspects of economic immigration”.

For example, the location of employment should still be combined with availability of settlement services for immigrants wherever possible. In addition, it's important that candidates are aware of the state of the local economy where they may work, including availability of housing and the cost of living relative to wages.

The resolution recommends:

That the federal government, working in concert with provincial and territorial governments, ensure that the new Expression of Interest system for immigration:

1. Be expedient, responsive, and efficient in identifying regional labour needs and in processing applications from both employers and potential workers to meet those needs.

2. Be open to third parties including, but not limited to, international recruitment firms, immigration lawyers and industry groups, which are acknowledged by the Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultants and/or provincial regulatory boards.

3. Encourage regional distribution based on skills and population needs.

The EOI system will apply to programs for permanent residency. The government will set the standards and the program criteria, not the employers. The government will be vigilant in preventing fraud in the system. There will be an opportunity for eligible employers to review candidates and to track the best prospects to Canada with job offers. These immigrants will help Canada meet its skills needs. These immigrants will benefit from better economic success by arriving with an employment offer.

Overall, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes the EOI system will be a valuable tool to Canada to be more efficient and effective in the competition for the foreign talent we need.

Thank you, and I welcome your comments or questions.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to my colleagues for inviting me here today to speak about two initiatives that are very important to my department. The first concerns citizenship, in particular passports, and the second concerns our immigration programs, of which we are all very proud.

I will make a few opening remarks about these two subjects. I am also open to answering your questions.

Before l begin, let me say what a pleasure it is to be in front of your committee for the first time. It contains so many friends and colleagues who I know are as committed as I am, and as we are in the department, to making a success of our citizenship and immigration programs. I look forward to all of the opportunities we'll have down the road to continue this discussion and deepen it.

The transformational change that we are undertaking, particularly in our immigration programs, is very much at the heart of what I have been invited to discuss with you today.

This is not just a side issue we're discussing today. It's something that goes to the heart of the reforms we have been bringing forward for several years now. We expect these reforms to culminate in a major watershed for Canada's immigration programs—the launch of the expression of interest, or EOI, system at the beginning of 2015.

Bill C-4 is the legislative expression of our commitment to foster prosperity and opportunity for Canadians. This is also true of the portions of the bill that pertain to the immigration system.

There is a direct link, and I think we see that link more and more clearly as the days pass between our economic success and the success of our immigration system, a system we want to be free of fraud, but also to be fast, fair, and flexible. We want to target the best and the brightest around the world, many of whom we know are interested in coming to Canada.

The rest of the world, fortunately, is enjoying recovery at one pace or another. Canada in many ways continues to lead the field, but we still have a genuine opportunity to build on our ingenuity, our immense natural wealth, our values and stability, and to use the immigration system to leverage that potential even more.

Let's be clear. The demographic pressures, the skills deficit we see in a number of areas, mean that we are relying on immigration now more than ever just to meet the current needs of the Canadian economy, never mind the future needs. There was a time when it was 20% or 30% of our labour market needs that we were meeting with our annual immigration. Now some studies are saying it's already 65% and perhaps climbing to 75%. In other words, the job, the skills deficit, the inability to find the right skilled people to fill jobs across the country, in almost every region of the country, would be even more acute if it weren't for our economic immigration.

Now let me give you a little context before commenting on EOI directly. We continue to tackle backlogs. We realize that eliminating backlogs—and that is our goal—is a prerequisite for full implementation of EOI. If we hadn't taken the actions we've taken with regard to the federal skilled worker program, and other categories, our backlogs would have grown to over 1.7 million this year and to 2.3 million in 2015.

Instead, and I know we've had exchanges on this question before, the backlogs are down to 600,000 this year, and are projected to go down to 400,000 in 2015 at the current pace. There may be other measures we can take to eliminate backlogs even faster, and I look forward to discussing some of them with you.

In the FSW, or federal skilled worker, program, if we had followed the old path—let's be honest: the pre-2006 path—the backlog would be 1 million with 10-year wait times in that program alone, growing to 2.5 million in 2015 with a 15-year wait time. Instead, the backlog is under 100,000 this year, with only a one-year wait time on average, and is estimated to go down to 10,000 in 2015. We're driving towards a just-in-time system. We're driving towards a transformation that will link our immigration programs much more closely to the changing needs of the Canadian economy and labour market.

That is why this new recruitment model, highlighted and carried forward in important ways in the current BIA bill, is so important. It will select immigrants based on the skills Canadian employers need. It's called expression of interest. The name is not exactly catchy, we agree. It has been inherited from other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, which launched the thinking in this regard. I welcome the suggestions of the committee about how we relabel, reconsecrate, or rebrand this program in a way that expresses all the potential we see in it.

The intent of this system as a job market recruitment model is already clear, and its goal is vitally important. It's a new way of managing immigration applications that will create a pool of skilled workers to be matched with employers and fast-tracked through the system. Our goal is to have this system in place by New Year's Day 2015, just over a year from now.

The most important part of this is that only the top-ranking candidates in the pool, who are identified as possible candidates by provinces, territories, employers and the federal government, would receive invitations to apply for permanent residence. There are many people who will express their interest. However, only those who are needed by employers, territories, provinces, and the federal government will be invited to apply, and the resources made available to handle these applications will correspond to the number of invitations sent out each year.

Among the many benefits of this new system is that it's faster. We are aiming to see skilled newcomers arrive here in months rather than years.

It's more effective. As I said, we will invite only the most highly qualified candidates from the pool rather than simply those who apply first, and as the system becomes known, we expect the quality of people in the pool to go up. Not everyone around the world knows how the new point system for our federal skilled worker program works.

It is very competitive and very attractive, especially, I think, for English or French speakers around the world. EOI is going to help us publicize that opportunity to a larger audience than ever before. It's also going to be more responsive to the changing labour market needs of employers. Over time, they are likely to be more skilled applicants with valid job offers and a clearer shared understanding of how their credentials translate into a Canadian context.

Before my time runs out, I would like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-4 and the amendments related to the transfer in responsibility for Passport Canada to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. This transfer came into effect earlier this year, two weeks after I arrived at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Among many benefits, this transfer makes the passport program more efficient and cost-effective. As you know, CIC is responsible for determining Canadian citizenship for all people subject to the Citizenship Act. Only Canadian citizens are eligible to apply for a Canadian passport, so integrating the passport program into Citizenship and Immigration Canada is a natural fit.

In fact, Chair, I would say that a Canadian passport is one of the most tangible and prominent symbols of Canadian citizenship. It's an internationally recognized symbol.

We have a new, secure, 10-year electronic passport—the e-passport—that has been more popular than any previous product, with a million of them issued in a question of months, which shows that Canadians are travelling, Canadians want secure documents, and Canadians want them for the longer term. It's also more cost-effective to buy a 10-year document.

So the measures contained in Bill C-4 are there to complete the transfer of the Passport Office to Citizenship and Immigration, to make sure that it is more responsive than ever to Canadians' needs, so that we can deliver passports by as many channels as possible—mail, Service Canada, passport offices, online applications. All of that success is reflected in the very strong statistics showing the growth in the demand for the Canadian passport, which I think in recent years has gone beyond anything we dared to expect 10 or 20 years ago.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am ready to answer questions from members of the committee.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I have one last question. Since Bill C-4 provides the answer that the government wants to hear, are they not politicizing the Supreme Court, which should be neutral, or at least surround itself with an appearance of neutrality?

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Of course, Bill C-4 will be voted on in the House.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Good morning. My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today.

Professor Dodek, I am going to follow up on the questions that Ms. Boivin asked you.

Essentially, you are saying that the federal government is acting well within its rights, that it is not illegal to make declaratory provisions like those in clauses 471 and 472. Your opposition is rather to the form, to the fact that this is in Bill C-4. So you are not opposed to the substance, but just to the form, is that correct?

[Prof. Adam Dodek]

I do not believe that this amendment affects the amendment in Bill C-4. Clauses 471 and 472 change the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore I don't believe that they implicate part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Professor Dodek, I am concerned by another aspect of the road we are on, and you spoke about it. It is the fact that there is a reference to the Supreme Court at exactly the same time asking exactly the same questions as those that the committee is studying at the moment in the context of clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4.

The gist of the reference clearly focuses on those two clauses and on the government's right to pass a bill that would establish the interpretation of the interpretive provisions. It would explain the facts of a situation that has existed since sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act were written.

You mentioned that seeing a situation like that is a concern. Am I to understand that, while it may not be very appropriate, it is not illegal? Parliament could pas Bill C-4 including clauses 471 and 472, but it would be ill-advised to do so, because we could get our knuckles rapped. It may happen, but it may not. Perhaps the Supreme Court will decide that we have the right to do it. Is it just inappropriate, but not necessarily illegal? That is what I am trying to find out.

[Professor Adam Dodek, Vice-Dean, Research, and Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Good morning. My name is Adam Dodek.

I am the vice-dean of research and an associate professor in the common law section of the University of Ottawa.

I teach in the areas of public law and legal ethics. I also teach a seminar on the Supreme Court of Canada, which I would pause to say, as you can well imagine, has been very interesting for our students this year.

I have co-edited three books relating to the Supreme Court of Canada and judicial independence, and have written numerous articles about the Supreme Court, the role of government lawyers, and other matters. Like my colleague Professor Mathen, I am appearing today wholly in my individual capacity.

In my prepared remarks I will address two issues: first, clauses 471 and 472 are not a proper subject of a budget bill; second, by bringing a reference to the Supreme Court about these very provisions, the government is interfering with the proper work of this House.

I recognize that members of the committee may have questions about the interpretations of sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act and the impact of clauses 471 and 472, and I am very happy to address any questions on that subject.

First, on the appropriateness of inserting clauses 471 and 472 into a budget bill, Bill C-4 is entitled “A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures”. As the members of this committee are well aware, clauses 471 and 472 have nothing to do with the budget that the Minister of Finance tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013. They are instead proposed amendments to the Supreme Court Act. The government's position is that they are declaratory and are not substantive amendments. By this admission, they have no monetary impact and no connection whatsoever to the March 21, 2013 budget.

You will no doubt hear from other witnesses that they do not agree with the government's position that clauses 471 and 472 are simply declaratory. I would say that even if they are correct in that position, there is still no connection whatsoever with the March 21, 2013 budget. Thus, there is no substantive connection, and there is also no temporal connection, between clauses 471 and 472 and the March 21, 2013 budget.

Clauses 471 and 472 relate to a controversy that erupted over the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, an appointment that began with the announcement on Monday, September 28, 2013 by the Prime Minister, fully six months after the Minister of Finance tabled the budget in the House. It is a factual impossibility to connect something that happened six months later to a budget tabled six months earlier.

Justice Fish announced his intended retirement on April 22, 2013. Again, that was after the budget was tabled.

The controversy over clauses 471 and 472 show that they are not the proper subject of a budget bill. These are not matters that are uncontroversial or mere technical amendments. The government knew the issue was uncertain, and that's the reason it commissioned and then released the opinion from the Honourable Ian Binnie. As well, the directing of the reference to the Supreme Court on these very issues demonstrates the uncertainty of the issue.

I believe that what is at stake here is no less than the democratic features of the House of Commons. Bills such as this one are a threat to democracy in Canada.

Clauses 471 and 472 should be the subject of an independent bill because they raise separate and important public policy issues. I would just pause to say that is my position, notwithstanding my agreement with the government that these provisions are simply declaratory and make no substantive changes to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

We have a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, and we have often learned and we cherish our constitutional history. Members of this House, I believe, would be wise to heed the warnings from Parliament in Westminster.

Erskine May, in the 23rd edition of Parliamentary Practice, states:

In former times, the Commons abused their right to grant Supply without interference from the Lords, by tacking to bills of aids and supplies provisions which, in a bill that the Lords had no right to amend, must either have been accepted by them unconsidered, or have caused the rejection of a measure necessary for the public service. This practice infringed the privilege of the Lords, no less than their interference in matters of finance infringes the privileges of the Commons.

On December 9, 1702, the House of Lords passed a resolution which stated:

That the annexing any Clause or Clauses to a Bill of Aid or Supply, the Matter of which is foreign to, and different from, the Matter of the said Bill of Aid or Supply, is Unparliamentary, and tends to the Destruction of the Constitution of this Government.

That was then converted into a standing order that had not needed to be invoked as the basis for rejection of a Commons bill since 1807.

In the United Kingdom the rules of order of the House of Commons exclude the possibility of a foreign matter from being tacked on to such bills by way of amendment, and respect for constitutional practice prevents the inclusion of such matters among their original provisions.

Second is the impropriety of legislating and referring the question to the Supreme Court for its consideration at the same time. It is highly unusual for a government to ask Parliament to enact legislation at the same time as it directs a reference to the Supreme Court. Why is this unusual? Because the purpose of directing a reference to the Supreme Court is to obtain the court's advice on a legal question or questions before proceeding with a course of action. The Senate reference that the Supreme Court heard last week is certainly a good example of that. As well, the government's prior reference, the securities reference directed by the government, is another example.

Based on my research, the last time the government directed a reference to the Supreme Court while or after enacting legislation was in 1976 in the Anti-Inflation Act reference when the government of Pierre Trudeau directed a reference to the Supreme Court three months after Parliament had enacted the Anti-Inflation Act. That situation was different. There was a perceived national crisis of double-digit inflation. I would submit to you that the uncertainty regarding sections 5 and 6 is not a cause for a national crisis. It's also highly unusual for a government to, in effect, be challenging its own legislation.

I believe this raises the question as to how the Attorney General of Canada, as the legal adviser to the Governor in Council, can both vouch for the legality of clauses 471 and 472 at the same time as he is questioning them in his advice to the Governor in Council directing the reference on the very same subject. The two simply cannot co-exist. Either the government believes that it is within its power to enact clauses 471 and 472, or it is uncertain and requires the advice of the Supreme Court.

I believe that this odd state of affairs puts the members of this House in an untenable position. They are being asked to vote in favour of two provisions with the assurance by the government that such provisions are legal, indeed constitutional, while at the same time the government is questioning that very advice by directing a reference to the Supreme Court.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

We are studying the subject matter of clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Today we have witnesses to deal with the clauses that were referred to this committee.

We have Professor Carissima—is that how you say it?

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

Thank you.

Bill C-13, in 2006, also had $500 million for the Mackenzie gas project impact fund. Can you outline the difference between budget 2006 measures in Bill C-13 and the measures in Bill C-4?

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

The question is simply that this section is a result of a B.C. Court of Appeal decision which found that Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing regime contravenes section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Can you explain how Bill C-4 addresses a response to that B.C. Court of Appeal decision?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

As was asked earlier regarding tax loopholes, C-4 closes a number of overly exploited and outdated tax loopholes.

Can you address the positive effects this will have down the road?

[Geoff Trueman]

That refers to the changes we're making with respect to class 43.2. Class 43.2 provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for certain assets that are acquired for clean energy generation.

Two changes are included in Bill C-4.

First of all, there is biogas production equipment that uses a broader range of feedstock. Eligibility is currently limited to equipment that uses sludge from an eligible sewage treatment facility, food and animal waste, plant residue, and wood waste. Bill C-4 proposes including equipment that will use pulp and paper waste and waste water, beverage industry waste and waste water, and separated organics from municipal waste. It simply expands the range of eligible feedstocks and will allow biogas production to take place on a more comprehensive scale.

Second, a broader range of cleaning and upgrading equipment that is used to treat gases from waste to obtain biomethane will be included. This simply expands the range of eligible equipment so we can facilitate that on a more comprehensive basis as well.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-4 also encourages businesses to invest in clean energy generation technologies.

Can you provide details on how this measure will expand biogas production?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Hsu's questions as well.

Bill C-4 expands on the government's ongoing effort to make the tax system fair across industries. It follows through on our government's G-20 commitments to eliminate inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

Can you elaborate on the phase-out of tax preferences that have favoured the mining industry?

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

The Conservative Party has certainly argued that higher corporate taxes lead to fewer jobs. As part of the research done in preparing Bill C-4, did the department do any analysis on how the tax measures referred to in paragraph (k) of part 1 in the summary of Bill C-4 might impact employment in the mining sector?

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

Switching now to mining expenses, how many mining companies in Canada are expected to be affected by the measures in Bill C-4 to increase tax revenues from the mining sector? This is with regard to the accelerated capital cost allowance. How many mining companies?

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

Does Bill C-4 change that?

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

Okay, and how long do individuals have to hold an LSVCC share in order to benefit from the tax credit? Is it eight years? Does Bill C-4 change that time period?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are televised today. Our orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 29, 2013, the study of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

We're very pleased to have with us many officials from the Department of Finance and other departments to analyze this bill for us and to help us address our questions and comments on the bill.

In particular, we have three Department of Finance officials before the committee today: Mr. Ted Cook, senior legislative chief, tax legislation division, tax policy branch; Mr. Sean Keenan, director, sales tax division; and Mr. Geoff Trueman, general director, analysis, tax policy branch.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you for being with us.

Colleagues, I propose that we proceed this way. There are obviously three parts to the bill. I've asked Mr. Cook to give a brief opening statement focusing in particular on some of the items that members of the committee have identified to me as areas which they wish the committee to focus on.

Mr. Cook will give a brief opening statement and then we'll have questions from members. There will be an allotted time for questions, and we will proceed in the normal questioning order. I am proposing that we do it by parts. We'll start with part 1, move to part 2, and then do part 3.

Mr. Cook, could we have your opening statement at this time, please.

The Budget

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from Quebec who are denouncing the decision made by the government on Bill C-4 to terminate the tax credit on the labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which will clearly end a huge economic benefit and destroy a system providing retirement income for many.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good afternoon everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 3 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Today is Thursday, November 7, 2013.

Today we begin our examination of the subject matter of clauses 176 to 238 (divisions 5 and 6 of part 3) of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Before we begin today's meeting, I would briefly like to point out that Department of Labour officials are not here today to speak to the one clause pertaining to electronic administration of the Canada Labour Code found in division 6. We'll deal with all of the issues in division 6, as you wish, as a committee today, except this one clause. The reason is that we have employment and social development officials here who are prepared to answer any aspect of division 6, except the Canada Labour Code. However, at our next meeting, Labour department officials will be prepared to answer any questions on the one clause contained in division 6.

I would kindly ask that if you had prepared any questions on this topic you hold off your questions until the next meeting.

We are joined today by witnesses from the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada: Alexis Conrad, Atiq Rahman, and Catherine Allison. We're also joined by David Dendooven of the Privy Council Office.

Before we move into our presentations and rounds of questions, I'll point out per the meeting notice that our committee will recess at 5:15. I may take some liberties to recess a bit earlier than that, at 5:10, depending on how the discussions are going and what the committee chooses. Then we'll move into committee business because we have four such items to deal with today.

I know that the witnesses have prepared some remarks to open our discussions on Bill C-4. I believe Alexis is going to be doing the presentation.

We'll go to you, sir.

[Maia Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about the subject matter of part 3, division 16 of Bill C-4.

Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, my remarks will provide an overview of the foundational legislation required to implement a new approach to Canada's immigration system. Based on Australia's and New Zealand's experiences with the expression-of-interest model, also known as EOI, CIC is working with partners to develop a similar system for Canada.

As members of this committee are well aware, the Government of Canada has made the reform of the immigration system an important priority. Economic action plan 2013 and the recent Speech from the Throne announced the government's intention to move to an expression-of-interest model. Along with other modernization initiatives, EOI will be a key component in creating a faster and more flexible immigration system.

The expression-of-interest model is a new electronic, fully automated, application management system that will apply to certain economic immigration streams. Creating the new system requires legislative changes to establish a two-step application process, introducing the concept of a stand-alone expression-of-interest pre-application stage, followed by an application by invitation only to the top candidates. The candidates invited to apply will be those with the right mix of high human capital, ability to work in Canada as demonstrated by an offer of employment, and/or nomination by a province or territory.

It is important to be clear that the expression-of-interest system is not a new program, nor does it replace any existing skills immigration program. The EOI system is a new component within an existing Government of Canada system. It builds on our existing IT infrastructure investment and the global case management system.

Before describing the automated processes that are possible with an expression-of-interest system, I will review EOI's key objectives. Primarily, the introduction of EOI is designed to improve application management. By only issuing invitations to apply to the number of applicants we can process, we will prevent the inventories that accumulated in the past and the associated legal risk. The new system will facilitate the arrival of the candidates best suited to Canada's needs, rather than the first person who applied. Aligning these applications to processing capacity and eliminating time spent waiting in inventories will support faster processing times.

A second feature of this system is its ability to increase the immigration system's labour market responsiveness. Evidence suggests that the selection of skilled immigrants with high levels of human capital, such as higher education, strong official languages skills, and relevant work experience, leads to better economic outcomes both initially and over time. We also know that immigrants who come with an offer of employment in hand have significantly better outcomes than those who come without. The expression-of-interest system seeks to combine the strengths of the human capital model with the benefits of having skilled immigrants arriving in Canada with employment and ready to work. Reducing unemployment and underemployment for permanent resident economic-class immigrants will help improve overall economic outcomes for both the new arrivals and the Canadian economy.

The EOI approach also presents an opportunity to strengthen the role of the provinces and territories in immigrant selection. The government is working with provincial and territorial partners to make EOI a success. Provinces and territories are well positioned to bring the benefits of immigration to their regions through their review and nomination of EOI candidates. The ability of provinces and territories to access EOI candidates through an EOI portal will allow for EOI candidates to be invited to apply to a provincial nominee program.

We are also consulting Canadian employers so they will be ready to consider EOI candidates that meet their skills requirements when the domestic labour force cannot. An offer of employment will play a key role in a decision to issue candidates an invitation to apply. We are working with Employment and Social Development Canada to make linkages to a modernized job bank that can be leveraged for EOI candidates. Private sector job sites are also an available platform for job matching between employers and EOI candidates.

To recap, the key objectives of EOI are to improve application management and reduce processing backlogs, to increase the labour market responsiveness of the immigration system, and to strengthen the provincial, territorial and employer role.

These objectives, as well as improved service standards for processing times, have the potential to transform the economic immigration experience and to provide better outcomes for skilled immigrants. To understand how the EOI system will achieve its objectives, I will now describe the processes involved.

The EOI system will create a two-stage electronic process for managing applications. The first stage of EOI will manage applications through an automated scanning of information provided by candidates.

Prospective immigrants will fill in an online form to express their interest in coming to Canada. The information collected in the EOI form, such as the person's language ability, education, and work experience will make it possible to search, sort, and rank applicants. If potential applicants meet certain minimum eligibility criteria, their EOI will be accepted into the system where they will be given a score and ranked by CIC, and will also be searchable by both CIC and the provinces and territories.

Top candidates, in other words, those with high point scores and/or a qualifying job offer and/or provincial or territorial nomination, can be issued invitations to apply for permanent residence. Only candidates issued an invitation to apply, an ITA, will be able to submit an application in certain economic programs.

The specific design features that will allow EOI to be operational will continue to be refined over the next year in time for launch of EOI in January 2015. Further design work and consultations with the provinces and territories are ongoing. Work with Employment and Social Development Canada is also under way to find linkages to their modernized job banks so employers can source EOI candidates to staff positions not met by Canada's existing labour market.

The expression of interest system will be enabled through a combination of legislative changes and ministerial instructions. The bill before us proposes that a new expression-of-interest division be added to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that will allow for a stand-alone pre-application stage as the first step in immigrating to Canada. In addition, this division will include broad provisions outlining the process of EOI, the required information sharing authority, as well as measures enabling a role for third parties, including provinces and territories as well as employers under this new system.

Alongside these new legislative authorities, EOI-specific ministerial instructions or MIs, will provide precision on how EOI will work. Similar to the approach used in Australia and New Zealand, these instructions will include details such as which economic classes will be subject to EOI, the criteria according to which candidates will be ranked, and the criteria for issuing invitations to apply.

The MIs will also set out the type of EOI candidate information that may be shared and with which entities, such as provinces and territories and Canadian employers, as well as any related conditions required for access to that information.

The use of MIs envisioned for EOI is consistent with their current use under section 87.3 of IRPA, in the same way that they have been used to set processing priorities. EOI-specific MIs that detail stable elements of the system will be published in the Canada Gazette and on CIC's website. EOI MIs that require flexible management, including the frequency and volume of invitations to apply, will also be published on CIC's website. This approach will achieve a balance between transparency and the flexibility to administer efficiently and adjust in future phases of implementation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, the government has demonstrated a firm commitment to strengthen the immigration system to make it fast and flexible in a way that will contribute to Canada's economic growth and promote positive outcomes for skilled immigrants.

The expression of interest system is a key part of an overall modernization agenda to achieve those objectives for Canada's immigration system.

My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[Caitlin Imrie]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Caitlin Imrie, and I'm director general for the transition office at CIC.

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, specifically part 3, division 4, related to passports. Following my opening remarks, my colleague Maia Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, will speak to part 3, division 16, related to the expression of interest system.

My remarks outline the technical amendments for the transfer in responsibility for Passport Canada from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which came into effect July 2, 2013.

There are two clauses in division 4 that relate to passports: clause 174 and clause 175. Both of these provisions are technical amendments that reflect the transition. The decision to transfer these responsibilities was the result of analysis that showed the passport program was better aligned with the mandate of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, given that citizenship is at the core of the passport program.

As part of the transfer in responsibilities, Employment and Social Development Canada now provides in Canada delivery of passport services, while the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development continues to provide service delivery overseas.

Changes to the legislation that are included in the budget implementation act include updates to provisions of the Criminal Code and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act which reflect the transfer in responsibility between departments. The Criminal Code will be amended to link it to the interpretation section of the Canada passport order which now defines passports as documents issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

The Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Act will also be updated to reflect the fact that travel documents are now issued by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

I will now turn the floor over to my colleague Maia Welbourne, who will speak to the clauses in division 16 on the expression of interest system.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll start the meeting.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number two, Thursday, November 7, 2013.

We are dealing with clauses 174 and 175 having to do with the Criminal Code, and clauses 290 to 293 having to do with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures. I have asked the clerk to distribute to you excerpts of Bill C-4, so you will have those before you.

We have as our guests members from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration: Caitlin Imrie, director general of the passport program transition office; Maia Welbourne, senior director of strategic policy and planning; James McNamee, director of immigration strategies and analysis; and Teny Dikranian, senior analyst to the passport program transition office.

The four of you are here to brief us on these clauses. I believe you have 10 minutes. Then I expect members of the committee would like to ask some questions or make some comments.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Similarly, we will be voting against this motion. I will be voting against this motion on behalf of the Liberal Party.

The power to vote on these measures is essential. To not be able to not only study at the individual committees but to actually vote at the individual committees I think is a mistake.

It's notable that in this budget implementation act, Bill C-4, we are correcting errors made in previous budget implementation acts. Errors are more likely to happen when Parliament is denied the opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities in terms of the type of due diligence that is required in the scrutinization of legislation. We have seen errors in previous budget implementation acts resulting from this kind of kitchen-sink, omnibus-bill approach, whether it is changing the Supreme Court Act or overhauling the management and labour relations within the public service, as well as all the technical tax changes the Auditor General has recommended be in separate legislation, not as part of the budget implementation act.

The government has determined that this is the course they're going to pursue. Ultimately, we'll register our concern and our objection to this and our opposition to it. I don't think it yields optimal public policy results when we take this kind of approach. It denies the ability for individual members of Parliament from all parties, not just the opposition parties...government members ought to be similarly concerned that they are being denied the opportunity to do their jobs, to fulfill their responsibilities as members of Parliament, and to scrutinize legislation to the best of their abilities.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this side we're very concerned about this motion. It stems from our concern about Bill C-4 as a whole. This motion, of course, deals with the omnibus budget implementation act, which is, yet again, another attempt by this government to throw several legislative changes into one large bill. Many of the provisions in this bill, which have nothing to do with the budget, are meant to limit time for debate, limit discussion, limit any changes, limit input, and to then pass this through as quickly as possible. Frankly, it's a bad way to make legislation. It's disrespectful to the democratic process.

I do want to say that I agree with Mr. Saxton that there are elements of Bill C-4 that should be debated in other committees, and we can discuss which committees. There are three that are proposed: justice and human rights; human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities; and citizenship and immigration.

Yes, there are provisions that should be discussed and debated at these committees, but what is being proposed is that there would be a very, very limited time for review at these committees, and these committees won't have had the opportunity to vote on any amendments or to adopt or reject any parts of this proposed law, because ultimately the bill would all come back to the finance committee. We won't have had the benefit of any of the testimony that had been before the other committees. The power to vote on any amendments and to finally vote on the bill is taken away from the committees that have the expertise and that ought to be looking at these sections of the bill. It's a terrible process. It's a bad way to make legislation.

We want to register our protest. We do not think these omnibus bills should make massive changes by throwing the government's almost entire legislative agenda into one large bill. This omnibus budget bill, C-4, would change over 70 pieces of legislation. Some of it is tax legislation and should quite rightly be before the finance committee. But changes to how Supreme Court judges are appointed? Really? Changes to health and safety protection for workers at banks or airlines? Really? We're dealing with that at the finance committee? It makes absolutely no sense.

We want to register our protest against this format. Our message to the government, once again, is to break up these bills. Send the pieces that affect different committees to the appropriate committees, not only for one or two days of witnesses, but for a thorough review, a normal legislative process. Let those committees discuss, debate, propose amendments, and vote on separate pieces of legislation.

Our message is that we should be breaking up these bills, not cramming all these changes into one omnibus budget bill. We think this is a bad way to make legislation.

Mr. Chair, we will be voting against this motion.

Income Tax Act

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today on Bill C-201, which is sponsored by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

The bill proposes to allow tradespeople and apprentices to deduct from their taxable income travel and accommodation expenses that they incur in order to secure and maintain employment. These deductions would be subject to certain conditions.

I would like to focus on a few reasons why I oppose Bill C-201.

First of all, our government is quite focused on providing support for employees and tradespeople across the country. Second, the bill would be ineffective and inequitable. It would be ineffective because there is no evidence that the proposal would increase the likelihood that tradespeople will travel more for work, and inequitable in that some tradespeople would receive tax relief for work-related travel while other workers would not.

Third, especially during a time of fiscal responsibility, the bill would be very costly and that cost would be significant at this time in our economy. The bill looks nice and has a nice sound to it. It is kind of like a chocolate cake with a lot of icing on it. We look at the icing on the chocolate cake and say it looks tasty, but it really is not good for us. There is no way to square that piece of cake to be good for us.

I will start by highlighting our government's role in supporting employees and tradespeople. I would like to say that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not support any of the legislation that we brought in to support employees and tradespeople. That needs to be noted during this debate. I mean, it is one thing to have a personal preference. It is one thing to have a party bias. I think we all have some party bias in this place. However, it is another thing to ignore good legislation simply because it is the government that brings it in.

Canada's strong economic performance during the global recession has been widely recognized around the world. Although it may not have gotten the same amount of press as other key initiatives, Canada's economic action plan provided key funding to several organizations to stimulate growth and jobs during the recent recession and helped tradespeople and other Canadians find jobs.

Our government knows that Canadian workers are among the best educated and the best trained in the world. However, Canada is facing a skilled labour shortage. In particular, persistent pockets of unfilled positions exist for some skilled tradespeople and professional occupations. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, has identified Canada's skills shortage as the number one issue facing its membership.

Our government takes this issue seriously. To help Canadians connect with available jobs, in economic action plan 2013 we set out a three-point plan to address these challenges. First, economic action plan 2013 introduced the new Canada job grant, which would provide $15,000 or more per person, including the maximum federal contribution of $5,000, to be matched by the provinces, territories and employers, to ensure Canadians are getting the skills employers are seeking.

Second, the plan would create opportunities for apprentices by working with provinces and territories to examine the use of practical tests as a method of assessment and to harmonize requirements, and by introducing measures that would support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing and infrastructure projects that receive federal funding. Finally, it would provide support to groups that are under-represented in the job market, such as persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, to help them find good jobs.

These are great initiatives that are directly helping to fill the labour shortages and connect Canadians with jobs. These are all measures that the opposition has voted against. If the member's bill attempts to focus on apprentices and tradespeople, let me highlight some of the measures our government has already taken to support these individuals.

Since 2006, our government has invested nearly $2.7 billion per year to support skills and training programs. We have supported tradespeople with the tradesperson's tools deduction and extended the fees eligible for the tuition tax credit to include those examinations required to be certified as a tradesperson in Canada, thereby encouraging more tradespeople to become red seal tradesmen. With a red seal, they can work anywhere in the country.

Our government has legislated measures such as the apprenticeship job creation tax credit, the apprenticeship incentive grant, and the apprenticeship completion grant. Tax credits already exist for employers and tradespersons, such as the Canada employment credit, the moving expenses deduction, and the special or remote work sites tax exemptions.

That is not all. We understand that education has a big part in this equation as well. We will promote education in fields where there is high demand for employees, including science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and skilled trades. We will help improve educational and labour market outcomes for aboriginal peoples by investing to improve the on-reserve income assistance program and by providing funding for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories and stakeholders to improve the foreign credential recognition process, thereby enhancing the integration of internationally trained individuals in the job market.

Put simply, our government remains focused on what matters to Canadians—jobs and economic growth and ensuring that Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.

Let me now address some of the specific concerns we have with the bill before us.

First, we believe that providing an income tax deduction for job-related travel and accommodation expenses, as proposed under Bill C-201, would make it difficult to ensure that tax relief is not provided for personal expenses that reflect lifestyle decisions. Under the provisions of this bill, expenses incurred by eligible individuals who choose to live more than 80 kilometres from the workplace for personal reasons would quality for tax relief.

Second, the open-ended nature of the proposed deduction would make it vulnerable to unfair tax planning and abuse. For example, individuals could arrange their affairs to claim a recreational property, such as a cottage that is more than 80 kilometres from work, as their principal residence. They could then deduct the cost of maintaining their urban residence as an expense required to secure and maintain employment. That is a serious flaw with this piece of proposed legislation. This is not conductive to a fair tax system, especially as we have just been debating Bill C-4, which emphasizes our government's commitment to a fair tax system for all Canadians.

Third, the bill would raise equity concerns, as eligible tradespersons and indentured apprentices would be able to reduce their tax liability when they incurred eligible travel and accommodation expenses whereas other workers who had to incur similar work-related travel expenses, such as nurses, would not receive tax assistance. This would result in individuals with a similar capacity to pay taxes having markedly different tax liabilities, due solely to occupational differences.

Fourth, it is not clear that the bill would increase travel by tradespersons and indentured apprentices. In fact, for individuals who would have incurred eligible travel and accommodation expenses in any case, the deduction would represent a windfall gain.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the cost of the proposal would be significant. Preliminary estimates suggest that providing tax assistance to tradespersons and indentured apprentices for travel and accommodation expenses would cost approximately $60 million per year at maturity. At a time when our government is committed to returning to balanced budgets and eliminating the deficit, this bill, which already raises some concerns, would be extremely costly to the government.

In addition, Bill C-201 would create pressure to extend tax relief in respect of other expenses or other types of employees, at a higher fiscal cost.

Make no mistake. Our government believes in tax relief for all Canadians. Canadians know that when it comes to tax reductions, this government has a long-standing record of significant achievements. By keeping taxes low, our government is allowing Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money.

In conclusion, this bill is poorly targeted, would subsidize personal choices, and would open the door to unfair tax planning. It would also entail a cost of approximately $60 million per year. It would create pressure to extend tax relief to other work-related expenses at a higher fiscal cost. In addition, our government already provides tax relief and program support for tradespersons and apprentices and tax relief for employees who must incur travel-related expenses in the course of their employment.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from the member for Vegreville—Wainwright about his concern for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to him and anybody else in the House to never count out the Atlantic Canada provinces in terms of fulfilling our proper role in this federation.

I want to ask for the member's thoughts on something. New Democrats are particularly happy that Bill C-5 clarifies the rights of health and safety officers to protect work sites and enforce the rights of working people to work in safe and healthy workplaces. However, if we compare that with provisions in Bill C-4 that clearly strip health and safety officers of their powers in the Canada Labour Code and turn them over to the minister, there is a clear contradiction between, on the one hand, trying to clarify and enforce the rights of working people and, on the other hand, pushing them further up the chain to somebody whose interests are potentially contrary to those of people on the floor.

I want to ask the member if he would please try to clarify for me why his government is pushing forward this serious contradiction in terms of the rights of working people.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague took a bit of literary licence with what I said. I said that the chief safety officer and safety officers on construction sites could actually do that. It would not necessarily be a worker just deciding that he could do that. A certain appeal mechanism would have to happen.

We have shown a lot of leadership in taking this on and putting it in the bill. Typically, the provincial government has control over occupational health and safety for a lot of workforces. The fact that these are in this bill and we are doing it suggests to me that our government recognizes this is very important.

The complaints of the opposition of what was done in Bill C-4 is just a red herring.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by the member opposite and his knowledge on the issue of workplace health and safety, his commitment to the principle and how important it is. He referred to the right of workers to shut down a work site if they decided that the performance of that work would place any worker at the site in a dangerous situation. I commend him for that.

I also agree that the bill does outline the duties of occupational health and safety officers and provides these officers with enforcement powers of warrant provisions, inspections and investigation. It does very much clarify those rights.

I wonder if he could clarify something for me.There is a provision in Bill C-4, the budget implementation act, that strips away the right of working people to declare a workplace unsafe, to exercise the right to refuse, and puts all of the power into the hands of the minister. Given what the member said, I think he would agree it certainly is a regressive move. It is a weakening of the rights of working people to determine whether their workplace is in fact safe and healthy.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-5. One of the greatest privileges of being a member of this place is the opportunity to create and improve legislation that positively impacts the lives of our fellow Canadians. I believe, in fact, that Bill C-5 is a case in point.

It is not news to Canadians that our country places great economic importance on the development of natural resources. Throughout our history, that has been the case. Forestry products, natural gas, hydroelectricity and oil are cornerstones of our export market and contribute immensely to the creation of jobs for middle-class Canadians. Some of our natural resources are also extracted offshore. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador people know the importance this activity has for their economies.

The offshore sector is, of course, the subject of the bill, specifically the occupational health and safety of offshore workers. Mirror legislation has already received royal assent, in fact, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. While the bill is quite large, several hundred pages or more, some observers have noted that it primarily lays down in law things that are already happening in practice. Unfortunately, one issue that the bill does not address is recommendation 29 from the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry led by Commissioner Robert Wells.

The Wells inquiry was established by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board following the 2009 helicopter crash about 30 nautical miles off of St. John's, Newfoundland. As members may recall, the helicopter was carrying 16 people to work in the offshore fields when it crashed, killing 15 of those workers and the two pilots. Commissioner Wells recommended that a new, independent, stand-alone safety regulator be established to regulate safety in the offshore. In fact, I asked the minister about that idea a little earlier.

The commissioner went on to say that if recommendation 29 was not feasible, a separate and autonomous safety division of the C-NLOPB should be created to deal only with safety matters. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 does not implement this recommendation in either of the ways the commissioner offered as options. I would urge the Conservative government to see if it can address this fact when the legislation is sent to committee, which I think it will be, and amendments are brought forward. If that cannot be done, perhaps it could bring forward legislation soon, working with the provinces involved, obviously, to deal with this.

As Canadians, we are well aware, of course, of the oil sands. Its production, export and environmental impact colours the discourse of the government every day. It is often talked about here in the House, and these days in the U.S. as well. Lesser known but still valuable is our domestic offshore oil and gas industry operating in the coastal waters of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, even though in Nova Scotia there has been a decline in revenues from the offshore in recent years as the production of gas from existing wells declines and with the relatively low price of gas in North America. In fact, in North America the gas level price is about $3 whereas in Asia it is between $14 and $18, so there is quite a variation. That means that there is a little less interest these days in more costly exploration offshore versus production onshore, as is happening a great deal in the U.S.

The offshore industry in Newfoundland and Labrador produced more than 28 million barrels of oil in 2013. In Nova Scotia, offshore production accounts for a significant portion of the province's annual revenue, although it has been declining. The offshore oil and gas industry provides employment for Canadians and security for their families, for thousands of people. My hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's, for instance, would know this having worked in the offshore. He would also understand that the primary concern of the industry is its own economic viability and success. Meanwhile, as legislators, it is our responsibility to strike a careful balance between the economic success of Canadian business and the rights of employees, and of course consideration for our environment. There are and must be times when these latter two take precedence.

Bill C-5 is one of the many tools to achieve this. Canada is often referred to as a nation rich in natural resources. We must ask ourselves how we should behave when we are labelled in this way, especially these days when there is so much concern about the impact on the environment of the exploitation of natural resources and when we need to have the social licence, whether it be within our country or beyond our borders in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline that has been proposed for example, when we need to have support elsewhere for what we are doing and a recognition that we are making important efforts and doing everything we can to ensure the environment is protected. I do not think most Canadians believe for a moment that the Conservative government has been doing that.

It seems to me that we should also be striving to set an example for other countries by valuing our human capital as much as we value the wealth we derive from our natural resources. The bill is very much about our human capital as we are thinking about the safety and health of our workers.

The bill will in fact effectively solve the issue of jurisdiction surrounding the occupational and operational health and safety in the Canadian offshore oil and gas industry. That is an important thing to do. It is frustrating that it has taken over 10 years to do that. This process has been under way and we have been discussing it a long time.

Nevertheless, for this reason, because it is achieving this, the Liberal Party supports Bill C-5. We believe we need to move the legislation to committee so that it can be studied, and if necessary improved. We certainly look forward to the opportunity to examine the bill, to hear from experts and to consider possible improvements.

The original offshore accords were signed in the late 1980s by Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. They were designed to establish guidelines for revenue and responsibility sharing of offshore oil and gas assets. These assets have since proved to be economically rewarding, especially so in Newfoundland and Labrador, and have supported programs beyond the scope of resource extraction.

Bill C-5 seeks to clarify jurisdictional issues that arise between occupational health and safety and operational safety, to create a streamlined process for rectifying health and safety issues and to assign responsibility. We do not want to have any doubt, when there is an accident in the offshore, about whether it is a matter of federal or provincial jurisdiction. We want to know that there will be clear laws, that the courts will know which laws apply, and that nothing falls through the cracks. We want to know that people are protected and that in the worst case scenario, God forbid there is another accident like the helicopter accident, families seeking redress know where to go, what to look for and what laws apply to them. That is obviously important.

The right to a safe workplace is one that all Canadians must enjoy. It is fundamental for all of us. Those of us who work in this place are very fortunate. We have a very safe environment, at least in terms of actual health and safety. I did not say it was secure, especially when elections come along. Nobody here has job security for more than four years or so.

However, we are very fortunate in the kind of work we do in this job. Generally speaking it is pretty good for health and safety. We do not have to engage in the kinds of work that some people in our country do have to engage in. We can think of that television show Dirty Jobs. There are many jobs in this world that are dangerous and challenging.

This morning as I left my apartment and walked here, the first thing I saw was a new building under construction across the street. I was thinking about the construction workers and the kinds of things they have to learn to work on a site such as that. There are health and safety things they have to learn to know how to operate in an environment where it can be somewhat dangerous. If they back up the wrong way or take the wrong step, they could be in a big trouble on a construction site with a building that is already 10 storeys high, and as I learned this morning, is going to be 22 storeys. That is the kind of place where people want to be careful.

The right to a safe workplace is something the government should keep in mind as it proceeds also with Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill.

Though a safe workplace is not the reality for all, through the years, governments and parliamentarians have worked with stakeholder groups to improve the conditions faced by Canadians in their places of employment. That, obviously, is incredibly important work. Bill C-5 is an example of these efforts. In this case they are the efforts of the provincial and federal levels working together, which is nice to see. It is our collective responsibility, whether as a legislative body, employers or employees, or society as a whole, to ensure that the right to a safe work environment is respected. It is absolutely vital.

Conditions for employees on offshore drilling projects should be comparable to those found on land-based projects. There is no question that a drilling rig, whether offshore or onshore, can be a very dangerous environment. My brother at one time worked on offshore oil rigs, and I have certainly heard stories from him about the nature of them and what he had to learn before he could work there, especially if the work was around the equipment that was the most dangerous.

The mode of transportation to their work site should be safe and reliable. Think about the helicopter accident. Employees of the oil and gas sector offshore and their families should be able to leave for work with confidence that they will be returning safely home. They should be able to voice their concerns about unsafe working conditions when they find them without fear of reprisal or the frustration of drawn out and murky processes. It is important that the processes be clear and expedient.

It is our job to transform these topics of concern I have just listed into topics of confidence. Employees and their families can be confident that what is proposed in Bill C-5, as far as it goes, would improve the health and safety regimes of offshore oil and gas projects. It is up to us to decide by how much.

Members of our party believe that we need to ensure the separation of health and safety concerns from those of production and economic viability. They are two different things. We want to make sure that sometimes, when necessary, those health and safety concerns are paramount, as they ought to be.

Bill C-5 should guarantee that the proposed chief safety officer has powerful methods of inquiry to hold operators to account. A regime of self-regulation would be insufficient. I have already said that we do not think that the chief safety officer approach is necessarily ideal. There are others Commissioner Wells recommended, but since that is what we are going with, let us try to make it as strong as possible. The chief safety officer must not be influenced in decision-making by concerns of economic viability or by political pressure, obviously. This individual must be a champion of a healthy and safe environment for all employees who work on offshore oil and gas projects.

The Liberal Party places great emphasis also on search and rescue capabilities, or SAR, as it is called. This is a core element of the health and safety regime in the offshore industry.

The spring 2013 report of the Auditor General outlined significant issues regarding search and rescue capabilities, including a complete lack of federal policy in this area. The Attorney General is rightly concerned about the viability of search and rescue capabilities in the coming years and about the risk of leaving employees in the offshore sector with inadequate assistance in the case of major emergencies.

Bill C-5 includes guidelines on the safe transport of workers to and from the offshore site. It should also include a procedure for rescuing these individuals should something go wrong. This should be included in this legislation, it seems to me.

The unique challenges of the offshore oil and gas industry must be met by a complete and thorough plan of response. Bill C-5, as I said earlier, is the product of over a decade of negotiations and consultations among the federal government, the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and stakeholder groups. A decade is a long time. Really, it is excessive. I would hope that future negotiations would move more quickly. If the Conservatives, at least while they are the government, will take this seriously and move quickly, along with provinces—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact that the bill provides a safety regime in legislation for the offshore for the first time, but we also have before the House Bill C-4. This is a 300-page omnibus bill amending over 70 pieces of legislation, one of the provisions of which strips the health and safety officers in regimes and jurisdictions across the country of their powers and puts nearly all of those powers in the hands of the minister. On the one hand the legislation purports to give authority to the C-NLOPB and the offshore safety regulation, and on the other hand, Bill C-4 takes it away.

Could the minister explain why the government is doing that and why it thinks the health and safety of workers throughout this country is so malleable in its hands?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak to Bill C-4 today, the last speaker before we vote on this.

Yesterday I heard a lot of discussion from both sides of the House. I want to take a couple of minutes to explain exactly what we are doing here. This is a budget implementation bill. It is the second one. We have one in the spring and one in the fall. It is the traditional way of doing things. We have a budget, and out of that budget, we have to implement what is going on in the budget. That is what this bill does.

I am the 69th speaker to this item. Twenty-two percent of members of the House have spoken to this implementation bill thus far. This is at second reading stage. Then the bill goes to committee, and committee studies the bill. It calls witnesses, has a discussion, and more members of Parliament have an opportunity to comment on the bill. Then the bill comes back to the House for report stage. Then there is another set of speakers to this. Then there is third reading.

More than half the members of the House of Commons have an opportunity to speak to the bill. That is a significant amount of input and debate on this implementation bill.

I have heard over and over about there not being enough time, about closure motions, and about time allocation. The reality is that the public expects us to get things done for them. That is what we are doing here, and that is what the implementation bill does.

I hear about the omnibus bill. The bill is 309 or 312 pages, French and English. I know that I can read 150 pages. I am making the assumption that the opposition members can read 150 pages. I cannot read it in French. I wish I had that talent, but I do not. I do not think there is anything in the bill we need to complain about in terms of there being so much in it that it cannot be understood. Those are not the facts.

We on this side will do our homework. We will do the job we need to do to get things done for Canadians and move things forward. There are many good pieces in this bill. If members do not want to read the whole bill, there are summary pages at the front. In the summary, the very first item is to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and to index it to inflation. For the first time, it would be indexed to inflation.

We are giving small businesses the opportunity to create jobs and create wealth for them, their families, and their communities. They get to keep it after they have done their jobs. They pass that on to the next generation. They sell it to the next entrepreneur, and they keep building this country through jobs and economic activity. We support small business. We support entrepreneurs, and that is what the implementation bill does. I am very happy that we are getting it done.

Tonight we are voting on it. We will get it to committee and will get it back in this House. Hopefully we will get it passed by Christmas so that people can continue to create good-quality jobs for this country and for our youth, and we will continue to build a great Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for raising the importance of what we find at division 10 of Bill C-4.

When we are dealing with omnibus budget bills, there is scant attention paid to the multiple ways in which the legislation would impact on dozens of pieces of legislation.

I would ask about these changes to the National Research Council. They are obviously not intended to save money. They would reduce the scope of the work of the National Research Council in terms of the expertise upon which it can draw. However, the member failed to mention one of the other changes that has been brought about by this administration, which was the elimination of the position of the science adviser to the Prime Minister. It was recently outlined in a book by Chris Turner, The War on Science.

What does my hon. colleague make of this effort to undermine access to good advice from those who are qualified to offer it in areas of scientific competence?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to focus on a very particular part of BillC-4, but since this is a chamber of debate I feel I should address the very last remarks of my Conservative colleague across the floor.

This is not the first time I have heard Conservatives use the word “professor” in a very derogatory manner. In fact, the first time I encountered that was at all-candidates debate in the 2008 election. The Conservative candidate referred, very derisively, to Professor Dion.

I am sorry; I forgot the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is still here.

This shows the attitude that the Conservative party and the Conservative mind have towards education, towards learning, and towards respect for an inquiry toward the truth. I feel I have to point this out, because the member opposite clearly intended to insult Liberal Party members by calling us the professor party; well, I am proud to be part of a party that thinks about facts and evidence and is occasionally humbled by facts and evidence.

Canadians need to know that the Conservative Party is the party that does not value education, does not value learning, and is essentially willing to insult teachers. I have to start my remarks with that rebuke. Canadians need to know what kind of party this Conservative Party is.

I have three post-secondary institutions in my riding of Kingston and the Islands: the Royal Military College of Canada, Queen's University, and St. Lawrence College. I know that all of the professors and their students would be insulted by the remark of my colleague across the way.

Let me now talk about a particular part of Bill C-4. I am referring to the changes that will be made to members of the National Research Council, the council members who serve in an advisory capacity to the management of the National Research Council.

In Bill C-4, the composition of the council is going to be reduced from 18 members plus a president to 10 members plus a chairperson plus a president. What I would like to do today is simply ask the question “Why?” That question has not been answered in the legislation. The change appears in the legislation, but there has really been no supporting argument from the government for making this change.

I want to talk about why this should not be considered a trivial change. These are not salaried employees. Some members, as I checked the record, thought scientist employees were being cut from NRC, but these are experts who are meant to guide the management of NRC in planning for its future.

What we need to do is ask why the opportunity was not taken in Bill C-4 to, for example, establish some rules on replenishing the membership of the advisory council, to consult with them, and to put in place some guidelines on how to choose members.

Members may not know that only 5 of the 18 spots on the council are filled right now. This is a very strange thing, given the enormous changes happening at NRC. Later I will talk about that a little more.

One thing that the bill we are discussing today could have done is provide some guidelines on how to choose these council members. For example, we might want to have three sets of criteria: first, knowledge of research, innovation, and commercialization; second, the personal experience, accomplishments, and integrity of the person; and third, diversity in the composition of the National Research Council members.

This is a time of big changes, so this expertise is very necessary. The Conservative Party seems to believe in less governance and less consultation. It is very comfortable with less governance and less consultation.

Why should the management of NRC consult? Let me mention the report of a task force commissioned by a former Progressive Conservative government in 1987. In the report, the task force told the Mulroney government that it would be foolish for NRC management not to take advantage of the real and wide expertise found within the members of the council. That council would be the consultative body of potentially up to 18 members.

Why does this Canadian national institution need a large consultative body? The reason is twofold. One is that we are a very diverse country regionally, and NRC is supposed to serve this very diverse country. There is a part of NRC called IRAP, the industrial research assistance program. A web of industrial technology advisors across the country works with small companies to help them develop and commercialize their technology, connect with partners, get funding, and get the people they need to succeed. It is clear that NRC serves all of Canada and should be very sensitive to the large regional geographic diversity we have in our country.

In addition, NRC aspires to serve a large range of disciplines and sectors of technical capability. For example, it is involved in astronomy, metrology, security, aerospace, construction, health, and ICT. NRC is responsible for an enormous range of scientific disciplines and technologies. Therefore, it makes sense that its consultative body should reflect the broad range of technical capabilities NRC aspires to. This is something Bill C-4 could have tried to put in place but did not.

Let me also talk about why this is a special time for NRC and why a consultative body would be very important. It is a time of great change at NRC. In fact, NRC has never undergone such a great change. We know that there used to be institutes at NRC. They have been completely restructured into R and D portfolios with individual programs inside that have to get business plans approved through a four-step process. We know that this approval process has been very slow, probably too slow for the comfort of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Certainly it has been too slow for the morale of the scientists and researchers at NRC.

We know that morale has been severely tested at NRC. We receive messages all the time from people who work at NRC. We even know that there was an online survey on the internal NRC website that showed how low morale was and how dissatisfied workers at NRC were. This is a time of extreme stress at NRC, and it is important to have that consultative body.

I might just throw out a question to the government to ask if a second pair of eyes checked out the idea of sending Tim Hortons cards to employees. Some went to employees who had lost their jobs.

In conclusion, this is an important time for NRC. This is an opportunity to make sure that NRC is fully consulting with the diverse geographic and disciplinary range it aspires to. This is a time when the NRC council could be strengthened and used to provide good advice to the management of NRC as it attempts this very ambitious transformation. It is a transformation that we know has had some problems. It has been a bit slow and has caused morale to suffer at NRC. The government has missed an enormous opportunity.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for politicians to get through their very long days and heavy schedules, they have to take some pleasure in what they are doing. I must admit, however, that I did not enjoy reading Bill C-4 at all.

I therefore took a few minutes before writing these words to escape into my own mind a bit, and my thoughts turned to movies. I really had the feeling as I read through Bill C-4 that I was being shown an old movie—I am trying to refrain from saying a really bad one—in which I had played a role. I began to imagine the titles I could give to it.

If it were a French film, we could call it Rebelote. If it were an American film, we could call it The Empire Strikes Back. I must admit I spent a few moments imagining certain members of the party across the way wearing the emperor's costume or dressed as Darth Vader. I will not name them, but I will leave it up to my colleagues to picture them, given that Halloween is this week.

After these few amusing moments I allowed myself, I came back to more serious things and thought I would perhaps begin my speech with a reference to the words of the anti-slavery Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who defined democracy in the following way:

Democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people.

That is quite simple, but quite concrete. I will not analyze this wonderful definition in detail, but the more time goes by under the Conservative regime, the more certain I become that our country is straying dangerously far from that democratic ideal.

When day after day I see how the members of this government, the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself seem mired in expense scandals, questionable deals made behind Canadians' backs, the silencing of dissident voices and the introduction of measures that are so complex that people feel their basic rights are being breached, I sincerely worry about the very future of our parliamentary system.

For the fourth time in two and a half years, this government is trying to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. As the saying goes, just the once will not hurt, but four times in two and a half years means it is becoming a habit for this government.

Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that again hurts Canadian families by increasing the cost of living and that creates very few or no jobs when all is said and done. This bill is very big. Its 300-odd pages cover 70 acts, and we have only a few days or a few weeks, to study such a bill. The entire package will very likely be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, which must really have significant expertise in appointing Supreme Court justices, employment insurance and immigration. The committee members are exceedingly multi-talented.

I often wonder what I am doing in the House, if not fighting for democracy. These bills are so huge that it becomes very difficult to properly analyze and fully understand them. They usually contain an alarming number of wide-ranging measures intended to hide other controversial ones, such as the measures attacking Canada's public service.

For months now, the government's methods and attitude when it comes to employment insurance matters have been symptomatic of the Conservative ministers' inability to implement a policy and measures to move the country forward. These same ministers are being given more and more power with each omnibus bill.

The democratic process that is based on dialogue and collaboration was so violated that the reform turned into a hatchet job. Everywhere I go, Canadians feel attacked, deeply hurt and, worse than anything, poorer. When people feel poorer, it is because they can see it when they manage their weekly budget.

This is why we as NDP members are categorically opposed to this bill. The reasons are many, but I am going to focus on several points that deal specifically with employment insurance.

The NDP has opposed this reform from the outset. After months of consultation in the field, we came to the obvious conclusion that employment insurance reform is an economic failure and it has to be stopped as quickly as possible.

Curiously, in the provinces most affected by the reform, it is the provincial governments that now have to work to assess the disastrous consequences it brings. That is co-operation for you.

It does not make any sense. It is disrespectful for a federal government to refuse to work with its partners in other levels of government, or with practically all the members of this House. Even inside the federal government, voices are being raised to decry the way in which the government is imposing its ideology on such a sensitive issue.

I have given up counting the times when federal officials, who have always worked to serve their fellow Canadians, have shown their distress and their incomprehension at the authoritarian and brutal methods with which they are required to process claimants' files.

Unfortunately, these are not just files that have to be processed with profit-making quotas, probably. These are families that need help. That is the approach that the public service used to have. It is about supporting communities and stimulating the economy.

Bill C-4 follows the same path as the three previous omnibus bills. I am talking about Bills C-38, C-45 and C-60. Now Bill C-4 is amending 70 pieces of legislation and adding two completely new acts. I hope for the next time that this is enough. It also includes such measures as the one to abolish the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board.

To be specific, Bill C-4 abolishes the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rate-setting. Yet another power gathered unto the bosom of a minister. What does the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board do, or what is it supposed to do? Well, surprise, surprise, the answers in the bill are quite vague. We might say that there are none.

When the Conservatives set up the Employment Insurance Financing Board in 2008, we might have thought that they were headed in the right direction. We heard it said repeatedly in the House that this was probably a step in the right direction. However, one step forward, two steps back—that is what we have become used to with them. We thought that it might be the very tool to prevent successive governments from stealing employment insurance funds to eliminate other deficits. We expected the board to really prevent another misappropriation of that fund such as we saw under the Chrétien and Martin governments.

At that time, tens of billions of dollars in worker and employer premiums were simply stolen by the government. However, when it comes to the Conservatives, appearances can be deceiving and should never be trusted. The board remained a good intention, but in actual fact it is an empty shell, an institution without a soul, without powers and without purpose.

Let us go a bit further. The Employment Insurance Financing Board seems to bother the Conservative government. Why is this organization so bothersome? Why does it want to abolish it?

By eliminating the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, once again the government is toying dangerously with morality. However, we feel it is essential to guarantee the protection of the premiums paid by employers and workers throughout Canada. It is a matter of social justice and fairness for all. Who among us can be sure that he or she will have a job for life and will never have to turn to employment insurance? The answer is simple—no one can.

Why continually attack those who are looking for work? Why does the government constantly attack those who are having trouble finding long-term, stable, permanent employment?

In conclusion, unemployment is of course a major concern for NDP members. We will introduce reforms to create jobs and curtail employment uncertainty everywhere in Canada as early as 2015, and even earlier.

In 2015, when we replace this tired government that is mired in scandals, we will restore a mechanism to protect the employment insurance fund so that the money that is put into it is used in the way it was intended.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to some of the key initiatives in Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

As a government, we have much to be proud of. I am glad to see that we remain focused on the issues that matter most to Canadians, which are job creation, keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced budget.

Through Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. We have created over one million net new jobs, of which 90% are full time and over 85% are in the private sector, which is an astounding figure.

Statistics Canada announced that 59,200 net new jobs were created in August and nearly another 12,000 in September. The national unemployment rate has fallen to 6.9%, the lowest level since December 2008.

I have seen the same recovery happen in my hometown of Barrie, Ontario. In September, the unemployment rate in Barrie fell to 7.2%, an improvement of nearly 2% from the September before, which is remarkably better than the 11.7% unemployment rate we saw a few years ago. Therefore, I am certainly seeing in Barrie the recovery that has occurred nationally. As Councillor Brassard said when I addressed the Barrie City Council in September, the federal government's initiatives have been the linchpin to this recovery.

Our strategies to create jobs are working. I am particularly proud of our government's support for job growth through the Canada job grant. As organizations grow, their success is often contingent upon knowledgeable staff. However, with a family to feed and a full-time job, it can be tough for staff to go back to school on a full-time basis. That is why our government created a program that would enable employees to train for better jobs without having to worry about the excessive costs to retrain. Canadians who have an offer of a new or better job might qualify for up to $15,000 or more to learn new skills to accept that job. This will serve as a tremendous help to both employees and employers looking to grow their business.

However, the job does not end there. There is still more to be done. While more Canadians are finding work, I sympathize with the many Canadians who are still searching for gainful employment. We are not immune to the economic volatility beyond our borders. This is especially true for Canada's key trading partners, the United States and Europe. With our big export consumers still on shakey ground, that will have an impact on Canada's economy. That is why our government is staying focused on the economy and creating jobs. One way we are doing that is through supporting small business.

As we all know, small business growth has been one of the key components of Canada's recovery. Since taking office in 2006, our government has supported small business by keeping tax rates low. Small business is the economic engine that drives our economy. Statistics show that 75% of workers in Canada are employed by companies with four or fewer employees. Our commerce relies on keeping taxes low to maintain our competitive edge over many of our trading partners. I have heard this in Barrie.

On September 23, I had the pleasure of having the President of the Treasury Board in Barrie for two round tables, one with Meridian Commercial Banking, hosted by Councillor Alex Nuttall, and one with the Chamber of Commerce, hosted by its executive director Sybil Goruk. It was that focus on training and small business that we heard at both those local round tables and that they appreciate our efforts on both those fronts.

We have already extended the hiring credit for small business up to $1,000 for new hires, and over one million employers have benefited from that program. There has been some strong feedback from the small business community on this initiative. BIA 2 seeks to expand that recovery by freezing the employment insurance rates that employers and employees pay for the next three years. In Barrie, this means that businesses and their employees will be keeping more money in their pockets, which is great news for our local economy, especially our small businesses.

In my riding, I have seen first-hand how many local businesses have benefited from federal incentives and programs. Federal investments have also supported local businesses to create jobs. For instance, through a repayable contribution, Southmedic was able to take its plant from China to Barrie. It is providing medical masks. TNR Industrial Doors had a major expansion with another repayable loan. Those are good, high-paying jobs.

With a repayable loan, Wolf Steel, which does high-efficiency furnaces, was able to almost double the size of its company with an impressive expansion. Even more significantly, thanks to the southern Ontario economic development agency, we were able to convince IBM to put a plant in Barrie. A $20-million contribution has led to some of the highest-skilled jobs around just on Bayview Drive. Phase one is now open and phase two will be under way shortly.

I would also like to mention the federal contributions that led to the new wellness centre in Barrie. That was 400 construction jobs; 400 new full-time and part-time jobs for staff and faculty. The economic impact of this construction alone was approximately $98 million for my community, a pretty significant benefit.

Last week, the Minister of Finance released the annual financial report of the Government of Canada for 2012-13. This report shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter, $7.4 billion, from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. I certainly hear from around Barrie that this disciplined approach to deficit reduction is applauded and appreciated across Canada.

This is an excellent example of our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars. Further direct program expenses have fallen by 1.2% from the year prior and by 3.8% from 2010-11. We have found these savings without raising taxes or cutting transfers to the provinces and territories. The 1990 approach by the Liberals was simply to slash transfers to the provinces and that meant huge cuts to health care and education. That certainly was not the approach we were prepared to make. This has been a much more fiscally prudent manner to approach the deficit.

Our support does not end there. Our government has also recognized the need for improved infrastructure. Not only have we recognized this need but we have taken action by investing over $4.5 billion into greater Toronto area infrastructure since we took office in February 2006. Since 2006, the City of Barrie alone, to give another example, has seen its share of the federal gas transfers not only become permanent, but they have risen from over $2 million a year to $8 million. There is a lot that can be done with that and the city certainly has. We have put $7.2 million into various road renewal activities, and $16.5 million into improvements of stormwater management, like Kidds Creek, Bunkers Creek, Sophia Creek, the Kempenfelt Bay shoreline, culverts and storm sewers. In fact, the City of Barrie got an FCM award this year for its excellent management of gas tax funding. We have also put $2.1 million into the landfill improvement projects up on Ferndale Drive.

Continued investments in my region's infrastructure have improved amenities for families across the board. Building a better community is something that we all have a stake in and a commitment to new infrastructure helps make Barrie an attractive area to live, work, play and invest. I am sure that is the case in every community across this country. Certainly, Bill C-4 provides those significant tools to build our communities.

Not only does Bill C-4 address this issue now, but it includes initiatives that will help Canadians into the future as well. Canada has free trade agreements in force with more than 10 countries and half of those agreements have been brought into force in just over the last four years. These agreements are strategic economic advantages for our country in a wide range of sectors. I think we see that in every community in Canada.

Bill C-4 also addresses the Government of Canada's intent to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. Through the much needed amendments to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, we will ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing, as taxpayers expect.

There is one other item I want to mention that I was particularly proud of in Bill C-4. That was the investments that were made in Lake Simcoe. This government has put $59 million into the cleanup of Lake Simcoe. We have never seen a nickel put into Lake Simcoe before this government. Bill C-4 also puts in funds for protection against invasive species. Lake Simcoe is a tremendous jewel in our region. It contributes an estimated $200 million to our region and more than 400,000 people depend on the lake for drinking water. We have seen the phosphorous levels go dramatically down, and I am proud that our government has shown such significant leadership on Lake Simcoe.

I commend the Minister of Finance for his incredible hard work on Bill C-4 and the astute leadership he has shown, respecting Canadian taxpayer dollars and investing in a manner that supports the economic growth of our country.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

He pointed out one of the biggest shortcomings of this bill: the fact that the government is amending approximately 80 laws in a 300-page document and we have only a few hours of debate in the House of Commons to examine it because the government moved a time allocation motion. This bill will not be examined properly. It is simply disgraceful. This bill addresses many issues, and we will not have the opportunity to conduct a thorough and proper examination of it. It could potentially contain mistakes, like the error concerning the tax rate for credit unions in the last omnibus bill. There may be mistakes in this bill that we will not see because we did not have the opportunity to examine it properly. It is completely disgraceful. Clearly, we are against this. What is even more disgraceful is that, because of the Senate scandal, the media are not focusing on Bill C-4 and so Canadians will not be properly informed of the changes that are being made.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions I asked the Minister of Labour was in regard to how we in the Liberal Party believe that she should have brought in her own piece of legislation, given the number of changes that are being put into place through the budget implementation bill.

We are talking about the ways in which we define danger, for example, issues related to health and safety regulations and issues related to our unions. There is a lot of substance there that ultimately would have seen a great deal more debate and discussion by many different stakeholders across this country, given the importance of the labour file.

I wonder if the member might want to provide comment on what I believe is one of the greatest deficiencies of this legislation, the fact that it is incorporating so much other legislation through the back door of the budget bill that it is preventing legitimate debate on a wide variety of other important issues facing Canadians today.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that excellent speech on Bill C-4.

The Conservatives came into this session with drums rolling. They were going to talk about a consumer-first agenda. Yet, we see in this Bill C-4, which is an omnibus bill that deals with 70 different laws of this country, that they have failed to address any of the consumer issues that Canadians want. They have failed to address the airline passenger's bill of rights. It is not here. They have failed to address the fact that cell phone bills are so high. They have also failed to address gas prices that average Canadians are paying, being gouged by big oil companies.

I know my colleague has done excellent work on the veterans affairs committee. I have had a number of veterans from my community come to my office asking for help, trying navigate through the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Could the member highlight some of the issues he has discovered through his travels and through the committee, in regard to veterans not being treated fairly?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a fourth mammoth hodgepodge bill that seeks once more to amend legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget. It is a scandal. We also have to debate it under the pall of a time allocation motion. Once again, debate is being limited. We are only in our second week of work. It is an absolute scandal.

Should we be surprised? We have just started work again after a prorogation, and the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the saying goes. It is a new session of Parliament but we have the same old tactics from this government.

This is the fourth mammoth bill with which the Conservatives are trying once more to push through legislative changes so that Canadians will not notice. Here we have a 300-page document that amends a number of pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with the budget.

The NDP is familiar with the Conservatives' bad-faith manoeuvres, and we will do everything in our power to put a stop to these underhanded tactics.

This bill is a travesty. It is supposed to implement the budget, but it includes measures that have nothing to do with the budget. I am thinking particularly of the government's shady attacks on the rights of public service workers. That is why we have been demanding, since the start of this debate, that Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, be divided into several parts so that the appropriate committees can properly analyze and study the proposed changes.

We were only on the first day of the debate when the Conservatives moved a time allocation motion in order to cut off debate and once again prevent Canadians from seeing the entire content of this bill. To us, this way of doing things is completely anti-democratic. We cannot even debate a bill without debate being cut off. This has become the norm in this institution. It is a complete scandal.

Not so long ago, the Conservatives were talking about democracy. Unbelievable. They were saying that they listen to Canadians and co-operate with other governments. However, when they are here, they do everything they can to obstruct the work of the House. They would simply like us to support their bills with no debate, no discussion. This government would like Canadians to write them a blank cheque. Speaking of cheques, we know what they do with those. It does not always make much sense, so this is a cheque they are not going to get.

Canadians are not fools. As the NDP leader told the Prime Minister, Canadians are going to judge this government's actions harshly. Canadians do not want to see their government act this way and show so little respect for democratic institutions. The NDP is offering Canadians a true alternative to this government's anti-democratic ways. In 2015, the NDP will show Canadians that we can govern this country and that we will not engage in these underhanded tactics.

Coming back to Bill C-4, I would now like to discuss a division of the bill that deals with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Section 4 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act will be replaced with the following:

There is established an independent board, to be known as the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, consisting of not more than 25 permanent members to be appointed by the Governor in Council and any number of temporary members that are appointed under section 6.

Thinking about this change to the number of board members, I can only wonder whether the Conservatives learned anything from the VRAB study in committee. Several accusations were made during that study, and many witnesses mentioned that the board was rife with patronage appointments, interference, procedural unfairness, a lack of expertise, and so on.

I will summarize what Mr. Leduc said; he was one of the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He said that, unfortunately, our veterans do not have the benefit of a fair and equitable hearing. I think that that statement is a good summary of the problems veterans encounter with that board.

Have the Conservatives made any changes to ensure that this board will be made fair and impartial? Absolutely not. They preferred to reduce the number of members who will sit on it from 28 to 25; the effect of this will be to slow down the work and increase waiting periods.

The Conservatives will also continue to appoint their friends to that board despite the fact that many of them have no expertise and no knowledge that would qualify them to sit on it. Once again, veterans are the ones being penalized by this type of measure.

As my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore stated quite rightly, the government now wants to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans, on the backs of our heroes. Is that a good approach? Of course not. The Conservatives are only bringing in half measures that do more harm than good to our veterans.

If we take a look at budgets in this period of fiscal austerity that prevails throughout the world, we see that our allies have absolutely not cut their veterans' budgets; in fact, several have increased them. The Conservative government is clearly bucking that trend and is making deep cuts to the Veterans Affairs budget. That is a clear sign of the lack of respect the government has for veterans.

In addition to these new cuts and those to the number of members who sit on the VRAB, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the government is going to close nine district offices throughout the country. These Veterans Affairs Canada offices provided services to veterans. The Conservatives are also going to transfer Ste. Anne's Hospital, the last hospital to provide care for veterans, to the provincial government. The Conservatives continue to transfer veterans' services to government agencies that have no expertise, such as Service Canada, or they offload the task of caring for our veterans to the provinces.

According to the Conservatives, veterans are no different from other citizens. The government considers that it owes injured veterans absolutely nothing. The government feels that it has absolutely no moral obligation to veterans, which is scandalous. These days, veterans are angry with the government because of everything it has done over the past few years.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, the veterans affairs critic, recently introduced Bill C-447, which would completely dismantle the VRAB and implement a system with a peer-reviewed process for making medical decisions, which would be much more beneficial for veterans. A more effective and impartial board would better serve our veterans.

True to form, the Conservatives decided to introduce only half measures, such as reducing the number of VRAB members from 28 to 25, which could potentially increase wait times for hearings before this board. That is the extent of the government's respect for veterans.

Not just veterans will suffer the consequences of this budget implementation bill. The rights obtained and gains made in recent years by workers and public servants are also under attack. The most significant and most unacceptable changes in the latest budget implementation bill target Canadian workplaces.

In fact, the bill fundamentally changes Canadians' right to a safe and healthy workplace. How does it do that? It will take away the powers conferred on health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and give them to the minister.

The bill will also reduce a worker's right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. We are convinced that no worker should be made to work in conditions that would put their health and safety at risk. This provision is ridiculous and we strongly oppose it. The government has always served as the watchdog for private business to ensure that workers have a safe environment. We wonder if the government knows what it is doing in this file. We really do wonder.

In addition, Bill C-4 will put practically all of the power related to health and safety into the minister's hands, without taking into account how that will affect protections for workers.

Bill C-4 also makes changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, eliminating binding arbitration as a method of dispute resolution in the public service. The only explanation for this change is that the government wants to provoke disputes with public servants.

I could go on and list more situations, but I will leave it at that.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank my other colleague for asking such fundamental questions about Bill C-4. I was hoping for an answer, but we have not gotten any, as she just mentioned.

My colleague had a three-part question. I would like to focus on one aspect that has to do with Canadian workers and that is extremely important. I wonder why this is in a budget bill in the first place. Perhaps my colleague opposite can answer that.

Bill C-4 will make it harder for employees to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions.

Why is my colleague opposite trying to undermine the process that enables Canadians to refuse to work in unsafe working conditions? Does he have an answer this time?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

Over the past number of months and through the summer, I spent a lot of time going door to door, meeting with constituents at events and hearing their thoughts, suggestions, advice, and support. I have also taken the time to talk about our many budgetary accomplishments in 2013.

As has been stated by representatives and leaders around the world, Canada has shown exceptional leadership at a time when many countries are facing fiscal challenges, and Canadians are benefiting from the work of this government.

Our government has focused on using its budgetary means to reduce taxes and support Canadian families. Since we have been in government, we have introduced the tax-free savings account; made reductions to personal income tax; reduced the GST; created new target measures, such as the first-time homebuyers tax credit; and created the universal child care benefit and tax credits for children participating in fitness and arts programs, measures that are aimed at reducing the financial pressure faced by Canadian families.

Tax credits and benefits are not the only manner in which our government is helping Canadians manage with the prices of products. Even though the Canadian dollar has been strengthened in the past few years and has been strong, Canadians are still paying more than people in the U.S. for the exact same goods; in response, the economic action plan 2013 would help to eliminate tariffs to reduce the cost of many goods, and this is expected to represent about $76 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian families.

As a parent of two children and grandfather of three, I understand how important these programs are in helping middle-class families provide for their children and live comfortably.

Frequently while door-knocking these past few months, I was greeted by seniors. They often asked why I was there. I was pleased to tell them that I wanted them to hear from me, but also that I was pleased to share with them what we are doing as a government to help our seniors and our veterans.

It is an honour to thank seniors for their many contributions in building the Canada we have today. At the very least, we as government should provide our seniors with programs and tax relief that allow them to plan and live comfortably in their older stages of life.

Our family caregiver tax credit, pension splitting, and expanded tax relief for home care services are a few examples of measures we have introduced to help seniors.

Since 2006, over $2.7 billion in annual tax relief has been provided to seniors and pensioners because of our programs.

In less than two weeks, Canadians will be gathering in their communities to remember the bravery and sacrifice of our veterans and our current Canadian military. I look forward to joining the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 582 in my riding to participate in its annual Remembrance Day ceremony and parade. It is truly an honour for me.

In addition, the government is proud to honour the dedication and sacrifice of those Canadians who serve this country. A total investment of $1.9 billion over the next seven years will be made to ensure that disabled, ill, and aging veterans and their families are receiving the support they need to retire and live in dignity.

There have been over 30,000 projects accomplished to build and enhance infrastructure across the country. These projects created jobs for Canadians and will facilitate growth and prosperity for many years to come.

Since 2006, our government has made several important and impactful investments in my community in Mississauga. I will give a few examples.

In the GTA, the lack of transit investment continues to be a problem for residents. The residents of Mississauga will benefit from the completion of the $14 million in improvements to the Clarkson GO Station. The upgrades have made commuting easier for the more than 5,500 people who use the station every day.

We have invested $15.6 million in the new Sheridan College campus, right in downtown Mississauga across from City Hall. It is a wonderful facility.

Another example is the $35 million investment in the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus.

As well, over the last year thousands of residents have gathered at the new city Celebration Square, where our government invested $13.3 million. Since I have been there to mark the completion of the project, I have visited the square several times for community celebrations. This project has really contributed to the spirit of the community in downtown Mississauga.

Furthermore, many residents have been impressed by investments in the redevelopment of Burnhamthorpe branch library, where our government invested $5.5 million.

As Mississauga continues to grow, it is important to recognize existing infrastructure that needs maintenance in order to keep up with the growing interest of individuals and families in settling here. Across the city, over $12.3 million was invested in replacing old water mains. These repairs were necessary to accommodate the great future we have envisioned for the city.

We did not stop there. Our government's mandate has always been focused on our economy and job growth.

To meet the labour shortages in specific industries and to assist the thousands of Canadians who have had a difficult time finding employment, we have made it a priority to invest in skills and training for Canadians by introducing the Canada job grant.

The grant is a combination of federal, provincial, and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. Once fully implemented, this grant would help nearly 130,000 Canadians to obtain training in institutions such as community colleges and trade union training centres each year.

To assist small businesses, which contribute to the economic vitality of municipalities, our government has reduced the small business tax rate, lowered the federal corporate income tax rate, and extended the hiring credit for small businesses. An estimated 560,000 employers would benefit from this measure, which is expected to save small businesses about $225 million this year. These steps will help encourage small business growth in Canada.

Let us not forget our young people. Our federal government has acted to help them gain work experience by supporting more internships, valued at about $70 million. To encourage new ideas, about $18 million was allocated to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to support young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34. Even though life is not easy for a post-graduate, I can reassure them that our government recognizes this, is acting to provide assistance, and will continue to do so.

By implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. As I stated earlier, we are recognized by leaders around the world for having the courage to take the much-needed measures to deal with these economic challenges. In the past two years, we have already cut the deficit by more than half.

Canada's budget is exemplary. We recognize the needs that are faced by Canadians and have found a way to be fiscally responsible to protect our families, seniors, and youth.

I would like to encourage all opposition members to vote in favour of Bill C-4, move it forward, and continue to focus on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs, growing the economy, and securing Canada's long-term prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

The most important thing on the subject of biodiversity in the omnibus bill is the issue of the selling off of federal properties in British Columbia. Bill C-4 calls it the Dominion Coal Blocks. This area of over 60,000 hectares is very important to the region's biodiversity. It is very important because there are also plans for a national park in that region.

I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees that it would be better to examine this very important proposal in a separate bill.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my NDP colleague's speech, which he delivered with great passion and enthusiasm.

He highlighted a number of key issues for Canada's future. I am very interested in one issue in particular: water. I have been working on this issue for quite a long time. The member also mentioned the fact that the government is no friend of scientific research. I would like to talk to him about a subject that has to do with both water and scientific research: the Experimental Lakes Region, an open-air laboratory that the federal government has been involved with for some 40 years, a place where scientists have been doing field research on water pollution. As we all know, the current government eliminated that program.

Does the member think that now would be a good time for the government to use Bill C-4 to reverse its decision and reinstate the research projects in the Experimental Lakes Region?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the member opposite supports what we are doing to make sure that workplaces are safe and productive. I am sure that means that he will be supporting the budget implementation act, and I am delighted to hear that. This is great news for Canadian employers and employees. We need as many members of Parliament as possible supporting what is occurring here so that we have safe and productive workplaces.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments would ensure that the time of health and safety officers is used more effectively to enforce the occupational health and safety regulations and to focus more on preventing workplace accidents through increased awareness, education, and proactive interventions.

We want to reassure Canadians that when employers and employees could not come to an agreement on a workplace hazard or how to resolve it, health and safety officers at Labour Canada would still be available 24/7 to respond to urgent situations that required immediate intervention.

Under this approach, I, as the Minister of Labour, would have the authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions previously conferred on these officers. Aside from increasing support to them, this would also have the added benefit of greater consistency in decision-making across the country.

Rest assured that the new amendments would not affect the investigative capacity of the labour program and would not lead to fewer health and safety officers, as has been falsely reported in some media and by the opposition.

Health and safety officers are key to enforcing the Canada Labour Code. Through the delegation process, decisions with national impact would be made by HSOs with the necessary expertise. This would result in increased support to health and safety officers. This approach would provide them with additional guidance when making decisions and issuing directions that may have national implications.

This is about improving safety for workers. There would be no financial changes as a result of these amendments. What they would do is allow the labour program to better focus resources on critical issues affecting the health and safety of Canadians in the workplace. This means that we would be able to respond to imminent or serious dangers more quickly and resolve them.

I am convinced that these changes will result in a more streamlined process for the 9,000 federally regulated workplaces. More importantly, they will improve workplace health and safety.

These changes would put the decision-making responsibility in the hands of the people who best understand the problems they face in their workplace and how to solve them: employers and their employees.

As the workplace culture shifts to heightened health and safety awareness, which is evident from improving injury rates on the job, we need to modernize our legislation and the way we conduct business to reflect these realities.

Finally, rest assured that the fundamental rights and protections for employees remain. These changes would streamline procedures and practices to ensure timely and quality decisions and safer workplaces. Most importantly, these amendments would benefit workers, businesses, and all Canadians, which would lead to a more prosperous Canada.

I encourage all parties to support these necessary amendments with the passage of the budget implementation bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the same issue over and over again in my constituency office, families who have been seeking reunification, patiently waiting. I am horrified by the change in policy and the moving of the goalposts for so many families that have been doing all the right things, filing all the right papers; they find they have to start all over again.

My question is on the member's last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for the summer, the Auditor General pointed out that there was $3.1 billion unaccounted for by the Treasury Board. I listened to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board very carefully, but my constituents have been asking me over the summer whether the $3.1 billion had been found or whether the President of the Treasury Board had had an opportunity to locate it. I hope he will inform this House in the next day or two, or weeks, whether or not that $3.1 billion has been located.

I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to talk about Bill C-4, the budget implementation act. Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

This is déjà vu all over again. It is like Groundhog Day. One would think that the Conservatives, after proroguing after the summer break, could come up with a new mandate, new ideas, to address the needs of Canadians and the families and individuals in my community. Yet, I do not see anything in the bill that addresses the real needs of Canadians: jobs, job security and well-paying jobs. That is not in the bill.

It looks as if the Conservatives never got out of the Ottawa bubble. If they had, they would see the long and growing lineups at the food banks. They would be looking at creating jobs for our young people. As members can see, the unemployment rate for young people is the highest among any age group. There is nothing in the bill that addresses the needs of our young people.

There is another crisis brewing in the Lower Mainland. Port Metro Vancouver is a major port that helps to facilitate trade. It helps move goods from the Prairies right across to the port. In the last week, I have seen the trucking industry having major issues at the port. It takes them a long time to either pick up or drop off the goods they need to transport. A crisis is looming. I urge the Conservative government to address this issue before our economy in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver area is damaged.

As members know, truckers provide a vital role in the movement of goods throughout this country. However, they are having difficulty in picking up and dropping off their goods from the port, and the wait times are very long. The government needs to address that in a way that will help with the movement of our goods.

As I said, there are many issues in Bill C-4, which addresses over 70 different bills. I want to pick up on two issues that are important to my constituents of Surrey North.

One issue is that this is a missed opportunity for the Conservative government. As I read through Bill C-4, the irony certainly strikes me that we are approaching Remembrance Day as we discuss the bill. The next couple of weeks should be dedicated to thanking Canadians in service and our veterans for their dedication to our country, including those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. At this time of the year we repeat the mantra, “Lest we forget”. However, the truth of the matter is that Bill C-4 demonstrates that the Conservatives have forgotten Canadian veterans. Here the Conservative government had an opportunity to make real changes, but Bill C-4 does not do that.

The 300-odd pages of the bill address a wide range of things, but they do not address what is needed for veterans. In Bill C-4, there is one change to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an institution that New Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated as biased, subjective and inefficient. The Conservatives can only think of one change to make, which is to reduce the number of permanent members on the board from 28 to 25.

It is no secret that veterans do not find support or reassurance in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In March I spoke in the House about one of my constituents, retired sergeant Fergus, who was having difficulty navigating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Since March, the Conservatives have had many opportunities to make changes to the VRAB, but they continue to forget about veterans.

Mr. Fergus is not alone in his plight. Many constituents have approached my office to seek help to navigate the board for disability claims. Members of the board are appointed primarily because of their political connections. They have little military or medical knowledge. These members have the responsibility of deciding the future of our veterans, but without contextual knowledge of their challenges, they often make decisions that are not based on evidence. Like the immigration system, the decision-making process of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is lengthy. Long waits can leave veterans out in the cold.

I mean “out in the cold” literally. A veteran approached my office this summer who was at risk of being homeless after serving Canada bravely for years. It is clear that the Canadian government did not intend to serve my constituent, retired sergeant Lorenz. Although my office helped him navigate the application process, Mr. Lorenz is now at a standstill while he waits to see a psychologist to assess his mental health. He has to wait six months. He already knows that he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but he must wait six months before his application can continue. After he sacrificed so much for peace and freedom, it is shameful that Mr. Lorenz must wait this long to be awarded the benefits and support to which he is entitled.

I thank Mr. Fergus and Mr. Lorenz, and all the men and women who have bravely stood up for our country, for their service. I commit, along with my NDP colleagues, to continue to stand up for their rights around Remembrance Day and throughout the whole year.

The other area I want to talk about that is contained in the bill is the changes to the immigration act.

My constituency is very diverse. Many immigrants live in my community. It is clear to my constituents that Canada's immigration system is broken, especially with regard to family reunification. Family reunification is not a priority for the Conservative government. Recently, Canadians were appalled to hear a Conservative minister referring to family reunification as a burden to Canada. I am a product of that family reunification. The Conservatives have repeatedly undermined the importance and value of family, by making such claims. It is not only disrespectful but outright inhumane for a minister to assert this. Canada has always welcomed immigrants, fostered family bonds and provided opportunities for families to reconstruct their lives.

Every day my office receives many visits from victims who have fallen through the immigration system. I cannot provide specific cases here because it would take a long time and there are too many to list all of them. They are families who cannot be reunited at joyous occasions like weddings and birthdays, or daughters and sons who are not able to say goodbye to their dying parents in time because their temporary resident visas were refused for some obscure reason. Husbands and wives are separated for years before they can begin their lives together. Babies are born to first-time mothers who need the support of their far-away partner, and new fathers must wait months to meet their newborns.

This legislation basically would not address the needs of Canadians.

I am tired of seeing these omnibus bills come through the House. I am tired of seeing the Conservatives attempt to hide these changes that are made within the 300 pages.

This truly demonstrates that the Conservative government is out of touch with the needs of Canadians.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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

I can explain why this is included in Bill C-4. It is simple. Budget 2013 indicates the importance of fiscal balance and relations with a more modern public service. We made mention of this in budget 2013 and in the Speech from the Throne two weeks ago.

This is government policy. It is absolutely connected to the fiscal probity and the fiscal future of the federal government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, so it is no surprise that it should be part of this bill.

In answer to the hon. member's second question, I would only say it is important to designate which services are essential before the negotiations take place. This is what Canadians expect of a government that is managing the public service and the fiscal finances of the country.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

The President of the Treasury Board is here in the House to talk about aspects of Bill C-4 that affect his department. That is fine.

However, why did he not fulfill his duty as President of the Treasury Board and introduce a bill from his department rather than including these items in an omnibus bill introduced by the Minister of Finance and accompanied by a gag order? That complicates things a bit.

I would have appreciated it if he had come here to explain his own bill rather than the Minister of Finance's bill.

Another rather important aspect of this bill pertains to the designation of essential work during a strike. When there is no strike, are these essential workers safe from job cuts?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the hon. minister.

Bill C-4, in the guise of a budget omnibus bill, takes aim at a lot of federal civil servants. I am particularly concerned about the Canada Labour Code changes that affect the right to refuse unsafe work.

It did not come as much in the minister's statements, but I do not understand why, with only 150 refusals in any given year by federal workers under the Canada Labour Code who find that they need to refuse dangerous work, the definition of danger has been changed in this act. It specifically removes the language that deals with refusing work that could lead to a chronic illness or threats to reproductive health.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-4. This bill is very important for creating the necessary balance between the interests of the public, which the Government of Canada wants to protect, and the interests of public service unions.

I will talk a little bit about the sections relating to my portfolio. Certainly there are some changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, as my colleagues across the way and the union heads have cottoned on to. I think it is important to explain the context and why we believe that they are fair and reasonable.

If citizens were not informed and are now informed, these things are, in fact, not in the legislation now. Citizens I have talked to are quite surprised that these bits of the legislation we are changing are not, in fact, the law as we see it today. That is one of the things I think is the common sense of the people when it comes to these matters.

A lot has been made of changes to the designation of essential services. Let me just say this. Again, most citizens, if one had told them that the designation of essential services was a matter to be bargained with the bargaining agent, with the union, so that the government, as the employer and the protector of the public interest, had to bargain for the designation of essential public servants, would have been shocked. They would have been totally surprised by that. However, that is, in fact, the law as it now sits. There has to be a bargaining process the Government of Canada has to undergo to designate various individuals as essential.

Our position is very clear. It is not for negotiation to defend the public interest when it comes to health and safety and security issues. That is not in the public interest. This bill represents a very common-sense change that most Canadians would agree with.

How does it work? This has come up, and some have suggested that the details are not in the bill. The details are in the bill. It is very clear, under both the bill and the practice that is considered good faith bargaining, that the designation of public servants as essential has to occur before negotiations with the public sector union on a collective agreement have started.

Let me be clear. I cannot wake up one day after a bad bargaining session with the bargaining agent and say, “That is it; they are all going to be essential”. We cannot do that. It would be absurd. The designation has to occur before the bargaining takes place. Indeed, good practice is to sit down with the union heads and say that here is what we are proposing as essential employees, and what do they think? We would get their feedback and then proceed, in the public interest, with those designations.

Let me repeat the point that safety and security are not negotiable. The Conservative government, through this bill, intends to protect the safety and security of the public.

Let us talk about two-tier arbitration. This is another facet of the changes we are making to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, except in the case of essential services, where there is mandatory arbitration.

That is another point, by the way. To hear it from the unions, this designation of essential services means the end of bargaining as we know it and that they have been stripped of all of their bargaining rights. No. Part of bargaining, in some cases, is arbitration. Indeed, this is preserved under the legislation. I wanted to make that point clear and put it on the record, as well.

Two-tier arbitration is to make sure that the bargaining agent and the employer both have a say as to whether arbitration is going to be used, except in the case of essential services, when it would be used. That is an important change as well.

Let us look at arbitration factors. This is, again, common sense that most Canadians would agree with. The arbitrators have to look at recruitment and retention issues.

We cannot have an arbitrator who is not aware that in a particular bargaining unit there are 20 applications for every position, or maybe there are no applications because it is that tough a job. I think that is relevant information for the arbitrator and goes to the impact on the treasury of the demands of a particular union.

The arbitrator should also have regard to the economy. What is the state of the economy? This is critically important, because the amount of revenue that can be raised affects the bottom line of the government. The arbitrator should have regard to the economic policies of the government, because those are relevant. If we are in a period of tightening, that should be a relevant piece of information for the arbitrator.

Again, it is common sense. If most Canadians were asked and given these choices, they would say they were surprised that this was not the case right now.

Cost sharing on grievances is again common sense. If there is going to be a grievance process, those costs should be shared by both the union and the employer. The employer should not pay 100% of the cost. Quite apart from everything else, that arrangement only encourages those with spurious claims to grieve. Therefore, let us have some responsibility and some common sense by sharing the cost of the grievance procedure.

There was as well a compensation research bureau under the Public Service Labour Relations Board. Quite frankly, it was not very effective. My point of view, and the point of the view of the government, is that if there is research to be done on pay scales or positions on the impact of a bargaining agent's position or the government's position in a particular collective bargaining session, that should be borne by either the government or by the union, whichever of the two is making the point. It should not be borne by separate research that may or may not be accepted by the bargaining agents or by the government in any case. That is again common sense.

We are also proposing to eliminate double jeopardy for grievances. Currently we have a situation in which the grievor can forum shop: if she or he does not like one forum, the grievor can go to the next forum, and so on. Our commonsensical position is to pick a forum, have the adjudication at that forum—they do not lose any rights, because there is an adjudicative process—and at the end of the day, that decision has to be accepted by the government and by the union at the same time. I think that eliminates years and years of forum shopping whereby people who do not like a decision go to the next place. It does not help the employee and does not help the system generally.

Finally, I want to draw members' attention to another provision. This one would allow the bargainer, in this case the Government of Canada, to start the process of negotiation with the bargaining agent 12 months before the expiration of a contract.

Again, this is common sense. We have a lot of cases right now in which there is a lot of back pay that has to be added on, and the employees have a lot of uncertainty for a number of years because they are waiting for the process of bargaining to begin. Let us start the bargaining earlier. Let us get the collective agreements done earlier. That means less back pay, but it also means, on a go-forward basis, more certainty for the employee as to what her or his collective agreement is.

These are commonsensical changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It follows on some of the other positions we have taken over the last few months. I know this is somewhat of a controversial concept, but how about explaining to employees what their job is, how their success is going to be measured, and then following up with that employee to see whether she or he is meeting those goals.

Again, it is common sense, which is not performed systematically across the whole public service. We are going to do it.

We are also going to look at absenteeism to make sure that we have the right policies in that area.

I will leave it at that. Bill C-4 is a well-intentioned bill that will do the job for Canadians.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about Bill C-4, which clearly is nothing more that a new assault on the Canadian economy. This bill does not provide anything new, but it takes away a great deal. It still benefits the same individuals and still penalizes the same people, namely Canadians.

The bill will allow the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for building gazebos, to designate any public service as an essential service. Will building gazebos become an essential service for the federal government? One may wonder. Judging from what we know about the minister, the answer is yes.

The minister has again decided, for the 50th time, to impose a gag order on debate on this 300-page omnibus bill. The bill covers a wide range of topics, including the appointment of Supreme Court judges. However, it does not say anything about cutting the Senate’s budget. The Senate budget is not being restricted and I have to wonder why. The Conservatives want to do away with some senators, but they do not want to cut the institution’s budget.

Not one member opposite is able to tell me what is in these 300 pages. I will sum up the bill for them. It covers just about everything and anything. It is not an economic piece of legislation, but rather a Conservative and partisan bill. It attempts to hide the fact that the Conservatives are incapable of managing the economy properly. That is why they prefer to talk about gazebos and the appointment of judges. They are not focusing on real problems such as unemployment, household debt, tax evasion, large-scale offshoring, industry shutdowns, cuts to public services and especially the elimination of regulations aimed at protecting the public. It was not exactly a brilliant idea to have only one engineer working on a train instead of two. If members were to visit what is left of a small Quebec town, the residents could tell them more about that than I can.

There are 1.4 million people out of work today. At the height of the recession in 2008-09, there were 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. In five years, unemployment figures have dropped by only 100,000. The Conservatives say that they have created hundreds of thousands of jobs, which is a good thing, but they always forget to take into account the number of jobs that have been lost. Personally, I think that when you replace a job that pays $25 an hour with one that pays $15 an hour, that does not benefit the economy and it certainly does not benefit Canadian workers who see a smaller take-home pay. Household debt now stands at 163% of a family’s annual income. According to the OECD, Canada ranks first in terms of household debt. How encouraging and how very good for the economy. The Conservatives are proud of what they have done, but few of them are talking about this record.

I said that jobs paying $25 an hour were being replaced by jobs paying $15 an hour. The wages of only 20% of Canadians have risen over the past 35 years. Apart from the 1%, that is to say the friends of the Conservatives, the majority have had a slight increase. In fact, the real incomes of 80%, the vast majority of the population of Canada, have declined or been frozen. Is that what the Conservatives call economic progress? I call it Conservative economic policy. The corporate welfare bums are entitled to everything, and, in the meantime, we are entitled to the deficit, the bills and wage cuts.

Their employment insurance reform was also a botched job. They decided that the system was not working and that the minister alone would have authority over it. There is no longer any organization to oversee the tax rate. They have also put an end to tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, which were useful to us, and have replaced them with a $350 million tax.

For people who say and claim that they want what is good for taxpayers, we have seen better.

However, what is terrible is tax evasion. The Conservatives talk about this issue a lot but do nothing to address it. Here is a very simple example. They say we will discuss these issues. Certain individuals have told them to wake up because some people are in favour of and facilitate tax evasion. That is called white-collar crime, criminals in ties. Tax evasion is organized by bankers and firms of accountants and tax experts.

What penalties are imposed on those organizations? They do not talk about that. They say nothing. They talk, but at the same time they make sure not to bite the hand that feeds them. They always favour the people who finance their election campaigns, their friends—friends of the Conservatives—who are now the enemies of Canadians.

This bill also contains an item that is a bit odd. The Conservatives do not guarantee that we will control our main economic levers. They are no longer protecting our strategic industries. This is what they call being Canadian. They are so Canadian they say the fund that manages the Canada pension plan may now employ foreigners. I imagine they will recruit them from the American Tea Party. It will be ideologically quite similar.

The Conservatives like to tell us that they are here to protect us. I would rather be protected by a bogeyman than a Conservative. When it comes to food safety, the most serious meat recalls have happened since they have been in power. Allowing tainted meat through the system is not really protecting consumers.

The government has closed customs offices and cut the Canada Border Services Agency budget. In some places, people just have to stop their car, pick up the phone and declare that they are crossing the border, swearing that they do not have any illegal immigrants or cocaine in the car. People are being taken at their word. That sure sounds like secure border control.

Let us talk about cuts to transportation security offices. It is really wonderful. Do they realize that their deregulation led to the death of 50 people? That is just the beginning. The government doomed to repeat Walkerton over and over is the Conservative government.

About the cuts to the RCMP, again, really wonderful. For a government that claims to be tough on crime, I am sure that people in some luxurious mafia homes are on their knees begging God to keep the Conservatives in power for a long time to come. The mafia's best friend is the Conservative Party because it is making sure that the police do not have the means to punish these people.

They are the worst managers we have ever seen. Not only are they bad at it, but they use public advertising budgets to claim that they are good at it. The truth is that the only thing this government is good at is turning gold into lead and making sure that the benefits trickle down into their friends' pockets and that taxpayers foot the bill. Canadians are the only ones on the hook for the loss.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that measure makes no sense, and I spoke to that.

Should the Minister of Finance and the Standing Committee on Finance be talking about the Dominion Coal Blocks? That makes no sense, yet there it is in division 7 of Bill C-4. That should be managed by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. This proves that the Conservative government is putting anything and everything in this budget, which does not allow us to have meaningful discussions on issues that are of concern to us.

As the official opposition's new deputy critic for energy and natural resources, I find it sad that I cannot expresses my views on division 7 regarding the Dominion Coal Blocks because the bill will be sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. This is a tangible example of how this is a catch-all bill.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about Bill C-4 and explain the opposition's interest both in its form and in its substance.

I should say that with respect to form, we have another omnibus bill that is a collection of dissimilar and disconnected measures. It is really another cat’s cradle designed to thwart democracy. We go from legislation relating to Canada’s coal reserves, to legislation about the right to opt out when it comes to the health and safety of federal employees.

We are really moving from department to department, whereas this is actually a budget bill. As a result, we might expect measures directly concerning the Minister of Finance. That is not necessarily the way this government seems to want to operate, however.

With respect to the budget bill, the Minister of Finance is dictating to the other ministers what action they should take. There is a flagrant disrespect for ministerial responsibilities. It leaves us puzzled, and shows to what extent the Conservative government is a centralizing one that intrudes in all areas in an inconsistent manner.

If I had just been appointed to cabinet, as some people were during the summer, I would like to be able myself to present the measures of concern to my department. It appears, however, that it does not bother the new ministers on the other side to have the Minister of Finance dictating measures that are under their jurisdiction.

Canadians might well wonder how many nails this bill seeks to hammer into the coffin of democracy. After the prorogation, the gift packages from the Conservative government look once again like Pandora's box.

Is it really the purpose of a budget bill to add new legislation respecting labour relations? I think not. I would not like to be the Minister of Labour and have someone tell me how to do my job.

I would now like to address the substance of the bill. The Minister of Finance should rather focus on the financial priorities of Canadians. For example, in 1980, the ratio of household debt to personal disposable income was 66%. According to the figures for 2011, it has now risen to over 150%. This means that every household owes $1.50 for every dollar earned. People owe more than they are earning. It makes no sense. As a result, household debt is becoming an increasingly significant factor in the finances of many Canadian families, and the government is not taking concrete action in this area.

The data on employment are also revealing. In September, job numbers increased in Quebec. We have 15,000 more jobs, but they are part-time. The number of full-time jobs is decreasing. The Conservatives say they are creating jobs, and it is true. However, they are creating jobs that are part-time and offer no security, instead of preserving good, secure full-time jobs. I believe that should be a priority for this government.

The only thing that interests the Conservatives is job creation. They do not consider job security or the fact that these are part-time jobs as opposed to full-time jobs. Anyone at home knows that a part-time job is not equivalent to a full-time job. Anyway, I know it, and I think even the five-year-old girl next door knows it.

The Conservative member for Northumberland—Quinte West referred indirectly to this increased vulnerability in the job market in the example he gave last Friday. The measures he read from his notes show that the government is not taking the necessary measures to deal appropriately with the lack of social housing in Canada. His short-term view is based on volunteer work in construction and reliance on charities, like Habitat for Humanity, to provide housing for Canadians. It is shameful that we cannot have social housing built by our own tradespeople who are looking for work.

My colleague from Chambly—Borduas pointed out that the youth employment rate is double the rate for other groups. This indicates the ineffectiveness of the action taken to date by the government to enable young people to take their rightful place in the Canadian economy.

In order to develop the Canadian economy, we expect better than replacing a strong economy and proper training with services provided through charitable organizations set up by former U.S. presidents.

The median after-tax income of a family of two or more persons was $68,000 in 2011, virtually the same as in 2010. That was the fourth consecutive year in which there was no significant change in after-tax income. Factoring in inflation, this means that Canadian families got poorer.

However, as the Canadian Press noted and Le Devoir reported on September 12, "These statistics are taken from the controversial National Household Survey…, which replaced the long form census abolished by the Conservative government in 2010. As a result, comparisons with past figures are very hard to make, since the form has been changed and is no longer mandatory."

I therefore wonder whether the Conservatives' lack of scientific rigour might not throw off their economic compass when they come up with random measures that have no sound basis. Reliable data are required in order to put economic measures in place that provide real assistance to our youth. The long form questionnaire gave us those reliable figures before it was cancelled.

As regards the soundness of our economy, more than 4.5 million union members worked across Canada in 2012. That amounts to 32% of the total labour force. In addition, their weekly payroll of $4.59 billion represented 35.6% of the total national payroll.

That is why I want to emphasize the importance of unions in Canada. The Canadian Labour Congress included comments in a study it published to illustrate the real importance of the union advantage in 30 Canadian communities and in this country as a whole. That study showed that unionized workers earn $4.97 more an hour, on average, than non-unionized workers. That means that the union advantage adds $785.8 million a week to incomes across the country. That money is spent mainly in our local communities and therefore contributes to the Canadian economy.

The Conservatives' attacks on our unions are unfortunately ongoing, and the possibility that they may strip unionized Canadians of their bargaining powers only further undermines the equal justice measures that are being used to combat the growing inequalities in our society. This is another deceitful attempt by the Conservative government to shirk its responsibilities.

It is important to note that we would not have safe workplaces if it were not for the unions. The Conservatives will disrupt the fragile health and safety balance by stripping officers of their powers. This is dangerous. Need I recall the consequences of the self-regulation of the Canadian railway industry or the deregulation of food safety at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

I also think we must reconsider a question that was raised by the member for Gatineau. She asked what a clause on judicial appointments was doing in a budget. I have no idea, and I would add my voice to the general consternation at seeing that the budget implementation bill is once again interfering in other departments' matters and amending acts that have nothing to do with finance.

The Minister of Justice has been here for several years, and he would have been able to manage that on his own. Instead, that task has been assigned to the Minister of Finance. I do not understand. This makes no sense. Unless I am mistaken, I was not even an adult when the current Minister of Justice first entered the House of Commons. He is therefore capable of managing his own files, but he is not doing so.

We have to ask ourselves some questions. What items have no place in a budget bill? There are hundreds of examples. As we can see, parliamentary oversight has no place in the process, and the department is being given free rein to centralize everything once more. The history of Conservative omnibus bills is repeating itself yet again.

Instead of reoffending, the Conservatives should learn from their mistakes. That is unfortunately not what they are doing.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At our last meeting, I introduced my motion on how we should work in camera. I would like to repeat that certain conditions should be respected for in camera meetings. I have only been an MP for two years, but I find it really strange that we are reduced to having to introduce a motion to determine how we should work and what topics should be accessible to Canadians, to the media, to everyone, so that democracy and transparency are respected in our workplace.

I find it very strange because in the briefing for new members of the House, individuals from the government in power and others told us that how we work in the House is completely different from how we work in committee. We were told that things are friendlier in committee, that people try to resolve problems and find solutions that everyone agrees on. But to our surprise, neither I nor any of my work colleagues have seen that yet, and I don't think any committee works that way.

In my experience, specific rules need to be followed to sit in camera, especially when we are negotiating and do not want certain things to be made public, such as the conditions presented or the mandate we've been given. Now, everything is susceptible to being handled in camera, simply because we don't want Canadians to know what we've discussed or who was in favour and who was not. Indeed, this government runs things by making decisions in advance, without any thought to the potential consequences for Canadians, without any thought to how to resolve the problems.

My colleague said that this situation was going to hurt everyone from the standpoint of democracy, but also with respect to how we work. It's been said that Canada was a free country that tried to show Canadians, if not the entire world, that it was possible to work for everyone's well-being. But now I am seeing that there is no transparency, no democracy, not in our committee or in any others. It's truly unfortunate.

Like my colleagues, I believe that Mr. Lukiwski actually said in his presentation that he thought it was possible to work on two objectives at the same time, namely, the motion introduced by our party on transparency and how MPs submit their expense accounts and, at the same time, the question of privilege. Despite what we heard, he says that that is not what he said. I can understand why people want to work in camera. When people say one thing and then go back on their word later, it is better to have said it in camera.

It is unfortunate that the government in power wants to change ways of operating that are transparent and allow Canadians to see how motions are introduced and how decisions about them are made.

I would really like to go back to the Speech from the Throne, on the budget and Bill C-4, which we are now discussing. I think it is the best way to show that we are forcing the current Parliament to make quick decisions. I don't think this way of operating makes any sense. We are talking about decisions having to do with motions or matters that are going to undermine—I think that's the right word—what is happening across Canada, whether it's associations or even the future of the environment, democracy or agriculture.

In committee and in the House, people are allowed to block an open discussion. However, Canada wanted to be a country open to everything, open to discussion; it was transparent. We were able to answer every question, regardless of the party in power. That is the most important thing. The opposition party could have good discussions without finding out a week, two weeks or a month later that the content of budgets, motions or bills introduced by the government went completely against what we knew in Canada.

If we really want to change things, the conditions allowing meetings to be held in camera must be approved by all parties on committees or by a majority of them. That is what some provinces and associations do. It would be a good way to review our rules of procedure and allow everyone to have their say in how we work in committee.

I repeat that our motion is quite justified and it would be very acceptable to all Canadians. The important points to mention are wages, salaries and other employee benefits, as well as contracts and contract negotiations. At the start of my intervention, I referred to contracts and contract negotiations. I don't think any party or group or any business would want their mandate to be made public before sitting down and negotiating.

Labour relations and personnel matters, draft reports and briefings concerning national security are very important topics. As opposition members, we understand very well that these are things that must be discussed in camera. However, all the other topics should be available to the public and open to the media. That way, people can see who is for them and who is against them, and we can have an open discussion. I also mentioned that votes should be recorded so that the positions of the parties and of individuals are known.

I reiterate the importance of passing this motion. All parliamentary committees, including our own, need to be able to work together in a more open setting in order to resolve problems. We must not get in the way of future work of the committees or the House.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on Bill C-4 today. We have heard a lot of good conversations and the benefits of what Bill C-4 would do for our country.

What is the importance of the bill, some may ask. Over time and particularly over this summer, I was able to visit many of the businesses, farms and constituents in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Just so that the viewers and you, Mr. Speaker, may have a handle on what Lambton—Kent—Middlesex is in terms of a constituency, it is a riding that is a little bigger than the province of Prince Edward Island. It is a very rural riding, made up of small communities. My largest urban area is made up of 14,000 people. The next largest urban area is somewhere around 12,500. It is made up of agriculture and small businesses within our towns and communities.

I travelled across the riding and met with businesses, individuals and people in agriculture with the main purpose of finding out what they thought about our budget and what we were doing for business. One of the things that they told us is that they trust our Conservative government to maintain a stable economy. That is actually the main purpose of budget 2013, and consequently, of the implementation bills that followed to support and grow our Canadian economy.

We can see how we are on track, for example, to balance the budget. It has been talked about a number of times. The annual financial report of the Government of Canada for fiscal year 2012-13 shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2013, the deficit fell by $18.9 billion. The deficit was $26.3 billion in 2011-12. The new number now, quite honestly, is more than one-quarter less than previously determined, $7.14 billion, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009 and 2010.

These are big numbers, but I can tell the House that, big numbers or not, we remain committed to continuing this downward trend in our deficit.

We can also see the economic growth in the creation of jobs. We are leading the G7 with more than one million net new jobs having been created. These jobs were not created by the government. The government prefers an environment in which businesses create these jobs. Approximately 90% of those jobs are full-time and over 80% are in the private sector.

What does that actually mean to the businesses in my riding and ridings across this great country of Canada? It means that we are creating sustainable growth. We are not just pumping money into a system that may get lost again if the global economy turns. We are creating jobs for the long-term. We are creating a stable economy. We want to stay focused. As the Minister of Finance put it:

...we are not immune from the challenges beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent.

We will not do so.

We heard the measures in economic action plan 2013 no. 2 that are aimed at providing support for job creators being talked about before. They include the extension and expansion of the hiring credit for small businesses, which will benefit an estimated 560,000 employers. That is 560,000 employers. If only 50% of them tap into that hiring credit, it means a benefit to our small businesses of $225 million, should they use it.

The measures also include indexing the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small businesses more rewarding. This is so important. It is moving from $500,000 to $750,000, but it is now indexed. That means that it is now indexed to keep up with the traffic that is in the economy.

The measures also include expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in small businesses, whether they are clean energy businesses or others.

A proposal in budget 2013, which many of the businesses in my riding are looking forward to seeing implemented, is the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. Freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years will leave approximately $660 million in the pockets of job-creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Sometimes we sort of wonder what these numbers mean. I remember the day we were talking about moving the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. Quite honestly, we are the only government that said we were going to do it and have actually done it. I used to get comments about how if someone buys jeans, it is only going to mean a few cents here and a dollar or so there.

In my riding, every 1% left $18 million in the pockets of people in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. That 2% left $36 million in my rural riding of small towns and small businesses. We never want to underestimate. Sometimes when we say we are going to take these small steps, they seem small; however, they mean a great benefit to the people in our ridings.

Going back to employment insurance, we know this will put money back into the pockets of small businesses that are the cornerstone of many of our communities in rural areas. In turn, that means more money they can invest back in their business. It almost means job creation and economic prosperity for them, and then that rolls out. If it is good for them, it is good for the community; and it is obviously good for governments when they collect taxes.

These are only a few examples of what we are doing to ensure Canadians have available jobs for themselves and their children, and that benefits the Canadian economy.

We can also see our support for economic prosperity in the reduction of taxes. It is twofold, in closing the tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion. We are going to introduce 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.

Other members have had that discussion today. We know there are some difficulties. It is easier to say it than to actually implement it. However, we know that if we do not implement, then we will never move down the road. That is an important part of being able to deal with that suppression part.

We will be closing tax loopholes to make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. On the other hand, the period during which Canada Revenue Agency can reassess a taxpayer who fails to report income from foreign property will be longer, to ensure that when the examinations happen they are exact, accurate and are carried out in a responsible manner.

Second, we always want to respect taxpayers' dollars, but we also want to give the benefit to some of our young people; so we will be modernizing the Canada student loan program and the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery.

In the short time I have left I want to talk about CETA and the importance that agreement has, not only in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex because of the small businesses and agriculture but for the economy. We know it is going to create about $12 billion annually and a 20% increase in bilateral trade. Out of that $12 billion, agriculture is going to gain the benefit of $1.3 billion. I am glad to take questions and move on that.

Canada is a leader around the world in terms of economic growth. On this side, we plan to keep it this way.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to add my comments to this important debate that we are having on Bill C-4 today.

Our Conservative government, as we have said many times, is squarely focused on what matters most to Canadians, and that is economic growth and prosperity. We intend to do that by creating jobs across this country.

By implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the tough recession that we have had over the last few years and throughout the recovery that is taking place.

This morning we are discussing Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013. I want to take a few minutes to outline why the opposition should support this legislation.

Our economic action plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year in conjunction with the portfolio of initiatives that we have had since 2006, with affordable measures that would create jobs, promote growth across this country, and contribute to long-term prosperity. It would further unleash the potential of Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to thrive and innovate in the modern economy so that they can begin to create prosperity and economic growth as well.

To me, that is what matters most in this country, while the opposition continues to talk about issues that Canadians do not seem to be concerned about. Our government will put forward legislation that matters from coast to coast to coast.

Here are a few of the facts that I think are important.

Canada has created over one million net new jobs, 90% of which are full-time, with nearly 80% in the private sector. I think that is something we should be extremely proud of. Our private sector is thriving to the point that it has created nearly 800,000 jobs since the depth of the global recession in July 2009.

Over this period, Canada has had the strongest job creation record in the entire G7. This is in tandem with the fact that our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years and is significantly lower than that of the United States. This is a phenomenon that we have not seen in nearly three decades.

For the fifth straight year, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world, and all the major credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, Standard and Poor's—have once again affirmed our solid AAA credit rating.

The global economy remains fragile, with growth in major economies slower than expected and our major trading partners not in the enviable position that we find ourselves in. Of course, we are not immune to a global slowdown, and Bill C-4 is one way that our government continues to ensure growth in these fragile times.

Let us take a closer look at how Canada's economic action plan makes significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians, but before I go to that, I would like to note another sign of leadership: the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union.

While we are working in terms of a budget and economic action plan 2013, this government is not sitting still. We have gone around the world inking trade deals; the latest one is, of course, the agreement that we are going to be making with the European Union. This agreement alone, as members have heard, has the potential to add more than 80,000 new Canadian jobs. We expect that those jobs will be in all sectors.

I come from an agricultural area, and certainly the agriculture folks are very excited and happy about this. There will be opportunities to thrive in all sectors. There will be opportunities for them to move into new markets. We expect, as they have done so many times over the decades, that the agriculture folks will step up and take advantage of those opportunities and once again show the world-class leadership that they have shown in the past.

On this agreement, here is a little bit of what other people have to say about it.

John Manley, the president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, has said that “...the [comprehensive economic and trade agreement] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth”, which is exactly what this government is trying to do.

Unlike the opposition, we understand the importance of free trade and that the pursuit of it is beneficial for Canada and for Canadians.

Our government's trade agenda has already made us one of the most open and globally engaged economies in the world. Since 2006, we have reached trade agreements with nine countries, and we are negotiating with many more. We have concluded foreign investment, promotion, and protection agreements with another 16 countries and are in active negotiations with others as well.

We are not done yet. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations. We are actively pursuing new trade and investment opportunities in large, dynamic, and growing economies, such as China, India, and Japan. Those initiatives reflect our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for global economy recovery, and I might add, for the development of human rights in some of the other countries as well.

Unlike the opposition, we know that by growing international trade and creating additional export opportunities for Canadian businesses, we will improve the standard of living for all Canadians. Free and open trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian businesses need access to key export markets in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 builds on those measures through targeted actions that will help our manufacturers and businesses continue to succeed on the world stage.

We also believe in promoting job creation and keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. When disaster struck the world economy, our economic action plan navigated Canada through the worst recession in a generation while maintaining the lowest debt to GDP level in the G7. During the downturn, our economic action plan took the steps necessary to safeguard our economy and protected Canadian jobs. It made the largest and the longest federal investment in job creating infrastructure in Canadian history, and it controlled spending while maintaining growing transfers that support health care, education and retirement in those transfers to the provinces.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, we have not cut major transfers to Canadian families or other levels of government, particularly the health and social transfers, in order to balance the budget. We are also not going to engage in risky spending schemes or force a $21-billion carbon tax on Canadians or hike taxes on Canadian businesses, as the NDP has insisted is its economic strategy for this country. Instead, our government has set clear targets to bring our deficit down and to return to a balanced budget by 2015. Our government has been very clear that we are not going to raise taxes on Canadians to balance that budget and the new Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed our economic action plan will see Canada return to surplus before the next election.

The Minister of Finance also recently reiterated our commitment to balancing the budget in 2015. Our plan is working. In the past two years we have already cut the deficit by more than half. Economic action plan 2013 will build on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings, including examining departmental spending to ensure that government operations are managed efficiently, making government operations more efficient by putting forward plans to control overall employee compensation expenses and enhancing the integrity of the tax system by closing tax loopholes.

I want to talk about public service pay and benefits. Our budget has stated that the Government of Canada's intent is to set public service pay and benefit levels that are reasonable, responsible and in the public interest. The Public Service Labour Relations Act will be amended to ensure that the public service is affordable and that it is modern and high performing, as taxpayers have expected. The proposed amendments will bring savings, will streamline practices and will bring them in line with other jurisdictions. We are glad to be able to sit at a bargaining table on behalf of the taxpayers where the rules are fair and balanced.

Overall, measures taken by our government since budget 2010 will result in total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion.

I would like to talk about how this will impact my province of Saskatchewan. There are a number of things in this budget that are good for us. As everyone knows, we have a very strong economy in western Canada right now, particularly in Saskatchewan. It is the fastest growing province in the country. We have been able to work with the province in moving forward this economic vision for Canadians.

It is interesting that we finally shed ourselves of the NDP heritage we had in Saskatchewan, which held us back for so long. It is interesting that even as the world was going into recession, Saskatchewan has finally really begun to bloom. We have worked to keep taxes low from our perspective. We have worked to return to a balanced budget and the government in Saskatchewan has done a good job of managing its resources as well.

Things such as the community improvement fund where we have been able to contribute to infrastructure, the building Canada fund, where we have been able to work with the provinces has actually worked very well.

I see my time is almost up, so I want to say Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs as I pointed out. At the same time we have created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and one that ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7. We continue to work. In economic action plan 2013 we are committed to helping businesses grow and succeed further. We are committed to helping Canadians get the rewards from that. We will deliver high-quality jobs to them, economic growth and prosperity for the future.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-4. Unfortunately, this is another grab bag omnibus bill that has had its time for debate cut off, so some important issues in it will not be adequately aired. I will touch on several aspects of the bill and how they reflect some of the challenges and failures of the government.

I am going to start by pointing out that this budget implementation bill would do very little to address the key challenges being faced by middle-class Canadians as a result of rising costs and stagnant incomes. Bill C-4 would do little to create jobs.

The bill would increase taxes with respect to mining exploration. That is not very helpful. If taxes are increased on mining exploration, then much of the good work to encourage mining exploration and mining development would be undermined.

Vancouver is at the centre of the mining industry globally. Many people who live in the province of British Columbia and many people in my riding of Vancouver Quadra work in the mining industry. The British Columbia government has spent the last 10 or 12 years rebuilding that industry in our province.

In 2001, when the B.C. Liberal government was first elected, investment in mining exploration was down to about $25 million from the hundreds of millions of dollars of annual investment in the 1990s. Slowly and surely the provincial government built up the confidence of the mining industry until over $250 million a year was invested in British Columbia's mining exploration.

Our province spent so much effort in rebuilding this industry by respecting the industry and not adding to its tax burden. Did the Prime Minister consult with the British Columbia premier or the minister of energy and mines when he slapped a tax on this industry?

This is a failure by management, and it shows that the federal government does not understand that for jobs to be created and business opportunities to be provided, the business community needs to have certainty and transparency.

We have seen this kind of management failure in spades in the Conservative government in the area of military procurement. All of us would agree that the Canadian navy, air force and army need to replace billions of dollars worth of aging trucks, helicopters, ships, et cetera so our armed forces personnel have safe and effective equipment. Barely a week has past without yet another story of the Conservative government's incompetence with respect to military procurement.

I want to remind the House that the acquisition of F-35 joint strike fighters was restarted after reports by the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the government knowingly misled Canadians on the program's cost. It was, in fact, keeping two sets of books. In 2010 the Prime Minister claimed the cost would be $9 billion for 65 fighters, but by 2012 the full cost was pegged at more than $46 billion.

That is just one example and there are many others, such as helicopters to replace the aging Sea Kings. In some cases, these Sea Kings are 30 years older than the very pilots who are flying them, so this is a safety issue. There have only been delays and uncertainty with respect to that project.

The acquisition of new army trucks has been ongoing since 2004. That has been restarted numerous times, but nothing is expected there.

The purchase of a new fleet of search and rescue aircraft has taken more than nine years. The government is still not ready to even accept bids.

There is also the issue around the Arctic offshore patrol ships. An independent reviewer said the cost was extraordinarily high for the design phase alone, but the government just plowed ahead, ignoring that point. There were plans to replace the outdated 50-year-old Lee-Enfield .303 rifles used by our Canadian Rangers in the Arctic; that procurement project has been cancelled with no reason given. It is a very flawed procurement process, unfortunately, potentially impacting the safety of our Canadian Armed Forces, and that is a management failure on the government's part.

I want to touch on another area in the bill, the employment insurance premiums. We support this aspect of the bill and we appreciate that after years of Liberal requests, the government has stopped increasing the tax on jobs, which is increasing the EI premiums, as they have been increased over the years, costing billions of dollars to businesses. We support that aspect, but the very fact that the government has been adding taxes to businesses and small businesses is a level of fiscal incompetence, because it shows the Conservatives are not understanding the impact of these taxes on jobs.

Under the current government, that kind of incompetence has been happening in the military budget as well. Under the Canada First defence strategy, a promised cornerstone was stable increases in funding. However, almost immediately, successive budgets were quietly reduced by billions of dollars, allowing up to $8 billion in funds to lapse or stay unspent. There has been essentially no new investment in national defence under the Conservative government, with two small exceptions, and since 2011, successive major budget cuts have been sending departments scrambling to protect the essential capacity and morale required for effective national defence. This is another case of saying one thing and doing another.

Canadians and Liberals are proud of the Canadian Forces, who serve Canada on her behalf without reservation. However, to do their jobs they need to be able to depend on what they are being told, and in fact the government has decreased armed forces personnel in the navy by 11% from its strength in 2004, yet it increased the number of civilian naval employees by 30% over that period. This is managerial incompetence.

The army has fared no better under the current government. Between 2011 and 2013 its budget has been slashed by 22%, yet its headquarters received an extra half a billion dollars in budget increases. We hear one thing, but we see another happening.

Most unfortunately, in this bill we have the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a backlogged board that will see its number of members slashed so that there will be a further backlog. That ties in to the undermining of the armed forces that we have seen under the government whereby military members and their families are falling through the cracks of government bureaucracy.

As these national defence budgets that supposedly were to be increased have been slashed, the very programs that support military personnel affected by mental illness and injury have been cut. Thousands of Canadian Forces members are affected by mental health issues. They need help through the joint personnel support unit and through mental health professionals to help them get strong again and find alternatives within the armed forces where they can be successful, yet those very supports are not there.

The government must do so much better for our men and women in uniform, just as it must do much better for Canadians.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the details of the bill and how it will benefit Canada, and specifically my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, I would like to take a moment to give this House the context in which we consider this bill.

In early 2008, Canada was faced with the worst global economic downturn since the 1930s. However, thanks to the firm and responsible regulations that were put in place, Canada did not sink as low. This alone was not enough to keep Canada from following our neighbours. Our government saw investments dwindling, an unstable, unconfident marketplace, and millions of Canadians with their jobs at risk. Our government acted with resolve and initiative to introduce the economic action plan, which provided our economy with a $60-billion stimulus, including $12 billion in stimulus and $20 billion in tax relief.

Action plan after action plan, the government has continued to responsibly steer Canada through the global recession while simultaneously pushing taxes lower and removing barriers to trade and investment in Canada.

The ultimate result is that all Canadians can take pride that through our government's responsible and disciplined leadership, Canada has the best fiscal record in the G8. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the absolute lowest. We are on the path to surplus. We hold a AAA credit rating. We have added over a million net new jobs to the economy, which has reduced unemployment lower than before the recession. Our markets remain responsibly regulated, stable, and dynamic.

However, our recovery is fragile and vulnerable to the actions of others. That is why Bill C-4 would have impact. Bill C-4 would project the government's low-tax, consumer, family-focused agenda into the future to ensure continued growth and long-term prosperity.

While Bill C-4 touches on all aspects of Canada's economy, I would like to highlight three areas of importance to my region and how Bill C-4 would help Nipissing—Timiskaming grow.

First, as we know, businesses are absolutely key to healthy communities. If the cost of business is too high, jobs will disappear. This is the plain truth, and it baffles me that the NDP and Liberals cannot comprehend it. Fundamentally, they believe that we can tax and spend ourselves out of every problem.

Nipissing—Timiskaming is home to many manufacturing companies. Aerospace and mining are major sectors for us. The accelerated capital cost allowance program introduced in Bill C-4, which would be extended for two years, would allow companies in my region to invest in new machinery and equipment, expand their operations, and stimulate growth and job creation.

Economic action plan 2013 would proactively address continued job growth and skills shortages through the Canada job grant. It is an initiative that would help workers get $15,000 toward valuable skills training. Our government understands that it is not enough to create new jobs; we have to make sure that there are skilled Canadians to fill them.

This kind of long-term, experienced thinking is exactly why, under this government, Canada has prospered while other countries continue to flounder.

I know that in my region, students and graduates of Canadore College would particularly benefit from the Canada job grant. These very same students, many of whom go into the skilled trades, would also benefit from the changes we are making to how apprenticeship accreditation works. Four million dollars over three years would be allocated to harmonize requirements among the provinces and to examine assessments.

Aerospace, in particular, would benefit. Over $1 billion would be invested in the aerospace and space sectors. Nipissing—Timiskaming has a long and proud history in airways, and I am confident that it will play a key role in our government's plan to consolidate and improve our fifth-place standing in the world. Aerospace companies and services in my community employ hundreds of people and provide them with secure, good-paying jobs. This will only grow under our government.

Second, I would like to specifically talk about small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of the towns and communities in Nipissing—Timiskaming. They, in particular, would benefit from Bill C-4. Besides being able to take advantage of the Canada job grant, they would benefit from the hiring credit, which would freeze EI premiums, saving small businesses $1,000.

Small businesses, and in particular part-time farmers, would benefit from the increase to the lifetime capital gains exemption, which would increase by $50,000 to $800,000. Farmers would also benefit from the doubling of the restricted farm loss deduction, from $8,750 to $17,500.

Overall, thanks to the low-tax plan of our government, Bill C-4 and previous Conservative budgets, small businesses are paying $28,600 less in taxes. Canadians get it and Canadians got it in May 2011 when they sent the Conservative government to Ottawa with a majority. However, I will make it clear for my colleagues who remain a little confused that we have been cutting taxes and jobs have been created, one million net new jobs. Bills like Bill C-4 have cut taxes. Unemployment now is lower than before the recession. Our responsible long-term plan is working for Canada and Canadian families. I hope, after seven years, my colleagues will begin to understand that.

I want to touch on infrastructure. A major part of the original economic action plan, investment in infrastructure, underpins this budget and Canada's success. How would this be any different given our national history? In the infant stage of nationhood, it was the building of the transcontinental railroad that united Canada and set it on the path toward economic prosperity. The building Canada plan, the single largest infrastructure investment in our nation's history, will provide an additional $53 billion over several years to make sure our infrastructure is modern, safe and capable of helping us unlock more economic potential in our communities and from our resources. We cannot expect to grow without a firm base on which to stand. Infrastructure is that base.

Nipissing—Timiskaming has greatly benefited from infrastructure projects, particularly through FedNor. In particular, the airport, roads and community assets have been invested in. The expansion of the airport and upgrading of its services continue to make our region a more attractive place for continued investment in aerospace. Coupled with our government's aerospace prerogative, there is potential for real synergy. Investment in our roads and community infrastructure continues to open up the north and adds to our quality of life.

It is unfortunate that many of our neighbours suffered greatly, and continue to suffer, because of the global economic downturn. I as a Canadian am very grateful that our recession was not as impactful. Canadians recognize that our success is no accident. Canadians recognize that our continued economic leadership of the G8 is no accident. Canadians recognize that the government is not the answer, only a part of the solution. Our country has grown weary of the tax and spend promises of the Liberals and NDP, mostly because the money is never spent on the people, although it is they who are taxed.

Last, I want to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this government does not draft policy or budgets in a vacuum, but in a long-term, responsible and critical fashion. The effects of economic action plan 2013, Bill C-4 and future budgets, will greatly benefit from the recently announced Canada-European Union free trade agreement. The synergy is perfect. Bills like Bill C-4 help create a low-tax, investor-friendly market, while CETA removes barriers to trade and investment.

In conclusion, thanks to Bill C-4 and parallel government efforts, Canadians can continue to expect net job growth, world leadership in fiscal accountability and political stability, with an explicit focus on Canadian jobs, families and their pocketbooks. The government fully intends to seize Canada's moment for the benefit of all Canadians and I would urge my colleagues on the opposite side to support it. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, introduced by Minister Flaherty on October 22, 2013.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about an aspect of Bill C-4 that bothers me.

Earlier, during the debate on Bill C-4, a number of Conservatives boasted that their government has cut taxes, which benefits Canadians. However, they forgot to mention that the Conservative government sometimes increases taxes. This bill contains a tax increase of $350 million. Who will pay the price? Labour-sponsored venture capital funds, also known as workers' funds.

Quebec is known for its good labour-sponsored funds. For some years, these venture capital funds have been invested in communities. These funds are used to help start up and grow businesses.

The Conservative government is appalling. I also want to talk about this government's hypocrisy, because it boasts about lowering taxes when it is to their benefit, but increases them in other sectors.

Could my Conservative colleague, whom I respect very much, tell us if the Conservatives will reverse its decision and remove this harmful $350 million tax that will kill jobs.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is a sad new piece of legislative art from the Conservatives. What a masterpiece.

Much like the three omnibus bills before it—Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60—this fourth bill includes some 70 legislative measures—why not—most of which have very little to do with the budget. The bill even creates two brand-new laws: the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act and the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act.

With this bill, the Conservatives are trying once again to force major changes through Parliament, without letting us do our job.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out numerous times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to fulfill their critical role and improve our laws. He had to threaten to take the government to court for the Conservatives to finally bother to reveal their budget cut plan. However, here we are again with another omnibus bill.

The Minister of Finance tabled budget 2013 in Parliament on March 21. The budget cuts thousands of public service jobs and makes cuts to program spending. The budget proposes a host of unwarranted economic austerity measures that do not help Canadians.

Bill C-4 to implement certain provisions of the budget undermines the health and safety protections in place for workers. It is a direct attack on public servants and labour unions. It causes irreparable damage to our research system and puts employment insurance firmly under the minister's control.

I am particularly concerned for the Canadian public and especially for the constituents in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Dorval.

This bill removes from our health and safety officers the authority granted to them under the Canada Labour Code. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. It grants virtually all health and safety powers to the minister. This concentration of power in the hands of a minister is very dangerous, especially when we are dealing with a Conservative minister.

When the Conservatives attack the Canada Labour Code, they are attacking something that Canadians worked hard to build over the years to make their working conditions healthier and safer. This is the opposite of progress. This is a step backwards, just like everything else the Conservatives do. They should instead be seeking ways to protect Canadians from having to work in situations that expose them to unacceptable risks. They should protect workers.

I had the opportunity to study occupational health and safety in my university program. I took a course that required students to conduct workplace risk assessments. Therefore, I can say that centralizing everything is exactly the opposite of what companies do to identify risks in order to provide appropriate solutions concerning occupational health and safety.

For all these reasons, the NDP will certainly oppose this proposal, which affects the fundamental rights of workers in terms of occupational health and safety.

Bill C-4 would also make changes that would allow the minister to determine which services are essential in the public service, in such a way that he could well undermine collective bargaining rights.

We know that the Conservatives do not like unions. This is another attack. This is a direct violation of the social dialogue in the public service. By destabilizing the relationship between the negotiating parties, the government is giving itself the means to gag workers in the public service. It is restricting their right to challenge the deterioration of working conditions due to the unjustified cuts imposed by the Conservatives themselves. By slashing jobs, they are creating the conditions for conflict. They now want to ignore the consequences by preventing workers from expressing their frustration and their complaints.

However, some services seem to be less essential than others, particularly when objective scientific results contradict the Conservatives' vision and plans. They fired hundreds of scientists without considering the medium- or long-term consequences of their decision.

Now, Bill C-4 is taking aim at National Research Council Canada and dealing a final blow to our public research system. Well done.

As a final step in their attempt to systematically bleed the labour market dry on the pretense of flexibility, the Conservatives are using Bill C-4 to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and give the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates.

Do the Conservatives want to turn their backs on federal responsibility in this area by dumping it onto the provinces or directly onto the public?

Bill C-4 also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. I acknowledge that that is a step in the right direction, but it is nowhere near enough. The NDP is looking further ahead and proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and would help businesses hire and train young workers.

I want to keep talking about small businesses. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored venture capital funds. However, it is well known that venture capital is essential for creating and developing businesses. Just listen to our entrepreneurs. Alain-Jacques Simard, CEO of TeraXion, a Quebec company that specializes in fibre optics, said that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ acted as a catalyst and that since its January 2010 investment, his company's sales have doubled. That is important to remember.

The Conservatives like to remind everybody that they were elected to lower taxes, but not for unions, apparently. That is very strange. Attacking a financing system does not make sense unless it is part of an agenda to do whatever it takes to undermine the economic influence of Canadian workers and unions.

Still on the subject of small businesses, Bill C-4 increases the lifetime capital gains exemption and indexes it. The NDP supports increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption because that will help small business owners. The NDP knows that small businesses create a lot of jobs. However, they create those jobs only in a climate of better economic and regulatory conditions. That is why the NDP would like to see tax incentives to help these businesses hire Canadians.

We can only have a productive debate on these proposals if the Conservatives allow it. The omnibus bill will not make that possible and suggests that the Conservatives are, sadly, not willing to debate. The Conservatives are showing their true colours by attacking workers, public servants, employment insurance and unions. They are not working for Canadian families.

Household debt has reached record levels and is now at 166% of household income. This means that people are spending five months' income every three months, putting them two more months in the hole every five months. The Conservatives have no plan to address the alarming youth unemployment rate.

Bill C-4 is out of touch with what is important to Canadian families. It is a dangerous step backward. This policy is designed to destroy gains made by the middle class. It will force workers and families to pay for services that they have already paid for through their taxes.

This bill, like all of its omnibus predecessors, is a policy instrument designed to systematically destroy the social relationships that Canadians have worked hard to build over the past few decades. It is an intolerable attack on the rights of Canadian workers and Canadian families. The NDP will not stand for it.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' latest attempt to circumvent parliamentary democracy. We should have the opportunity to debate the many subjects covered in Bill C-4 separately and refer them for study by the relevant committee. The NDP is also opposed to budget 2013 and its implementation bills, including Bill C-4, because they disregard the true priorities of Canadian families: creating good, well-paid jobs, ensuring retirement security, creating job opportunities for youth and creating more affordable living conditions for families.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add my support for the swift passage of this important and necessary legislation. We on this side of the House have been very clear. We are focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and the legislation shows how committed we are to this focus.

As the Minister of Finance stated when he tabled Bill C-4, “In the face of continued global economic uncertainty, it is essential that we remain squarely focused on keeping Canada’s economy strong”.

Rest assured the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, is actively advancing this agenda. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, I know the agency is playing a leading role in implementing important initiatives from economic action plan 2013. These initiatives are helping to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. We need look no further than our determination to fix an issue that matters to all Canadian taxpayers: ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes they owe. We are doing so by closing tax loopholes in order to keep taxes as low for individuals and families as possible.

Since 2006 our government has cut taxes 150 times. As a result, the average family of four now enjoys over $3,200 in extra tax savings. The federal tax burden for all Canadians is the lowest it has been in 50 years. I listened to the opposition criticism of the bill. Those members can say just about anything they want in the House because they are protected by parliamentary privilege, but they cannot say that we do not have the lowest taxes in the past 50 years. It is a fact and it is time that the opposition applaud that fact.

However, like any responsible government there is always room to do more. That is why economic action plan 2013 announced measures to close tax loopholes and improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system. We owe it to hard-working Canadians who fulfill their tax commitments and understand that their contributions help to fund important government programs and services for their families. It is also critical to honest businesses that find it hard to compete with businesses that cheat on their taxes. When people cheat on their taxes, everyone loses.

Among the important changes we intend to address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and fight international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. These efforts will close tax loopholes that were used by a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's effort to return to balanced budgets and responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared tax base. Equally important is the fact that our budget would give Canadians confidence that the tax system is fair, providing incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Another area with a direct impact on Canadian taxpayers is our work to root out electronic suppression of sales software. In plain language it is often referred to as zapper software. What it boils down to is making it more and more difficult for people to cheat on their taxes and operate in the underground economy. While they, the tax cheats, pocket the money, honest taxpayers end up having to shoulder a greater tax burden because of this illegal activity.

All taxpayers, particularly businesses, are required to maintain adequate books and records for tax purposes. This includes maintaining accurate electronic data files. Unfortunately, some businesses use this zapper software to hide their sales figures so they can avoid paying the GST/HST and income taxes they owe on this revenue. This software selectively deletes or modifies sales from electronic cash registers and other point-of-sale and accounting systems. This undermines the competitiveness of businesses and offers an unfair advantage to those who fail to comply with Canada's tax laws.

Economic action plan 2013 sent a strong signal that we will no longer tolerate such activity. Bill C-4 includes new monetary penalties and criminal offences to discourage the possession, use or development of electronic suppression of sales software.

Anyone who attempts to avoid paying taxes by using electronic suppression of sales tax avoidance, which leaves an unfair burden on Canadian consumers and businesses that contribute their fair share, will now pay a steep price. Businesses caught using, owning, or buying electronic suppression of sales software will face a $5,000 penalty on their first infraction. This penalty rises to $50,000 for any subsequent infraction.

Anyone who develops, manufactures, offers for sale, or sells such software will face a $10,000 penalty on the first infraction and $100,000 for any subsequent infraction.

There is no question that our overarching goal is to put more money back in the hands of Canadians through reduced taxes. Our country's tax base is essential for providing necessary benefits, programs, and services that all Canadians depend on.

When everyone pays the taxes they owe, we can invest those tax dollars to help Canadian families and communities and our country's economy. For instance, economic action plan 2013 includes tax credits for small businesses that would enable them to create jobs for unemployed Canadians. This would generate increased wealth in their communities.

Bill C-4 introduces measures that would support Canada's job creators. It would extend and expand the hiring credit for small business for an additional year. More businesses than ever would be able to take advantage of this job creation tool.

It is especially noteworthy that the hiring credit would leave eligible business owners with up to $1,000 they could put back into their businesses. Eligible employers would receive the credit when they hired new employees or increased wages. New businesses created in 2012 might also be eligible. If business owners were eligible, they could get the credit automatically when they filed their T4 information returns.

This investment yields huge dividends. Based on the success of the existing initiative, we anticipate that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure. If even 50% of those businesses used the hiring credit, this would allow them to reinvest $225 million back into the Canadian economy. Especially good news for businesses is that there would be no extra paperwork to fill out. That is because of another one of our priorities reflected in Bill C-4, our commitment to reduce red tape at every opportunity.

Business owners and their associations have told us loud and clear that they are frustrated by the amount of paperwork they have to deal with from all levels of government. We have been listening to them.

Our government recognizes that too much red tape restricts innovation, productivity, and competitiveness. We understand that when Canadian businesses succeed, all Canadians benefit. That is why we have taken repeated steps to free up Canadian business owners from paperwork so that they can focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs. I am proud to say that there are now fewer regulations, and the cost of red tape has been reduced by $20 million annually.

We continue to make progress. Now certain essential forms that simply cannot be avoided are easier to process. For instance, the CRA recently launched its new online mail service for Canadian businesses, available through My Business Account, which streamlines their interactions with the agency. Canadian small businesses can now choose to receive notices of assessment and reassessment, as well as some letters for their corporate and GST/HST accounts, electronically.

CRA uses the same high level of security that financial institutions use to protect banking information, so businesses can use the new online service with peace of mind.

Our government's record speaks for itself. We are keeping taxes low, cutting red tape, and going after tax cheats like never before. No wonder Canada leads the G7 with more than one million net new jobs created since the depth of the global recession. With the adoption of Bill C-4, we will be able to carry on this proud tradition of progress.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what really bothers me about the process for Bill C-4 is that, once again, the Conservative government is introducing an omnibus bill and then moving a damn time allocation motion. I am very concerned about this because of the impact it has on Canadian democracy, and I am wondering how we are supposed to properly debate this bill.

People across the country are telling us what they think about the environment, the country's finances and employment insurance. In all seriousness, our job in Ottawa is to share these concerns in the House of Commons in order to work together—like a big family—to find a compromise. I will admit that our family is dysfunctional.

However, we have to find solutions to help Canada move forward rather than engaging in a dialogue of the deaf in the House of Commons. I know that we will not solve this problem today on the basis of my comments alone. I would therefore like to ask a question of my NDP colleague, who represents northern Canada.

Is Bill C-4 really designed to properly represent Canadians living in the north or is our government somewhat out of touch with the realities in Quebec and northern Canada and, unfortunately, serving only the interests of party friends?

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to all of these exchanges and debates, we can see that, ultimately, Bill C-4 fails to respond in any way to Canadians' concerns.

Earlier, my colleague pointed out that job security and wage issues were not taken into account in this bill and that no progress has been made on those issues. Meanwhile, it is increasingly clear that families and income earners are becoming more vulnerable. What tangible measures is the government proposing to address those types of problems?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the article by conservative National Post editorialist Andrew Coyne. I will summarize the article about omnibus bills, such as Bill C-4, in just a few words: the bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention and serves to shield bills that would otherwise be defeatable in the House. It is impossible to know how legislators intended to vote. There is no common thread that runs between these different items and no overarching principle that unites them. They represent a sort of compulsory buffet. There is something alarming about the government wanting to oblige Parliament to rubber-stamp its whole legislative agenda at one go.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. I did not cover all of the details in Bill C-4. As I said very clearly at the beginning, I was going to focus on some aspects that are very important to my region, to my riding, and I did that very specifically.

I talked about some of the opportunities that are out there. I talked about how important this budget is, what it would give us, how it would give us the tools to go forward, and how it would better prepare the people of Saint John and the people of southern New Brunswick for the opportunities that lie ahead. I am very excited about that. I look forward to the opportunity to engage people on that level and to talk more about it. These are exciting times in Saint John, New Brunswick, and we look forward to continuing to discuss these things.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

His speech did not cover all aspects of Bill C-4, but that is quite understandable. How could one possibly talk about all of the items contained in a 300-page bill in just 10 minutes?

Today, I moved a motion and I requested the unanimous support of the House to remove sections 290 to 293 from Bill C-4 so that they can be examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which in my opinion is the most appropriate place to examine that part of the bill.

Can my colleague tell us why these sections pertaining to the permanent residency system in Canada have to be included in a budget rather than be examined by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act, which of course is part of economic action plan 2013, which is very appropriately entitled jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Before I get into the details of my comments and start expanding on where I want to go, I will take this opportunity to once again thank the people of Saint John for giving me the honour and the privilege of serving them in this great House.

The reason I bring up the riding of Saint John, which I am so pleased to represent, is that a lot of my comments tonight will be focused on Saint John, and all my comments will be focused on the region of southern New Brunswick and new Brunswick as a whole. As I speak to the budget implementation act and economic action plan 2013 tonight, I want to talk about some of the things that are on the horizon for Saint John because in Saint John we are really excited about some of the prospects that are out there for the future. A lot of those prospects are centred around resource development and the opportunities that exist for Saint John because of what we have to offer.

It is no accident that Saint John is very well positioned to take advantage of some of these opportunities, and more specifically, I speak tonight about the energy east pipeline project. We are excited about the prospects of the energy east pipeline. Why, members ask? Quite frankly, we are home to Canada's largest oil refinery.

The urban oil refinery is situated right within the heart of my riding. We are home to Irving Canaport, which is a deep water terminal for importing oil, and we will soon hopefully be exporting oil through that same terminal. We are home to Canaport LNG terminal, which is Canada's only liquefied natural gas terminal. That terminal is set up for imports, but at this point in time it is undergoing a review to seek permission to become an export terminal.

These are some of the opportunities we face in Saint John, and it is specifically because of our proximity to deep water, ice-free deep water. It has given us a huge advantage and a huge opportunity with what we are talking about in this country, which is responsible resource development.

We are talking about developing a pipeline from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. It will benefit the entire country. It will benefit Saint John greatly, and we want to be well positioned in Saint John to take advantage of those opportunities as they come. We know that with the potential of these developments, there will be great opportunities when it comes to employment, and there will be other benefits beyond the pipeline when that comes our way. We are holding our breath and hoping daily that it is getting closer.

There is a lot of optimism around that. The premier of the province of New Brunswick is very actively engaged. I was actively engaged. The mayor of the city of Saint John and the officials from the port of Saint John are actively engaged in trying to impress upon officials in TransCanada with respect to the business opportunity that was there for this pipeline to be developed through eastern Canada and to Saint John, New Brunswick.

That is a great opportunity that we see sitting out there. Members are probably wondering where I am going with this. I will get back to that point in a few minutes, because economic action plan 2013 directly speaks to what we are facing in Saint John. It gives us the tools to be equipped to handle some of those opportunities that are coming our way.

There is more than just the development of this pipeline. There is more than just the changes with Canaport LNG. There are shale gas opportunities in New Brunswick. The provincial government is working very hard to ensure that we are in a position to develop those resources. We are looking at the opportunities that are there and the provincial government is doing exploration work at this time to try to determine what sort of deposit lies there. That is another opportunity.

Potash is an opportunity that we have in New Brunswick, and we are home to PotashCorp's marine terminal. That terminal ships potash worldwide, and we have tremendous opportunities there. The company's people are looking at expansion of that marine terminal because of PotashCorp's mine in Sussex. It has put down a new shaft and is looking at taking advantage of the opportunities that are there.

All these opportunities that I talk about have led to discussions within St. John about how we would best become prepared to take advantage of these opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 includes that very specifically, and it lays out some very important things that we need to be prepared for. There are infrastructure investments in economic action plan 2013 that are so necessary when a community is trying to develop itself and trying to move forward. The city of St. John, the port of St. John and the province of New Brunswick all have to take advantage of some of these opportunities. Therefore, we will give them the tools and the opportunities to do so with this budget.

However, it is not only through community infrastructure, when we talk about infrastructure investments. There is equipment and our people for the opportunities that are there. We have the Canada jobs grant, which will certainly turn the page on how we train people in the country and it will give employers and the private sector a voice in determining where those investments should be made. This is so important. We talk about how we move forward. Do members not think it is important that we give the people who will make the investments, drive the economy and drive the prosperity in our country a voice and a chance to say where those investments should be made? They can tell us exactly where the opportunities will be and they can tell us if we need so many tradespeople or so many accountants. They can tell us exactly where we should be spending our job training dollars. This is so important. Not only would they get to give us advice on that, but they would also get to invest in an opportunity.

I had the pleasure of visiting one of the Irving mills in Saint John just recently with the Minister of Employment and Social Development. We have two Irving pulp and paper mills, so we visited Irving paper and we sat down and had a discussion with the officials from the human resources department about their needs. We talked about some of the things they were facing as they went forward and how they only hired people with at least two years of post-secondary education. That surprised me because we tend to look at some of the jobs in some of these organizations as not being highly skilled. These people are very highly skilled and they come in the door with a minimum of two years of post-secondary education and they are trained to do the jobs they need to do. The officials at the company are prepared to make the investment in these people and their futures.

It is so important that we are able to play a role and work with them, because it is more important that the business people who are actually hiring for these jobs, and not government bureaucrats, make the decisions on where these dollars go. Going forward, we should be giving business people a say in what they are doing.

However, we would also make huge investments when it comes to tax breaks. We are investing in the extension of the hiring tax credit and of the accumulating capital costs allowance for investments in new equipment and machinery. This will give the people who are in the business and industrial side of the equation the opportunity to invest dollars at home and to provide those highly-skilled jobs that we are talking about.

This budget, the economic action plan 2013, would give us the opportunity to be prepared for the future. There is a lot of opportunity on the horizon for the people of St. John and the province of New Brunswick and by taking advantage of this program and of what is in this budget, we would be very well equipped to go forward.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there is a blatant lack of transparency in Bill C-4. This is yet another mammoth bill for which debate is being limited by a time allocation motion. It is not good for consumers, workers, veterans, the public service or the environment.

That being said, there is one issue that is particularly worrisome to me. I would like to ask my dear colleague, who so ardently defends his constituents, why the Conservative government would move forward with its harmful $350-million tax on labour-sponsored funds. What effect will this have on workers and the economy in general?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

For the most hopeful among us, promise was in the air for a little while this past summer. There was talk of reset and of change. It seemed clear enough when this place shut down for the summer last June amid the Senate scandal that there was cause for the Conservative government members to pause and reflect on the way they conduct themselves as government.

I would, however, note that this speech and all speeches on the bill are delivered under time allocation. It is the 50th time the government has moved to limit debate in the House, so there has been no change.

A diagnosis of what is happening to Canadian politics under the current government would identify the same disease infecting all of what the Conservatives do. It is about a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and a lack of respect for the process of democratic politics.

Canadians elect us, all of us, to come here to give voice to their concerns and to pursue their wishes on their behalf. When the government will not allow those voices to be heard, what we have at the heart of all of this is a government that does not respect the people whose country this actually is.

Conservatives have become occupiers of the institutions and abusers of the practices that have been established for the collective benefit of all Canadians. We know that these institutions and practices are not perfect and never have been; I would point to the Senate down the hallway. From time to time we need to change so that our institutions and practices keep up with maturing notions of democracy and what best serves that collective benefit.

We would call it modernization, perhaps. Conservatives once called it reform, in a day when we all at least had in common, it seemed, a commitment to transparency and accountability in the institutions of government and the practices of politics.

However, reform has not come from the supposed reformers. Hope has been betrayed by the government again, and there has been more disappointment for any Canadians left whose disposition allows them to remain optimistic about the government.

For those who could not escape the suspicion that the government would not and could not change its ways—and I am among them, unfortunately—the bill we are debating today was so entirely predictable: omnibus in nature, amending 70 pieces of legislation, and burying deep in its 300-plus pages two completely new pieces of legislation. It is legislation, I might add, as with all new legislation, that is worthy in its own right of full debate in this place.

How predictable that one of these pieces of legislation has to do with a gas project. Extraction and the fire sale of Canada's natural resources is all the government knows and all it does in the form of an economic plan. How fitting, especially in light of the evidence emerging every day from the Conservative government with an obsessive-compulsive disorder to control and manipulate, that the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act would seek to eliminate the independent arm's-length bodies charged with mitigating the socio-economic impacts of the Mackenzie gas project and bring these matters directly under the control of the minister and the government.

Of course, we would not recognize a Conservative budget bill or implementation act without an attack on working people. From the elimination of useful dispute resolution processes to the undermining of health and safety provisions, attacks on workers have become the hallmark of the Conservative budget process. It is attack but never help; destroy but never build.

However, what I want to talk about today is the need to build urban economies and the need to help people who work and look for work in our cities, something Bill C-4 fails to do. I would like to point to a number of recently released studies in the hope of bringing to the attention of the government and Canadians just how far off the mark Bill C-4 is.

One such study, entitled “It's More than Poverty” and carried out by McMaster University and the United Way of Toronto, was released in February of this year. Having found that precarious employment has increased by nearly 50% over the last 20 years, so that barely 50% of people in the study are in jobs that are both permanent and full-time, the authors of this study describe precarious work as “the new normal” for many in the urban workforce.

This new normal is not a good normal. People in precarious work earn 46% less and report household income that is 34% less than those in secure jobs.

Just this month, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity and the Martin Prosperity Institute, both at the University of Toronto, released a study entitled, “Untapped potential—Creating a better future for service workers”. In this study, the institutes point to the increasing precarity of work in the Toronto labour market, particularly in what they call the routine service sector of the labour market, jobs that account for almost half of Toronto's workforce.

Defining precarious work as work that is temporary, part-time and paying below the low-income cut-off, the institutes note that the number of routine service jobs that have become precarious over the last decade has increased by one-third. The point that the institutes want to make with this study of precarity is not just about the implications of these changes for those working in this sector but as the study's title suggests, the untapped potential in this sector from which we can all benefit. The point is that unstable, low-wage and low-skill positions deflate disposable income and overall prosperity. The institutes urge policy-makers, and that is us, to assess what policy tools are needed to boost job security and wages within these occupations.

There has been no such assessment coming from the other side, and there are no such tools in Bill C-4. I am thankful that at least we on this side of the House are on the job. I would point to my colleague, the member for Davenport, and his recently tabled urban workers bill, which I proudly co-sponsor, as a response to the circumstances described in these studies. It is a bill of legislative relevance to Canadians, and particularly to urban Canadians.

Finally, I would like to point the government to a recent study done by the Wellesley Institute in Toronto, called “Shadow Economies: Economic Survival Strategies Of Toronto Immigrant Communities”, also released just this month, which focuses on the economic poverty of newcomers. This study finds that only one-third of households were able to fully cover their household expenses on income through formal employment, forcing people, as both workers and consumers, into the informal economy to make ends meet.

It is in this context that the government enters with an economic plan that according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer would be responsible for 67,000 less jobs by 2017, and a GDP reduction of 0.6%.

I do not know if it is possible for anybody to draft a stronger indictment of the government as economic manager than the one it has penned for itself with this very bill, Bill C-4. It is not just irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Canadians, proving once again how remote the government is from the population and their cares and concerns, but it is actually harmful and hurtful to the people I came here to represent.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He put his finger right on the problem.

The Conservative government is visiting the regions of Canada and talking out of both sides of its mouth. In Quebec, it is trying to minimize the impact of Justice Nadon's appointment. The Government of Quebec, as well as all of the parties represented in the National Assembly, have made the point that the future justice will have a hard time complying with the law and making rulings with the necessary knowledge of Quebec civil law. Quebec has every right to expect this from a Supreme Court judge who will have to make important rulings.

One may wonder why there are three judges. Some cases may be made public and may involve Quebec. Take, for example, the firearms registry, which could eventually end up in this court.

The Conservatives are always saying one thing to Quebec and another to Canada, but we are not fooled. We can see this is going on. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives are trying to legitimize this appointment decision in a roundabout way. However, the fact remains that Justice Nadon is not qualified to sit in Quebec.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try not to go over my speaking time.

I found the hon. member's speech very interesting. I am particularly interested in clauses 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, because they deal with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court.

I would quickly like to correct a statement my colleague made. The proceedings of the committee, which includes members from all the recognized parties in the House, and the votes in this committee, are confidential. We had to sign confidentiality orders, so we cannot disclose how the vote was held and we certainly cannot assume that one or the other party voted in favour of the appointment of Mr. Nadon just because his name was selected.

Furthermore, there is an even more significant issue. How does my colleague explain that the government can, by means of Bill C-4, especially clauses 471 and 472, which are the subject of the second reference to the Supreme Court—

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank you for giving me the floor today. Having the chance to speak to the budget implementation bill is very important.

Again, the federal government is using a so-called budget bill that is being described as “mammoth” to push its regressive ideology and pass controversial measures that have never been discussed in public before.

Before we can even debate the substance of the bill or consult people and interest groups, the government imposes a gag order. This is generally recognized as a practice to be used as an exception. The government is once again limiting review of budget Bill C-4.

This bill and the measures it contains are far too important to pass hastily without any real debate or a true impact study that would inevitably take place.

This bill is more than 300 pages long and affects more or less 70 statutes. It would have been important, even essential, for us to take our time and split the bill to do it justice and make proposals to amend it and make general changes, which would have allowed us to work on it properly.

The Conservatives claim that the bill focuses on the economy, but that is far from true. Bill C-4 will, once again, affect a host of different areas, and some of the changes that will result from the bill will have an adverse effect on Quebec, the regions, businesses and workers.

I have some examples. Bill C-4 would eliminate the federal tax credit on labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, which, back home, are commonly referred to as workers' funds. They are very common in Quebec and they play an important role. For instance, there is the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the CSN's Fondaction.

These funds are quite prevalent in Quebec. Traditionally, they served as significant development tools in our communities and helped create and maintain tens of thousands of jobs, strengthen communities and breathe life into the economy where regular instruments, such as bank loans, were not as appropriate and could not play the important role that these workers' funds could play as development tools.

In my riding alone, I found real-life examples of cases where, at some point in time, these funds were crucial to a company's development. I can list some businesses that used them and benefited from that money when they needed it. Those companies include BSL Wood Products, Projexco, Meridien Maritime, Richard Poirier & Frères Électrique, La Pourvoirie de la seigneurie du lac Métis, Les Distributions Arnaud, and the list goes on and on. Those funds useful to those companies because they gave them access to venture capital at an important point in their development.

Here is another example. In the bill that has been introduced, which once again penalizes Quebec, there is talk of Supreme Court justices. The federal government has picked a fight with the Government of Quebec by appointing a Supreme Court justice who was not on the list submitted by the Government of Quebec and does not meet the criteria set out in legislation.

The Supreme Court has to include three justices from Quebec, and with good reason. 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 to be able to rule on significant, complex civil law issues. In addition, in many of the existing legal cases—between Ottawa and Quebec, for example—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. That was the right thing to do, except that the federal government has decided to refer Justice Nadon's case to the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court will be both judge and judged in this case. That is absurd. There should have been an independent review to clarify this unthinkable situation.

Not wanting to be defeated in this dispute, the federal government is trying to use Bill C-4, which is before us today, to amend the Supreme Court Act to make Justice Nadon's appointment legal—after the fact, of course.

For the Bloc Québécois, the changes in Bill C-4 that have to do with the period of time during which an appointee had to be a member of the Barreau du Québec are nothing short of an admission of the shortcomings that tarnished the entire procedure to appoint Justice Nadon.

I would point out that that appointment was unfortunately approved by the Conservatives, but also by the Liberals and the NDP, who included Justice Nadon on their list of the three top candidates.

Rather than changing the legislation to try to save face, the federal government should just face facts: it must appoint judges to the Supreme Court who really represent Quebec, from the list submitted by the Government of Quebec. There is no other option.

This is not the first time Quebec has been aggrieved in a situation relating to the role of the Supreme Court. Hon. members may recall, for example, the allegations made by historian Frédéric Bastien, who revealed that the Supreme Court had overstepped the bounds of proper behaviour.

Bill C-4 also includes a measure to eliminate the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. We saw this coming. There is nothing really surprising about this government and its way of doing things.

This was clear with the employment insurance reform, for example, and all the measures meant to restrict access to that system, even though it is essential in some regions and for all workers who, at some point in their lives, face a situation where work is not available in their field, whether because of the seasonal nature of their work or because of an economic downturn.

It has become very clear that the Conservative government, like the Liberals before them, has no problem using employment insurance for political ends and, above all, taking any surpluses in the EI fund and using them for other purposes or adding them to its regular budget if it so chooses.

What was the purpose of that board? The best way to explain it is to look at how it was described when it was created. The definition is especially clear:

The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB) was created as a Crown Corporation in 2008 to ensure that EI premiums are used exclusively for the EI program. This followed extensive public discussion on the need to improve the transparency and independence of EI financing.

Now, however, we must point out coincidence of sorts between the abolition of the board and the government's express desire to get its hands on the money. It has done so on many occasions in order to divert income from premiums to general government revenue, rather than return the money to workers when they need it.

As we read that description, we can better understand the Conservatives' desire to abolish a body that was opposed to their getting their hands on the money and pilfering the surplus as they are doing at the moment.

This year alone, $2 billion will be taken out of the employment insurance fund in order to pay down the deficit or indulge Conservative whims such as military procurement, gifts for the Queen, and celebration of conflicts, debates or battles two centuries old, such as the war of 1812.

The bill also includes major changes to labour legislation. In recent labour disputes, such as at Air Canada and CP, we have seen that the Conservatives are allergic to any kind of pressure from employees. The mere possibility of strikes worries them so much that they enact special legislation to prevent them.

Bill C-4 goes even further. Now the Conservatives are making major changes to the way in which services are deemed essential because they want to pre-empt any possibility of employees exerting pressure. From now on, the Conservatives are giving the employer the exclusive right to determine whether a service is essential and the number of positions needed to provide that service. Previously, the essential services designation was agreed upon between the union and the employer.

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 workplace health and safety process. In fact, in Bill C-4, the minister appropriates the power to issue directives to employers and to make certain decisions that were once made by health and safety officers.

This is a complete travesty.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Since the Conservatives got a majority in 2011, environmental regulations have been deteriorating and we have been seeing some problems with science in particular. For example, the government has eliminated some scientist jobs and has prevented scientists from speaking.

My question is about a provision in Bill C-4. Why continue in the same vein? My colleague represents an agricultural riding and he has young girls. I know he has a very lovely family. Why is the government eliminating jobs at the country's most prestigious research centre, the National Research Council of Canada? Why is it attacking science? Why is it eliminating nearly half of all scientist jobs?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really like that question. That is precisely what we want: to divide Bill C-4 and pull out the measures that could help people.

The government puts 70 measures in a 300-page bill and tells us that we have to accept all or nothing. That is what it is forcing us to do. We cannot support the majority of the items in Bill C-4. We could support others, but if we want to work on dealing with the economic situation for all Canadians, we need to have discussions. This will not happen if the government keeps holding in camera meetings and gagging members when we are talking about a bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment briefly on her impression of the importance of the $1000 EI credit that is going to help small and medium-size employers create more jobs. In my area, most of the jobs created are created by small and medium-size employers that employ between 10 and 50 people. The hiring credit in my area is a very important part of the budget, of Bill C-4. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the importance of that in her area.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, as my colleagues have done. As hon. members know, Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and currently amends 70 pieces of legislation.

Logic would suggest that we should be given time to properly consider the bill. I am wondering whether this government would agree to sign a 50-page contract immediately or within a few hours. Logically, the government should automatically say no because it would want time to examine the contract before signing it.

Nevertheless, that is what the government is asking us to do today. The Conservatives have introduced a 300-page bill that amends 70 laws and, at the same time, it is telling us that we have no choice but to pass it immediately. However, only 24 hours passed between the time the government introduced the bill and the time we started debating it in the House.

I would also like to remind hon. members that some information was provided in committee in only one language, making it impossible to properly discuss and debate the bill in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

That is very little time to debate a 300-page bill that addresses sometimes complex subjects that have no relation to each other.

What is more, 48 hours after we saw the content of this massive bill, the government was already imposing a gag order in order to ram the bill through. It is unacceptable for the government of a country like Canada to pass most of its laws in this manner.

The use of a time allocation motion should be limited to emergency situations. I am certain that no one on this side of the House would be opposed to debating a bill if there were an emergency situation and that no one would be opposed to amending it as needed before passing it.

The Conservatives introduce a huge number of bills in the House. The government deliberately delayed the work of the House by a month by proroguing Parliament, yet the government is now telling us that it is urgent that we pass Bill C-4. One has to wonder whether it is logical for the government to prevent the House from returning on the scheduled date, doing its work and examining the bill, only to tell us a month later that it is urgent that we pass the bill. It does not make any sense.

Canadians are perceptive. They know full well that the government is using the gag order to prevent us and all the stakeholders affected by these changes from having enough time to examine the impact of Bill C-4.

As a parliamentarian and a Canadian, I could never support this Conservative attempt to avoid the scrutiny of Parliament and Canadians. Obviously, we will vote against this bill in its current form. We will oppose this bill in principle because we are not being given the time to do the job we were elected to do. We must represent the people. We will also vote against the bill because of its content.

The previous three budget implementation bills taught us that we need to be wary of this government. In the previous bills, the Conservatives took aim at environmental assessments and protections for most of Canada's lakes and rivers. Those bills also resulted in $36 billion in cuts to health care transfers and increased the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Bill C-4 is not that different from the other three budget implementation bills in that it is setting society back. It sets out significant changes to the Canadian work environment. Now, the minister will have the bulk of the powers once granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code. It is a legislative step backwards for health and safety.

Bill C-4 also takes aim at an employee's ability to refuse to work in unsafe conditions. At the very least, Canadians should be able to maintain their right to work in a healthy and safe environment. However, as we can see, the Conservatives do not seem to share that opinion.

In reading Bill C-4, we can also see that the government is not going to abandon its war on the public service anytime soon. It has become its pattern to go after the hundreds of thousands of people who provide Canadians with the services to which they are entitled.

This time, the government is torpedoing the Public Service Staff Relations Act by eliminating the arbitration process as a method of settling disputes. It is also making changes to give the minister the discretionary ability to determine which services are essential. This measure could ultimately be used by the minister to completely remove certain workers' right to bargain, a right that is recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The all-out war being waged by this government against the people who work in the public service has caused a great deal of damage in my riding of Hull—Aylmer. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that 17,000 of the 19,200 job cuts planned in the public service will occur in the Gatineau-Ottawa region.

These cuts are resulting in a major slowdown in economic activity. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada has indicated that the economic forecast for our region, which is the fifth-largest in Canada, has been revised down by about 50%. In other words, the cuts are hurting the affected regions economically.

Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that the measures in budget 2012-13 will cost 67,000 jobs. According to Statistics Canada, there are currently 6.5 unemployed workers for every reported job vacancy in Canada. That is a very poor record for a government that claims to be such a good economic manager. We would have expected the government to use Bill C-4 to fix this situation, but it is doing nothing. Instead of attacking workers, this government should focus on creating good new jobs, but it is not doing that.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have been going on and on about the fact that the cupboard is bare and more cuts are needed. The nation's finances should be managed responsibly, but it is important to set priorities.

Since 2006, the government has spent $1 billion on organizing the G8 and G20 summits, $500 million on advertising and $1.3 billion a year on tax breaks for its friends in the oil industry.

I would also like to point out that this government did everything it could to bill taxpayers $40 billion for fighter jets. I can see why Canadians are shocked when they hear that there is no money and the Conservatives cannot give them a helping hand to make ends meet. This government continues to cut services that Canadians are entitled to while giving billions of dollars to companies that already make billions in profits.

It cannot be said often enough that public services primarily serve middle-class families. They are the ones who use them the most. I can also understand why Canadians are outraged when they learn that over 400 veterans among those with the most severe disabilities are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

This is all a matter of priorities, and obviously, the Conservatives' priorities are quite different from those of all other Canadians. The Conservatives have clearly picked sides by using Bill C-4 to attack workers' rights, rather than reducing inequality and creating good jobs.

The government can be sure of one thing: every time it tries to attack labour rights and proposes measures that increase inequality, it will have to deal with the NDP.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which would build upon our budget introduced last March.

What ought to be the motivation of the government when we construct a budget? What ought the government consider?

Consider this. Canada is a land that stretches 5,187 kilometres, from Cape Spear, Newfoundland, to Mount Saint Elias in the Yukon Territory, and 4,627 kilometres, from Cape Columbia on Ellesmere Island, to Pelee Island in Lake Erie. It encompasses 9,984,670 square kilometres. This land is blessed with enormous wealth in natural resources: lakes, trees, minerals and rivers. However, these attributes are worthless without the human investment to turn them into value.

Canada is blessed with those resources and we have human talent that has come to this country from every corner of the globe. It is a little strange to find corners on a globe, I must say. From Germany to Japan, from Ireland to Iran, from China to Chile, and from England to Ecuador, the people of Canada and the people who have come to Canada are the ones the government must consider when we prepare a budget, a budget that would help people in Nunavut and New Westminster, in Halifax and Hamilton, in Moncton and Montreal, and yes, in Newmarket—Aurora as well.

How would we help? We would help by ensuring that these great individuals who make up the best of this land have opportunities. That is what Bill C-4 is about, creating opportunities. Canadians know how to work and they work hard. They work to provide for their families. They want jobs, they want growth, and they want prosperity for Canada. That is what the budget implementation bill is about.

Since 2006, our government has been putting in place the foundation for that prosperity. We began by paying $40 billion off the debt, and I was glad to hear my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound talk about that a bit earlier. When the financial pillars of the global economy were shaken in 2008, and other economies teetered precariously, Canada was resilient. In those dark days, our government acted with determination and decision. We ensured, through shovel-ready projects, that Canadians stayed working through investments in our community infrastructure.

Newmarket and Aurora both saw benefits in the rehabilitation of community centres, the beautiful Riverwalk Commons in downtown Newmarket, sports facilities, and heritage structures. Now, as we look to a brighter future, the foundation in place, it is time to build upon what we have already put in place. The global economy is still fragile. Many countries still have economies that are on life support, but not Canada. Our government has taken the steps to grow our economy. How?

First, give people back their own money and they will spend some of it. Canadians, being prudent, will also save some of it for a rainy day. We gave them back their money. We cut the GST. We raised the personal tax deduction. We implemented tax credits for kids' sports and arts, for transit, and for apprenticeships. We also created the tax-free savings account, and we gave seniors pension income splitting.

Shall I go on? The list is enormous, but wait, we have other measures to grow the economy.

We named this budget a plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We know that the job creators are those businesses such as the ones that belong to the Newmarket and Aurora chambers of commerce: manufacturers such as Axiom and Canada Plastic, restaurants like Al Casale's and Cachet, and the UPS Store that Faizy owns in the 404 Plaza at Leslie Street and the 404. These are the businesses that are the job creators.

As Jerry Moran said about the American economy, “...innovation and entrepreneurship is the opportunity and best opportunity we have to grow the economy”.

We need to free these job creators to do what they do best, because Faizy has a dream. He came from Iran for opportunities, and better opportunities for his kids. Faizy works, and he works hard. What did he do? After he bought the UPS franchise, he created two new jobs. We are helping Faizy keep those employees by reducing EI payroll taxes. Faizy has also invested in training for these folks. That costs him money. He wants to keep these employees working. He has also invested in equipment: printers, photocopiers. These are high capital costs for a small business, but we are helping Faizy with that as well by addressing capital cost writeoffs. We helped Faizy return to profitability more quickly.

Is that all we have done? Not for a minute. Our government continues to provide the best economic policies for Canadians to promote jobs, growth and economic prosperity. How is our government doing that? Bill C-4 will implement other tax measures that will be helpful for many other Canadian small businesses and their owners.

For instance, the lifetime capital gains exemption will be increased to $800,000, and for 2014 and subsequent years, the lifetime capital gains tax exemption will be indexed for inflation.

However, it is not only businesses that our government's tax measures will be helping. Our government is also introducing an income tax measure that will help Canadians in the event of making an honest mistake in the event of over-contributing to a registered pension plan. Bill C-4 streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund the contribution made to an RRSP when such a mistake is made. These tax measures and others will be greatly beneficial for all Canadians.

Our government is looking out for the best interests of Canadians. These income tax measures are being implemented to encourage Canadians and Canadian businesses, not to spurn their growth.

However, this is not all we are doing. Encouraging economic growth is an important part of our government's mandate, and following in this tradition, our Prime Minister recently signed an agreement in principle for a new trade agreement with the European Union. I know this is not a topic of the Bill C-4 discussion; however, the Canada-EU comprehensive, economic and trade agreement will bring many benefits to Canadian citizens and businesses. New opportunities for investment, business and the ability to consume new products will appear with the opening of the vast European market.

Key sectors of interest to Canadian investors, such as the aerospace, energy and business services industries, will benefit greatly from this agreement. My riding of Newmarket—Aurora, which is home to many companies that operate within these sectors, will see first-hand the benefits of this agreement. I look forward to the hon. Minister of International Trade introducing this new trade agreement in the House of Commons.

However, to stay on topic, I return to Bill C-4. The measures in Bill C-4 will ensure that the goals of jobs, growth and economic prosperity will continue to be met.

I strongly urge all my colleagues to support the passage of the bill so that Canadians can start reaping the benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying what a delightful weekend I had in my riding of Newton—North Delta. It was so wonderful to have our leader in the riding and meet with so many of my constituents and the press and hear their concerns expressed. As members know, it is always very rewarding to be back home working with constituents.

I also want to acknowledge the amazing work done by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, on this file.

I rise today to oppose what is before the House, both the process and the content, and I will tackle the process aspect first.

Here we go again. I have been an elected member of Parliament since May 2011 and it has been quite an eye-opener to see how our parliamentary democracy works, or does not work. One key area is the number of times parliamentarians are denied fulsome debate on issues.

Once again, we have hundreds and hundreds of pages on a budget with not only budget issues, which should be in a budget document, but there is so much other stuff buried in there.

Once again, what does the government have against transparency and accountability? Do Conservatives have a hard time with members of Parliament debating legitimate issues that should be debated here? Why is it that time and time again they feel they have to bury stuff in the budget and then ask for these votes wholesale, yea or nay?

Once again, as a parliamentarian, I find it quite outrageous and not only that, there is time allocation as well. Not only has the government put forward a huge bill that has far more than the budget in it, but it also moves to limit debate. These are all major concerns.

The other issue I want to get to is on the content.

We have seen some of the advertising already that this budget would fix our economy. Let me tell members that nobody in my riding believes it will fix the economy. No matter how many glossy advertisements or TV advertisements that go on, people know what they are struggling with in their daily lives, day in and day out.

Let us focus on youth unemployment. As one of the richest countries in the world, richest in resources, we are failing our youth, and this budget does nothing to address the high level, double-digit youth unemployment across the country. We must not take this lightly. Imagine how debilitating it is for our youth when they go to university, take up post-secondary education and even go on to further studies, but they cannot find jobs. This budget fails our youth quite miserably.

The job action grant, as we know, has not been a great hit with any of the provinces or territories. In fact, I have not heard one provincial leader stand and acclaim it, embrace it and say that it is the best thing since sliced bread or even that it is an okay thing. Every one of them have criticized the shortcomings in the job action grant. Once again, where are the investments that will lead to job growth?

We have also heard that this budget would fix or could do things to the unemployment rate. This is not a budget issue, but it is right in the budget where the minister would have control and the final say over setting the rates for EI contributions, which once again opens the door for abuse by both Conservatives and Liberals by taking money that employers and workers pay into it for the rainy days when they do not have jobs.

We have seen $57 billion stolen out of the EI pot and put into general revenues. I say the word “stolen” because that money was paid for by Canadians and employers for a rainy day when they did not have a job.

We have seen a lower number people on employment insurance, not because people are more needy or unemployed but because the system has become so cumbersome. The cuts in Service Canada and the bureaucracy around applications, getting a phone call, being online for hours and hours is just not working.

I was pleased recently with the change to address the fishermen issue. I am hoping the government will wake up tomorrow morning and fix the rest of the problems it has created for unemployed Canadians and make it easier for them. Surely this is the time when we should be investing in skills training and skills development. For people who lose jobs in one area there should be an intensive investment in order to make sure that we help people to get into the jobs that are around. We know there is not a shortage of jobs.

Also in the budget we see that the government is going to extend the $1,000 hiring credit for small businesses. It is laudable, but the New Democrats have gone even further by proposing a $2,000 hiring tax credit that will not cut into EI funds and will help businesses hire and train young people. These are the kinds of initiatives we need and we put these forward. Maybe the Conservatives will pick them up as they have picked up some of our other ideas and it will help Canadians and that is a good thing.

We are going to spend close to half a million dollars, according to the department, to change the name from Human Resources and Social Development to Employment and Social Development. I am wondering about the wisdom during these very difficult times of spending half a million dollars on changing stationery and letterhead and all else that it takes, when people are really hurting.

Let me say once again that in my riding I have a very diverse riding in Newton—North Delta, which is part of Surrey and also crosses into the Delta municipality. Some of my constituents are working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They do not find that things are getting better. They are having to work longer hours just to make ends meet. They tell me their lives have become like a gerbil in a cage, where they are running all the time just so they do not fall flat and their children do not go hungry. I live in a riding where we have a homelessness problem, so affordable housing is an issue. We have very high usage of our food bank. I am seeing nothing in the budget to address that.

The government is allergic to day care, yet there is sound evidence and the Canadian Payroll Association survey found that 40% of employed Canadians are spending all of, or more than, their net pay, and 45% of those polled are putting only 5% or less of their pay into savings. We know that the debt load is growing for Canadians and there is nothing in the budget to address that.

I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, clauses 125 to 158, 176 to 203, 277, 278 and 294 to 470, related to public sector employee relations and sweeping changes to workplace health and safety regulations, be removed from Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-9; that Bill C-9 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; that Bill C-4 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-4 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

I am moving this motion in order to make more sense out of this budget.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to thank the people of Etobicoke North, the community where I was born and raised. I want the community to know that I loved being in the constituency office almost every day this summer. I want the people to know that I loved being at their beautiful celebrations during the week and on weekends, sometimes attending 10 events on a weekend. I want to thank them for coming to our annual community barbecue. There were 1,200 of us and it was a wonderful party because we shared and met new friends.

From my daily work in our constituency office this summer I know that people 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 in remembrance of Loyan Gilao, a young Somali Canadian man, a York University student with a bright future, who was shot and killed in 2005. Eight years later we still do not know Loyan's killer. We now have 50 deaths of young Somali Canadian men.

In 2012, six of 33 Toronto shooting victims were Somali Canadian men. Our community is asking that the government investigate these deaths through the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, develop federal-provincial job programs, particularly with the RCMP, and examine witness protection.

There was not a day this summer that I did not have a student, a graduate, a parent or even a grandparent come asking for help to find a job. They came and continued to come because we do help them find jobs. I personally review and edit resumés late into the night, sometimes doing two and three drafts. We get our people into job programs. We follow up with them to make sure their jobs searches are going in the right direction, and while they search, we help them with food and clothing and whatever other supports they might need.

At critical times I have personally bought medicine. We had a lady looking for help who 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. How many more stories like hers are there?

I had a university graduate who came in to get help after being out of school and out of work for two years. I have numerous disappointed graduate students, international doctors and teachers who could not find work. I had grandparents who came on behalf of their grandchildren, the first in the family to graduate 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 educations. Now they have educations and they still do not have jobs.

It was particularly hard to hear from service providers that federal funding was being cut from job and training programs in our Etobicoke North community. My community depends on these job programs. We cannot afford to have them shut down. That is why I contacted the minister's office, and I hope that this will be rectified.

What I was looking for first and foremost in the budget was real help for the people of Etobicoke North for jobs. Instead, we have 308 pages with 472 separate clauses amending more than 50 different pieces of legislation. Yet again, another anti-democratic omnibus bill meant to limit debate and ram through as much unrelated legislation as the government can get through Parliament.

The legislation fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class and those seeking to enter it. It does little to help the economy create jobs. In fact, the so-called job creation measures in the bill are just a continuation of the status quo, which simply is not good enough. Moreover, it does little to help young Canadians find jobs at a time of persistently high youth unemployment and underemployment. The reality is that there are still 224,000 fewer jobs for our youth than before the recession.

As the critic for Status of Women for our party, I was disappointed to see virtually nothing for women. In response to the throne speech, one of my young constituents simply asked, “Do women and girls even register with this government?”

Her question prompted me to think about what a throne speech and a budget bill might have looked like if it actually addressed the challenges Canadian women face. Perhaps such a throne speech would have recognized, in silent prayer and reflection, the 600 murdered and missing aboriginal women—mothers, aunts, cousins, and sisters stolen from our communities and taken from Canada—and made a commitment to an inquiry with real recommendations to end the violence.

Perhaps Bill C-4 would have begun to address the remaining inequalities women face and would have begun to build brighter futures for our families, our communities, and our country. After almost 100 years of women's advocacy, this would mean eliminating the gender wage gap at last. Its eradication would be an economic imperative, as the wage gap hurts our families and hurts our economy. In fact, the Royal Bank of Canada has shown that the lost income potential of women in Canada because of the wage gap is a staggering $126 billion a year.

A healthy and robust Canadian economy needs women's contributions, and it is government's job to remove the obstacles that appear at all stages of women's lives that keep them from realizing their full potential.

A lack of child care, an enormous issue in my riding of Etobicoke North, holds women back. It is one of our country's great unsolved issues. It is time to fix Canada's broken child care promises and fix a system that is failing Canadians.

By the end of this fiscal year, the government will have spent about $17.5 billion on the universal child care benefit. Has the benefit helped more parents stay at home with their children, affected the severe shortage of child care, or made child care more affordable? Astoundingly, the government cannot answer these questions.

Our government should ensure that when each of our daughters leaves college, university, or a trades school, she will make the same wage as the young man sitting next to her. This would mean that she would have the same opportunity to buy a home, raise a family, and save for retirement. She would have enough money to leave an unhealthy relationship if she needed to, without being trapped and dependent upon a partner who hurts her, as often happened in past generations.

Where is the promise and sustainable funding to develop the national strategy to end violence against women and girls, violence that forces 100,000 women and children from their homes into shelters each year, carries an incalculable human toll, and costs Canadian society billions? Where is the apology to our aboriginal peoples for the loss of their children, Canada's children, and an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women with the promise to listen, nation to nation, and together develop real recommendations that we would implement together to end the violence?

The news that the Minister of Health plans to make ending family violence a major theme of her tenure is welcome. The Canadian Medical Association president wants to ensure that resources are put in place, and that the minister's efforts turn into a national strategy.

For the people of Etobicoke North and for women across Canada, Bill C-4 offers very little. My constituents need better and deserve better.

The government needs to recognize that pay equity, child care, and ending violence against women are key economic issues, and it must become a champion for women.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I must rise today to object to this terrible and completely undemocratic habit of the Conservative government. This is the fourth omnibus bill it has introduced. Another mammoth is wandering the halls of the House of Commons. The bill is over 300 pages long. Even the President of the Treasury Board admits that you would have to talk to half the people in cabinet to understand everything that is in this bill.

In such an unwieldy document, it is easy to make mistakes without realizing it, for example, increasing the tax rate of credit unions from 15% to 28%. This forced the Minister of Finance to quietly correct his bad policy in the bill that is before us today.

The NDP is disappointed that the Conservatives refuse to learn from their mistakes and insist on presenting Canadians with a fourth omnibus bill.

The government is voluntarily preventing Parliament from engaging in a point-by-point debate of these reforms that are harmful to Canadians. As we saw with the Duffygate scandal, here is another 300 pages of proof that the Conservatives prefer camouflage to transparency.

I cannot talk about this bill without mentioning the changes that will affect Canadians' right to a healthy and safe working environment. This bill removes the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives those powers to the minister. It significantly weakens employees' ability to refuse to work in hazardous conditions and places nearly all powers related to health and safety in the hands of the minister. It seems to me that the three changes I just mentioned do not respect workers' rights.

The NDP firmly believes that no worker should ever be forced to work in hazardous conditions.

Another aspect of this bill that concerns me is the attacks on the public service. This is another case of interference. The minister can now arbitrarily designate which services are essential without basing that decision on an objective analysis. These powers could be used to completely take away the right of some workers to collective bargaining. That is unacceptable and it violates the fundamental rights of workers.

This reminds me of a story that was published in Le Devoir last week. A public servant who works for employment insurance's integrity services was formally dismissed for revealing to Le Devoir that quotas were being imposed on EI investigators. Today, this courageous woman voiced her concerns about the way whistleblowers are treated. She said:

I acted in the public interest and I am paying a very high price because of it. It is a dreadful experience to go through and to live with, especially because no one wants to hire a whistleblower. It has ruined my career, and my life.

I sincerely hope that this woman will be able to find a decent job, because she acted in the public interest and that is very commendable.

The government is doing everything in its power to hide the truth from taxpayers, and it is exercising a disturbing amount of control. How can we have confidence in a government that is contradicting itself day after day and preventing parliamentarians from doing a good job by hiding all vital information and introducing such colossal bills?

Bill C-4 contains a wide range of complex measures, many of which are not related to the budget and deserve further consideration.

Because the government pushed through omnibus Bill C-60 last year, a number of errors slipped by unnoticed, including the tax hike for credit unions. As I mentioned earlier, the result of this mistake was that credit unions were facing a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. Bill C-4 will fix this error.

The NDP is opposed to the tax hike for credit unions and is disappointed that the Conservatives have not learned from their mistakes and are imposing an omnibus bill once again.

I am also very disappointed with the part of the bill that eliminates the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

Labour-sponsored funds are an important economic development tool for small and medium-sized businesses. I want to point out that last Friday was Small Business Day. Abolishing the tax credit for this fund does not help our country's small businesses.

In the past 10 years alone, 2,239 businesses in Quebec and Canada have benefited from this tax credit, and 80% of them have fewer than 100 employees. It is estimated that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has helped create or maintain 171,000 jobs in Quebec. So much for all the government's talk of job creation. Moreover, I do not see a single measure in this budget that will create real jobs in our communities.

Over the weekend I had the pleasure of visiting a business in my riding. The first-ever saffron farm in North America just opened in Saint-Élie-de-Caxton. I was truly impressed by this business. This is the kind of business that we need to encourage and support through tax credits for young workers, research and development and risk management programs that work. These are the things we have suggested.

I would also like to talk about the cuts being made to scientific research institutes. In Bill C-4, the Conservatives are going after the National Research Council of Canada, cutting nearly half of the jobs there and giving more powers to the president they chose. I find that extremely disheartening. In my role as deputy agriculture critic I often hear about the needs in agricultural research. I know that there are similar needs in other areas. Stakeholders have told me that independent research allows agricultural businesses to grow and set themselves apart from the competition on international markets. Innovation is a priority in the agricultural industry, and it is sad that the Conservatives are not interested in this important issue.

I see nothing in this bill that can help the people in my riding. In the spring, my office was inundated with email and mail criticizing the employment insurance reform. Now the Conservatives are dissolving the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. The board ensured independent management of EI financing. Now the Minister of Finance has the power to manipulate the rates.

The government wants to bring Canada back to a time where the successive Liberal and Conservative governments could dip into the EI fund. Employment insurance comes from money contributed by workers and is to be used by workers. We cannot trust the Conservatives to manage EI financing. They have shown us time and again that they are not responsible. I am very concerned about this measure.

We are opposed to Bill C-4 both for its content and this process. The Conservatives forced Canadians to wait an extra month for Parliament to resume in order to come up with a new political agenda. Congratulations. Now the Conservatives are forcing us to work at lightning speed to approve their bill. The government wants to quietly slip all manner of things through, which inevitably includes unpleasant surprises.

In the meantime, the economy is stagnating, families keep getting further in debt and their priorities are being ignored. We will oppose budget 2013 and its implementation bills, unless they are redrafted to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families: the creation of good jobs, the assurance of a decent retirement, the creation of job opportunities for young people and a more affordable life for families. That is what people want. It takes more than just saying a few words here and there, like in the Speech from the Throne, to look good. People need action and commitment.

Canadians will have a real government in 2015.

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

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill today, our second budget implementation bill.

Although it is quite technical in parts, in fact, it is part of the process of governance that is taking Canada and our government to a brilliant future, a future where governments provide excellent services at reasonable costs and do not continually take more from people's paycheques than they can afford, especially to pay for programs that are inefficient or unnecessary and for which costs cannot be controlled.

There are over 40 million people worldwide who would do almost anything to immigrate to Canada. Why is that? In many cases it is because life is not easy in many parts of the world. In many countries, even basics like food and shelter are hard to maintain, especially where there are wars in Syria today where millions of people have been displaced. It is very hard to get a basic or advanced education in many countries because it is unaffordable. Many countries are governed by totalitarian leaders, such as North Korea, Iran, or Cuba, countries where a word criticizing the government or even the wrong official would result in men coming in the middle of the night to take people away, sometimes never to be seen again.

However, even in the freer countries, such as South Africa, the Philippines and India, people literally line up to fill out forms to come to Canada. Why? Because Canada is one of the few countries in the world in which people, especially young people, have a virtually unlimited potential in career, quality of life and wealth. They are fleeing governments that do not protect or nurture free enterprise, equality of opportunity, responsible spending and fairness in taxation, all of which this budget bill supports.

Canada sits on the cusp of a new day. Although we know the economic recovery in the U.S. has been slow at 2.5% growth and our U.S. friends buy 70% of the goods produced in Canada, the U.S. economy is still the largest in the world.

Last week, the Prime Minister went to Brussels to sign CETA, the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. When this deal kicks in, 98% of the tariffs on Canadian goods in Europe will disappear overnight.

Canadian entrepreneurs who already have access to the largest market in North America with U.S. and Mexico, with 400 million people, will have free access to the world's largest market: 28 countries in Europe, with 500 million people.

One out of five jobs in Canada is created from trade now, even with our tariffs. We are a trading nation, but the future will be far more exciting if we stay on track.

Canada has what the world needs, such as copper, nickel, uranium, gold, phosphorus, lumber, grains, potash, seafood and dairy products and we manufacture and sell high-tech goods with the best.

In my riding of Oakville, Ford of Canada is partnering with our government, the province of Ontario and Unifor to develop a state-of-the-art auto manufacturing facility where it will assemble up to 10 different cars on one platform, lasting 10 years.

It already sells thousands of Ford Edges in Canada and Brazil. However, this line, using $71.6 million out of the auto innovation fund and a $700 million investment from Ford, will make cars with ecoboost engines, diesel engines and hybrids, all on the same platform. This partnership will guarantee 3,000 jobs in Oakville for the next 10 years. That is the power of free trade.

Our dairy farmers, those who make butter and cheese, our fishers, our excellent wineries and our manufacturers will all have access to a new market of over 500 million people. That is not just goods that can be sold without tariffs. This is a comprehensive agreement. It includes services, banking, insurance and government procurement. It is the largest trade deal in Canada's history.

Our government, under the leadership of a prime minister, who is an accomplished and excellent expert economist, is assembling an economic structure for Canada that would be unmatched worldwide. I am quite serious about that. All the business writers talk about Canada's growth and all its manufacturing and all its successes. However, in China's west, there are 600 million people living on less than $20.00 a week. The command economy is not working for the majority of the people in China.

Because Canada has a free economy, wealth and opportunity are spread right across our country, even to the Far North. Canada's environment minister, who is a First Nation Canadian from the Far North in Nunavut, is chairing the Arctic Council in the Far North for the next two years, dealing with issues such as the environment and resource development.

Most people do not know there are more natural resources in Canada's territories within the Arctic Circle than in the rest of Canada, which is already rich with resources. Our commitment as a government is that these resources will be developed in the interest of the people of the north.

Each budget bill is one more step toward the goal of an excelled economic structure and will be the envy of the world. Here are the elements.

First, we already talked about trade. Fair trade and new markets are the most important way to grow an economy, without massive new spending programs the opposition parties would like to introduce. The trade agreement with the European Union could bring a 20% boost in bilateral trade, another $12 billion annual increase to Canada's economy. Put another way, this is the economic equivalent of adding $1,000 to the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs to the Canadian economy, which is of course great news.

Second, taxes must not be punitive on people or business. They must be competitive to attract new business and jobs. Our government has lowered the GST from 7% to 5%, cut corporate tax rates from 21% to 15%, and cut taxes over 160 times now in other ways, saving the average Canada family $3,200 a year and helping businesses succeed.

Taxes must also be fair and paid by all. This bill introduces measures to combat tax cheats by cracking down on Canada's black market and the use of electronic suppression of sales software. This software hurts Canadian businesses that play by the rules in favour of those that refuse to comply with Canada's tax laws. When these businesses cheat, we all lose.

Taxes must be kept under control. Three levels of government increasing taxes year after year drives business and opportunity out of the country. That is self-defeating. We will not increase taxes.

Third, balanced budgets should be the law under normal circumstances. Borrowing billions and creating government debt should be done only in a recession or when that money is invested for a real financial return. Borrowing money to pay out in entitlement programs or for government operations is a sure way to end up in trouble. Europe's mistakes should be a lesson to all. Too many countries are crippled with overwhelming debt due to years of excessive borrowing. In Greece there is a 27% unemployment rate. In Cyprus bank accounts have been confiscated. Italy has a debt to GDP ratio of 130%. Portugal's unemployment rate is 16%. It is no surprise that these nations are not prospering.

In government, if it is that important, tax to pay for it. If it does not have the nerve to tax to pay for spending schemes, that is a good sign that the scheme is a bad idea.

Our government will introduce a balanced budget bill as described in our throne speech. Canada's federal budget will be balanced in 2015: fair taxes shared by all, lower taxes, balanced budgets and innovation. We have invested more than $9 billion to date to support science and technology and innovative companies in the last seven years. Programs like the industrial research assistance program, the clean energy fund and now more with FedDev Ontario, these investments help create jobs and make Canada more competitive worldwide.

When we have a country as wealthy and large as Canada, there will always be those who wish they could take a piece of it. We have been very lucky in Canada. We have not had fighting on our soil since 1812. However, we are partners in the Norad security with the world's largest military power. Our armed forces must be vigilant and do their share. They guard the world's second largest country in extreme weather conditions. They must be equipped with the best equipment to do that important job. Our government has ensured they do. We have committed in the throne speech to continue that stewardship. We will not break trust with those who guard our nation.

Fair taxes shared by all, low taxes, balanced budgets, innovation, national security, these are our priorities as indicated in the bill for Canada's future. Canada's economic structure also includes safe communities. Our government has put in place legislation that holds criminals to account by ensuring sentences match the crimes, such as mandatory minimum sentences for serious, violent and repeat offenders, in order to get violent criminals off the streets so they cannot reoffend.

We have also introduced protection for individuals, to get lead out of children's toys, to stop companies selling flavoured cigars aimed at children and to introduce new regulations for plain language drug labels so Canadians and their doctors will know the true risks of serious adverse drug reactions when they are taking their drugs.

Our government has done all of this and created the structure I described, prioritizing stability, prudent fiscal management and careful stewardship of our economy. That is why we are light years ahead of most of Europe economically and ahead of the other G8 countries in so many ways.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and speak in this august chamber about Bill C-4, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, our second implementation bill from the government. I appreciate very much the opportunity to rise and talk about how important the bill is, not only for my constituents in the great riding of Wetaskiwin but for my province of Alberta and the country as a whole.

Canada is a great nation. It is built by the hard-working families of our communities. They are paving the pathway to prosperity for future generations with their hard work.

Since 2006, which was the year I was first elected, our government has invested in families at unprecedented levels. In fact, I ran for the nomination for this party because of the lack of interest that previous parties and governments seemed to have when it came to treating families fairly, particularly with the tax system. Now more families than ever before are benefiting from the measures that we put in place since 2006.

I will cite some examples. In my riding of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, trades play a large role in generating jobs for our communities. It does not matter whether one lives in or around Blackfalds, Rocky Mountain House, Millet, or any of the places in between: the tradespeople's tools deduction is working to put a little money back into the pockets of these hard-working families, right where it belongs.

This is not all we have done to improve the lot of families right across Canada to help them get ahead and make ends meet. Since 2006, the typical family of four can now realize approximately, on average, $3,200 in tax savings in any given year. Conservatives have done this by cutting the lowest personal tax rate and increasing the tax exemption amount. That means there are fewer Canadians paying taxes than ever before when it comes to personal income tax. Conservatives have reduced the GST, a tax that everyone pays, from 7% to 6% to 5%, and we have introduced numerous tax changes and savings measures to help families keep their hard-earned money.

I will go through a couple of examples, because I know the families in my constituency certainly appreciate this. There is the children's fitness tax credit. My kids play hockey, school sports, baseball, and soccer, and this has been a great opportunity for us to realize some of the savings because families incur a cost for these activities. It is wonderful to see so many kids out there participating in activities, keeping fit and so on.

There is the children's arts tax credit. Again I can speak for my own family, whether it is my boys in guitar lessons or my daughter playing cello or piano. These are the kinds of things that allow us to keep a little extra of our income to make sure we can pay for the lessons and the instruments in our particular case. It does not matter whether it is music or any of the other types of arts, such as dance or whatever the case may be; these are great initiatives.

There is the child tax credit. Before the Conservatives became the governing party, there was not even a tax credit for having kids. Everyone knows the cost of raising children is very high, and just keeping money in the hands of parents, who know how to spend it best, through a child tax credit, is a no-brainer.

There is also the family caregiver tax credit, which allows family members to look after their sick or elderly family members, and the first-time homebuyer tax credit, which reduces the barrier to make it a little easier for young families to get into their first home.

There is the registered disability savings plans, allowing families to save for their loved ones who are going to be struggling for the rest of their lives with the disabilities that they may have.

The volunteer firefighters' tax credit honours those men and women who voluntarily put themselves in harm's way to defend our property and our lives. They spend money out of their own pockets to make sure they are well equipped. The least the government can do is to offer something back through a tax credit to these brave men and women who are our volunteer firefighters. I should note that every fire department in the constituency of Wetaskiwin is a volunteer fire department.

There is the working income tax benefit. Absolutely, if someone is going to work, they should realize a savings as a result. This is going to break down that wall to make it more feasible for people to work. We should not have to have a choice in the tax system on whether it is more lucrative not to work than to work. This is a no-brainer as well.

We also have the textbook tax credit. A number of people in my constituency face the same issues I did when I went to university. I grew up in a rural community; there were no post-secondary institutions near me, so I had to move in order to get a post-secondary education. At no point in time did any previous government ever give me the opportunity to claim textbooks, which are a huge expense. Now we have that textbook tax credit, allowing students and families to keep more of that money and allowing them to invest more resources into their children's education.

On eliminating the marriage penalty for single-income families, I cannot believe that previous governments did not even value a stay-at-home parent. If a family made the choice to have one person stay at home to raise children in their formative years, the person who was not making an income, whoever that happened to be, would get less of a personal exemption amount at tax time. Well, we ended that penalty and treated stay-at-home parents equally in terms of tax. This is a step in the right direction, and someday I hope we can get to a point in this country where we actually see income splitting for families. That is something I will certainly be supporting.

There is also the tax-free savings account. As I go through my riding and talk with people, they say that this investment vehicle has revolutionized the investment and savings industry and allows Canadians more flexibility and freedom. This is an absolutely fantastic tool that I know will help empower people across the country to save for their retirement and plan for their future.

Time and time again, whether it is these measures or any other common sense measure that Canadians ask us to bring forward, at every opportunity when we have had a chance to stand in this place and vote in favour of these measures, it has only been Conservative members of Parliament who have stood up and voted in favour of these budgets. Every other time that I have been here, opposition members over there have been against all of the measures that I just talked about. If Canadians want to know who has their best interests at heart, they have to look no further than here on the Conservative side of the House to make sure that they have the resources they need to raise their families.

Speaking of some of the changes that we need to make in the budget here for those hard-working families who pay their taxes and play by the rules, there are some rules in budget 2013 that I would like to highlight.

Budget 2013 would restore fairness to the tax system by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. When everybody pays their fair share of taxes, we all pay less. We are making changes that would improve the integrity of the tax system and close some of the loopholes that currently exist; strengthen compliance and clarification of the language so that there is less confusion, both for the person filing taxes and for those who audit and oversee the tax system; and combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

As I said, closing loopholes and clarifying the tax rules would ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share. This would allow hard-working Canadians to keep more, because they would not be offsetting what other people hide or get away with.

Alberta, like the rest of Canada, was not immune to the effects of the global economic crisis. Yes, Canada is leading the G7 in job creation, and Alberta has a robust economy, but that does not mean all of our communities and all of our residents are thriving. Every once in a while we have to extend a hand to those who need a hand up and make sure that no one gets left behind. That is precisely why our government is investing over $1.25 billion in affordable housing initiatives.

In August, I had the pleasure of announcing on behalf of the Minister of State (Social Development) $600,000 in funding for Shkola Suites in Calmar, Alberta. This is a great initiative. It allows those families an opportunity to be close to a school for their kids and gives them a bit of a break on their housing costs so that they can get back on their feet and get re-established. This is an interim housing measure for those families who just need a little bit of help to get going again, because sometimes life throws a curve ball, and that can happen in Alberta just as much as it can happen anywhere else. Thanks go to Nancy Lang and the folks at the Leduc Foundation, who are doing a great job making sure that nobody gets left behind in those communities.

In order to continue helping Canadian communities and families, the budget would invest nearly $600 million in Alberta and across Canada to address homelessness. Coupled with our affordable housing strategy, I know that the budget would greatly help those people get back on their feet.

Speaking of communities, Alberta and every region of Canada has communities that are facing challenges when it comes to infrastructure. I hear this constantly. I represent a large geographic area of 26 municipalities and counties, and every one of them tells me the same story: they want long-term predictable funding, which is what we did through the gas tax transfer in previous budgets.

Now, going forward with the announcements in budget 2013 and with the implementation coming up in 2014, some $32 billion will be flowing to these communities in stable, predictable funding. When we couple that with $14 billion over the same time frame for major infrastructure and with the P3 partnerships, Canada will be well poised to address the infrastructure problems that it has, which would enable our communities to flourish and thrive going forward.

I want to talk a little about agriculture.

First of all, I want to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade for the excellent work they did with the comprehensive economic and trade agreement.

Agriculture is a backbone in my constituency, as are all of the resource sectors that are there. I know that with the changes that will be coming as a result of the budget implementation and these trade agreements, central Alberta will be well poised to thrive well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate our hon. colleague on her speech. As usual, she provided us with some very relevant explanations regarding the issue she raised from Bill C-4, that is, the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

She also talked about how this government tends to deny not just reality but also the democratic process. Bringing forward yet another time allocation motion is definitely not meant to encourage a more thorough debate on everything included in Bill C-4, which, I would remind the House, is yet another omnibus bill.

Getting back to the question she raised, I wonder if our colleague could elaborate on the impact that such a regulation will have on the decisions before the court.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to rise today to speak to Bill C-4. My speech will focus primarily on division 19 of part 3, clauses 471 and 472, which have to do with the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. It feels strange to say in the same sentence that I will talk about two clauses regarding the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the budget implementation bill. Something does not seem right there.

We opposed the last three budget implementation bills, and we will oppose Bill C-4 because of both its content and the method the government has used. Bill C-4 includes a wide range of complex measures, many of which have nothing to do with the budget. This is what bothers me the most, and I think it deserves to be studied carefully. The bill is so broad and we have so little time to examine it.

I repeat: we are faced with a time allocation motion. Not only has the government decided to group a number of unrelated items that have nothing to do with either the economy or the budget measures, but it is also preventing the members of the House from making their views known and looking at those major considerations properly. I am not the only one saying so.

Columnist Andrew Coyne said that this type of mammoth bill makes a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeated in the House. As a result, there is no way of knowing how the lawmakers would vote on those bills. We have no idea at all whether they are for or against each of the pieces of legislation grouped under this bill. All we know is whether they voted for or against the omnibus bill as a whole.

There is no common thread among the various measures, no overarching principle. It is a sort of compulsory buffet. It is alarming to see that the government wants to force Parliament to approve its legislative agenda in one go, including division 19 of part 3, which consists of clauses 471 and 472 dealing with appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadian Press journalist and lawyer Stéphanie Marin gave a very good factual account of the situation that triggered the addition of clauses 471 and 472 to Bill C-4 in relation to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We must fully grasp what is happening. This is not just a technicality, as I thought I heard from the Conservative benches, but rather a real fundamental problem. Clauses 471 and 472 were added after the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The day the Prime Minister appointed Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada, he had the appointment document in his left hand and a legal opinion in his right hand from the Honourable Ian Binnie, a former Supreme Court justice. The government had seen fit to ask him whether someone from the Federal Court of Appeal could be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada to take one of the three seats allocated to Quebec in order to protect Canada's bijural nature.

I cannot tell you enough how much I respect the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. My respect for that institution knows no bounds. That being said, the Conservative government has managed to politicize this institution, which it should not be. Politics should have nothing to do with the Supreme Court so that it can make decisions as the highest court without any interference, without any lingering questions about the people on the bench. That is how it was up until recently.

I mean no disrespect to Justice Marc Nadon, whose career as a lawyer and a judge has been quite remarkable in many respects. Nonetheless, the real question here has to do with the meaning of section 6 of the Supreme Court Act.

Consider this: the government shows up with an appointment and a legal opinion. I could read the tons of comments that have been made on this. Eminent constitutional lawyers who know an awful lot more than I do have written about this.

I encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read Purposive Interpretation, Quebec, and the Supreme Court Act by Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen from the University of Ottawa. You will see that this is not a technical matter. We do not usually see this type of thing in budget implementation legislation.

These are fundamental issues that go to the heart of what our federation is. Ian Binnie told the government that the decision is in order, but many others, like the Government of Quebec, say that this decision does not meet the criteria set out in section 6.

There must be enough doubt in this respect for the federal government, through its Minister of Justice, to think it was a good idea to make what we call a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I must confess that I am very pleased that the government has broken its silence after too many weeks, and decided to move quickly.

Indeed, it is important to understand that Quebec, which has three seats in the Supreme Court of Canada, currently has only two judges sitting on that court, for the simple reason that Justice Marc Nadon, in his wisdom, has opted to sit on the sidelines for now.

The government could easily have avoided all this drama if it had chosen to make 100% sure that it was making a good decision, not in terms of the person selected, but rather with respect to sections 471 and 472 of Bill C-4, which will be amending sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act—apparently to explain, after the fact, what these sections really mean according to the government of the day.

This is extremely worrying, especially when we consider that it is being done without consultation. I am not making this up. The finance people held a briefing on Bill C-4. When we asked about division 19, specifically sections 471 and 472, they told us that, in their opinion, this would apply retroactively if the bill were passed.

However, the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is very clear. The questions before the Supreme Court are the following:

1. Can a person who was, at any time, an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada as a member of the Supreme Court from Quebec pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act?

2. Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2?

Thus, two questions have been referred to the Supreme Court, yet this is going to pass here before we even get an answer. It makes no sense.

Last week, I moved a motion and hoped to receive unanimous consent to at least remove those two clauses from Bill C-4, since they have absolutely nothing to do with budget implementation. Unfortunately, my motion was rejected by the members opposite.

We are in a real quagmire, caused entirely by this government and this Prime Minister, who ignores all of the recommendations and suggestions we make, many of them for his own good. He refuses to listen to anything on this.

I have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, given the time allocation motion, we are out of time. In addition, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will not even have the opportunity to study this issue thoroughly with constitutional experts to respond to this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-4.

I will be focusing my comments on the proposed amendments within Bill C-4 that apply to the Public Service Labour Relations Act. This is in large part because of the misinformation and rhetoric that we hear from the opposition on the proposed amendments, which are of truly epic proportions.

Let me clear, the intent of these changes is to ensure that the public service is affordable, modern and high performing. I believe it is important to look at some of these proposed changes in greater detail in order to see what is actually being proposed.

It is true that Bill C-4 includes measures to modernize and streamline the collective bargaining process and the public service recourse system. I would like to take a moment to explain why these reforms are important for Canadians and for our public service. I will begin with the proposed amendment to extend the current four-month notice period up to 12 months. I am certain most would agree that providing more time would increase the odds that a new agreement could be reached prior to the expiry of an existing collective agreement.

Bill C-4 also proposes that the employer have the exclusive right to designate essential services. I would also like to speak to the importance of this amendment. Ultimately, the public service does not exist for the benefit of big public sector union bosses and their opposition political friends. The role of the public sector is to serve the taxpaying public, Canadians. By extension, a democratically elected government represents the interests of taxpayers and as such should have the right to identify what Canadians consider to be essential services.

This is an important point when one considers that an opposition member currently receiving money from unions is quoted as saying essentially that he could not be a bigger friend to them. I submit that particular member has all but conceded who he is looking out for, and it is certainly not the taxpayer. Likewise, the leader of the third party is also reported as receiving significant amounts of union money in speaking fees while sitting as a member of Parliament. Again, I point out that when it comes to the interest of taxpayers and public sector unions, only our government represents Canadians fairly and that is reflected in this piece of legislation.

Canadians know that it is the responsibility of government to maintain public safety and protect the interests of Canadians. It is part of what Canadians elect a government to do. For this reason, I submit it is entirely fair and reasonable that it is the democratically elected government on behalf of Canadians that should determine essential programs and services within the federal government.

I would also like to speak to the arbitration provision that exists within Bill C-4 for essential services employees. Arbitration would be the resolution mechanism in cases where a bargaining unit has 80% or more of the positions designated as essential or if both parties mutually consent to binding arbitration. Given that essential employees are not able to participate in strike activity, if no agreement could be reached, arbitration offers a meaningful dispute resolution solution while minimizing disruptions that could compromise the health and safety of Canadians.

Another proposed amendment I would like to highlight would require arbitration boards and public interest commissions to give greater consideration to the government's recruitment needs and fiscal circumstances. These amendments would ensure that the value of all salaries, benefits and other compensation, not solely wages, is considered when determining fair compensation. It also includes provisions that the public interest commissions and arbitration boards set out reasons, rationales, for making awards and recommendations. I believe that most here in this place would agree that this is common sense. Canadian taxpayers deserve to know the reasons behind decisions dealing with large amounts of tax dollars and this proposal would make that happen.

I would also like to point out another amendment that requires separate agencies to seek approval from the President of the Treasury Board before consenting to binding arbitration. This is an important amendment for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers who expect public sector compensation to be fair and reasonable. For the protection of the taxpayers, it is imperative that the President of the Treasury Board have the ability to review any terms and conditions that could have a significant impact on public sector compensation. I believe that a democratically elected government should not be powerless when it comes to the spending of tax dollars on public sector wages and benefits, and that is one of the many reasons why I support the bill.

Another amendment is the elimination of the compensation analysis and research function of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. This service has been negated by the fact that the bargaining agents consistently do their own research. As such, this amendment proposes the elimination of a rarely used service that will result in savings to the taxpayer.

I would also like to share some of the proposals that I believe will be of benefit to the public service. I believe all members of the House will agree that employees expect and deserve to be treated fairly. When conflicts occur, it is important to all sides that a timely and effective process be in place to deal with issues of concern. Although many of our current recourse mechanisms meet these objectives, over the course of time a number of additional processes and procedures have arisen. This has resulted in a complex patchwork of systems that at times is legalistic, is often cumbersome and is costly.

Bill C-4 proposes an amendment designed to simplify this process. The amendment proposes that the allegations of employment-related discrimination should be addressed through the grievance process. This amendment eliminates the potential for duplicate proceedings and related expenses, which can further delay workplace dispute resolution. This is a benefit for all workers.

I would also like to be clear on another point. All third-party rights to issue remedies to the public servant who complains of alleged discrimination will remain intact. Public service employees, as citizens, would still be able to file a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint on matters other than workplace disputes. Bill C-4 would also require bargaining agents and the employer to share the expenses of grievance adjudication, with the exception of grievances related to discrimination. Sharing these costs is a standard practice in virtually all workplaces in Canada. I would ask why the federal government would be any different.

Another point I would like to raise is that Bill C-4 would require employees to obtain bargaining agent support before filing a grievance, except for grievances related to discrimination. I believe this is an important consideration as the union is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit and has both the expertise and experience in this regard.

Bill C-4 also proposes a revised staffing complaint process. Currently, to be appointed to a position within the public service a person must be found qualified. If a candidate is deemed unqualified for a position, that person could challenge the appointment of another candidate through a complaint, clearly creating a potentially adversarial process. Bill C-4 would amend this process so that a candidate could only challenge the determination of his or her own qualifications and not those of another candidate deemed qualified for the position. This creates a much fairer, more efficient and less adversarial process.

The final proposal I will raise today is the consolidation of the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal into a public service labour relations and employment board. Clearly this proposal reduces the overlap and duplication of bureaucracy to help avoid a lengthier and more costly process.

While there has certainly been a significant amount of rhetoric and alarmist language on the proposed changes I have spoken about, it is clear that on closer inspection these amendments are certainly responsible and reasonable. Bill C-4 will help to ensure the public service is affordable, modern and high-performing in a manner that respects the taxpayer and our public service.

I encourage all members of this House to support this piece of legislation.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is a pleasure, but I want to stand and speak to the budget. After travelling throughout Random—Burin—St. George's for an extended season, thanks to the Prime Minister who chose to prorogue the House of Commons so we were not back here to deal with some of the issues raised in the budget, I learned from my constituents a lot of the issues they were dealing with and why they were having those problems. A lot of it points to the lack of leadership, I am told, by the Conservative government.

The reality is that my constituents continue to tell me that unless the leadership is there on issues, policies and programs that are controlled or maintained by the federal government and unless the federal government is more cognizant of issues of people who particularly live in rural communities, they will never get out of the bind in which they find themselves. When I met with them, as I do every weekend, but particularly over the extended period this summer, they asked me to bring forward their concerns to see if it were possible for the government to get its head out of the sand, start listening to Canadians from coast to coast to coast and recognize that some people were having difficult times and finding it hard to make ends meet. They asked me to bring forward their concerns, hoping the government would listen and would take their concerns into account.

My constituents are certainly not at all impressed when they look at the budget bill that has so much in it that it is hard for parliamentarians to decipher it and take the time needed to go through it bill by bill by bill. How can the government expect Canadians to do so, particularly those who live in rural communities, some of whom do not even have access to the Internet, some of whom have no way of finding out what is in the budget bill unless their members of Parliament convey and explain to them what it contains? At the same time, it is hard for members of Parliament to get the message across because there is so much in the budget.

Again, we see the Conservative government put forward a budget that does not take into account the concerns of Canadians, no matter where they live in our country. The budget implementation act and surrounding debate is further evidence that the government just does not get it. Rather than congratulating itself on mediocrity, the government should focus its efforts on ensuring families in Random—Burin—St. George's and the rest of Canada do not continue to struggle.

The fact that Canada's fiscal situation is better than that of Spain or Greece does not change the reality for those in my riding who are without jobs through no fault of their own, or those with adult children who have moved back home because there are no employment opportunities for them or they are underemployed and cannot afford to live independently.

At events throughout my riding, constituents have told me they are tired of being ignored by the Conservative government. They expect better, and so they should. Bill C-4, sadly, is just more of the same omnibus legislation that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have come to expect, but not accept from Conservatives out of touch with the real needs of people who try desperately to make ends meet, but find themselves falling behind because of the measures being enacted by the Conservative government.

At a time when the Bank of Canada is cutting its growth and inflation estimates across the board and warning “the risk of exacerbating already elevated household imbalances”, the government introduces legislation and uses rhetoric showing it is completely ambivalent to the fact that Canada's economic growth is rapidly slowing. After 18 consecutive months cautioning investors that the bank would soon be raising the interest rate from 1%, the Bank of Canada has been forced to drop the rate hike talk altogether to try to stimulate investment or risk compounding the weak economic outlook caused by the Conservative government.

The Bank of Canada even pushed back its projected target for Canada's economy to return to full production six months later than it had recently forecast. In fact, the Bank of Canada now predicts the economy will return to full production at the same time Canadians will return to power the Liberal government in 2015.

At a crucial point in Canada's economic future, the Conservative government has once again failed to put forward a budget implementation act to grow the economy and help create jobs.

For years, the Liberals have called on the government to freeze its scheduled employment insurance premium hikes. Finally, the Conservatives are reversing their ill-timed tax hikes on Canadian jobs, which would have made it more expensive for employers to hire those in need of work. While I am relieved the government has decided to heed the advice of the Liberals and freeze EI premiums for the next three years, after years of steadily increasing the costs workers and employers must pay into the program, freezing EI premiums for the next three years will not make up for the billions of dollars in increases the Conservatives forced on employees and employers to pay during this fragile economy.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to address the problems with employment insurance, which they created, they would have used Bill C-4 to reverse the punishing changes they made to the EI program last year. EI is still inaccessible to thousands of Canadians who need it, even though they paid into the program. Although this budget implementation act contains a number of provisions that were not in the initial budget document, such as many of the technical tax measures in part 1 of this act, it is telling the Conservatives to use Bill C-4 to take action to make EI more accessible to those who need the support.

Furthermore, the Conservative government has completely ignored the need to address the factors driving high unemployment and underemployment, as well as the need for improving skills training and education. The only time this budget addresses skills is when it changes the name of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to the Department of Employment and Social Development. This is a sign that the government is no longer interested in skills training.

There are still too many jobs without skilled Canadians to fill them and trying to push programs on provinces and employers without consultation will simply not result in the skills training needed. Canadians need a government committed to helping create jobs for Canadians, because it is a partnership. We do not expect the government to create all the jobs. We expect it to make it possible and create an environment where jobs can be created. They also need a government whose priority is to ensure Canadians receive the training they need to fill existing vacant jobs.

Not surprisingly, as I alluded to previously, this omnibus budget implementation act contains many changes that have nothing to do with budget 2013. It is a sad state of affairs when the Minister of Finance cannot even answer questions on his own legislation, instead opting to refer questions to other ministers because the government has squeezed so many disparate bills into Bill C-4, including major public service labour changes and modifications to the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

While the Minister of Finance claims this is, “the mechanics of government”, the truth is it is easier for the Conservatives to restrict debate and avoid scrutiny if they lump dozens of bills together, which has unfortunately become the hallmark of the government. When legislation is combined in this way to avoid transparency, mistakes are bound to happen. For example, this bill would fix an error in the last budget where the government mistakingly included a disincentive to fishermen working non-fishing jobs in the off season by discarding fishing income for the calculation of EI benefits for those who worked 421 hours or more in a non-fishing job.

As many members of the House prepare to attend Remembrance Day events in their ridings, we cannot allow the government's continued attack on veterans to go without proper scrutiny. Bill C-4 would cut the number of members sitting on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 29 to 25. What is worse, we know that under the Conservatives, only slightly more than 50% of board positions are presently filled. This board is tasked to “provide veterans and other applicants with an independent avenue of appeal for disability decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada”. From time to time, far too many veterans know first hand that Veterans Affairs Canada makes mistakes it has to review.

That will continue as long as the government refuses to acknowledge the fact that services are being cut to the most vulnerable in our country, and it does not matter what part of the country we live in, but particularly to those in our rural communities. While services and programs are being cut, Canadians are being made to suffer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, whom I also like to count as friend, for her promotion. She is now within Privy Council.

I would be happy to support some of the parts of Bill C-4, such as the software that allows for fraud at point of sale. We should deal with that. However, would she not agree with me that it makes it very difficult for members of the opposition, who read such 300-plus page bills carefully, to vote for them when they are omnibus in nature and include many portions that I cannot possibly support, such as weakening the Canada Labour Code?

The House resumed from October 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee and of the amendment.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today Canada has the strongest job growth among the G7 countries in the world.

Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years. It is significantly lower than that of the United States, a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. In my riding, unemployment rates are well below 5%, 4%. There is virtually no unemployment.

Meanwhile, we have created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% of which are full time, and our government continues to make new opportunities for Canadians to find employment.

While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. Canada still remains on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015-16. The deficit has been reduced significantly, and we are well on track to bringing it to balance.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada's growth will be among the strongest in the G7 in the years ahead. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels, the best performance in the G7.

All Canadians want this to continue. They want us to continue to make progress with respect to the economy, thus increasing jobs and prosperity for them and their children.

However, our government has been very clear that we will not raise taxes on Canadians to balance the budget. I know the earlier speaker said that we cannot cut our way to prosperity, but we certainly cannot tax our way to prosperity. That is a fundamental difference between this particular government and the opposition.

Our government has an economic plan that makes sense. As we have repeatedly said, Canada's economy is not immune to the economic challenges beyond our borders. We have been and will continue to be impacted by the ongoing turbulence in the United States and Europe, some of our most important trading partners.

We are moving forward and focusing on the economy, all the while keeping taxes low, which means more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians. That in turn helps keep our economy strong.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax costs—the corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property taxes, and wage-based taxes—are more than 40% lower than those in the United States. This is what makes us competitive and makes our economy prosper. It continues to grow, and it grows jobs.

In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth, and job creation. It is an environment that ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Let me share some of the highlights of our tax relief initiatives.

Our government has implemented broad-based tax reductions that support investment and growth and is delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job-creating businesses over 2008-09 and the following five fiscal years.

We have reduced the federal general corporate income tax rate to 15% in 2012 from 21% in 2007 in order to spur investment and productivity. Can members imagine? It went from 21% to 15%.

The federal capital tax was eliminated in 2006, and the corporate surtax was eliminated in 2008 for all corporations. This translates into jobs and an expanded economy.

Even more, we reduced the small business tax rate to 11% in 2008 from 12% in 2007, and subsequently the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000 in 2009.

Canada's system of international taxation was strengthened in order to better support cross-border trade and investment and to improve fairness.

All these actions are part of a policy framework that increases the productive capacity of our economy as well as Canadian living standards. Lower general corporate income tax rates and other tax changes have increased the expected rate of return on investment and reduced the cost of capital, giving businesses strong incentives to invest and hire in Canada. This will in turn increase Canada's productive capacity and raise living standards.

This bill is great news for Canadians. Unlike the NDP, which insists on higher taxes, economic action plan 2013 is focused on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, thus ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the future.

However, the job does not end there. Today, Bill C-4 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's low-tax plan is helping to guide the Canadian economy along the path of sustainable economic growth. Bill C-4 builds on our successes and maintains our government's focus on the economy. While we believe in the benefits of lower taxes, our government fully understands that sustaining an effective tax system also rests on the foundation of tax fairness. Today I will discuss some of the key measures we are implementing to do everything possible to ensure that Canadians have a fair tax system.

That is why economic action plan 2013 is committed to closing tax loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. While Canadians work hard and pay their taxes, there are some who choose not to, and we must stop that practice. We must take initiatives to close those loopholes and ensure that the system is fair.

Chartered Accountants of Canada had this to say about economic action plan 2013:

The budget looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

They continued with the strong backing of our initiatives and said:

We support efforts to maintain the integrity of the tax base....

This is high praise. I am proud of these measures, and I will elaborate on some of them.

Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's efforts to return to balanced budgets, responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared-tax basis, and helps Canadians have confidence that the tax system is fair.

Ensuring that everyone pays his or her fair share also helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save, and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system.

Today's legislation takes additional steps in support of this objective, extending the normal assessment period by three years for a taxpayer who has failed to report income from a specified foreign property on his or her annual income tax return and has failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement known as T1135.

It introduces stiff 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.

Our systems, with the Internet, computers, and software, have made it possible for people to try to avoid tax. It is almost hard to believe that we would need such specific legislation, but let me read some portions of it.

What we now know as an electronic cash register, or a “device that keep a register or supporting documents through the means of an electronic device or computer system designed to record transaction data or any other electronic point-of-sale system” should be in place. However, here is a definition of electronic suppression of sales devices:

(a) a software program that falsifies the records of electronic cash registers, including transaction data and transaction reports; or (b) a hidden programing option, whether preinstalled or installed at a later time, embedded in the operating system of an electronic cash register or hardwired into the electronic cash register that (i) may be used to create a virtual second till, or (ii) may eliminate or manipulate transaction records, which may or may not be preserved in digital formats, in order to represent...

or misrepresent the actual point-of-transaction sale.

This legislation prohibits anyone who knowingly, or under circumstances attributable to neglect, carelessness, or wilful default, to participate, or consent or acquiesce in the use of an electronic suppression of sales device or similar device on pain of penalty. It also talks about possession of those devices and those who make them. There are stiff penalties to ensure these types of devices are not used. That is just one example of closing tax loopholes to ensure revenues are not lost.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in a week that has been dominated by the drama of a Senate scandal and the political noose that is tightening around the Prime Minister's neck, the Conservatives' latest budget implementation bill all but flew under the radar of Canadians' attention. Despite this, Bill C-4 is profoundly important to my constituents in Hamilton Mountain.

As with all budget implementation bills, I always look forward to them with some hope. I am always optimistic that the government will recognize the trajectory of economic indicators and play a positive role in mitigating potential negative impacts for hard-working Canadians. However, while hope springs eternal, my optimism vanishes when I crack the spine of the latest Conservative budget bill. Bill C-4, unfortunately, was no exception.

In fact, this latest Conservative effort was summed up perfectly by the Toronto Star's columnist, Chantal Hébert, who aptly described the content of the 308 page bill as amounting to “a handful of sometimes half-baked and always ill-defined promises”. It was indeed a huge disappointment.

We returned to Ottawa last week after a summer recess from parliamentary proceedings that was extended by yet another prorogation. All of us have had plenty of time to knock on doors in our communities and talk to the very people who are most directly impacted by the government's budgetary policies. I certainly did that this summer. What I heard was continuing anxiety about stagnating wages, job insecurity and high household debt. Those fears are well-founded; they are not based on paranoia.

Let us review some of the facts. Over the past 35 years, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, incomes have increased for the top 20% of Canadians, but have decreased for everyone else. There is 80% of Canadians who have seen a drop in their income. Our economy has grown by 147%, yet the real income of the average Canadian family has dropped by 7%.

At the end of last year, Canadians' household debt reached 166% of disposable income. Canada's total household debt is now dangerously close to the peak levels prevailing in the United States just before the 2008 economic crisis. Indeed, the Bank of Canada is now referring to this debt as “the biggest domestic risk” to the Canadian economy. This is not only a burden on Canadian families, it is a threat to our entire economy. Yet, all the Conservatives have to say to the millions of families struggling to make ends meet is that they have to make do with less, and their children have to make do with less.

Conservatives have done nothing to reign in the high cost of living for families. They have done nothing to guarantee retirement security for seniors. They have watched a generation of middle-class jobs disappear, but they have done nothing to create the next generation of middle-class jobs. We can and must do better.

It is time to put the interests of Canadians first. The budget implementation bill could and should have been the perfect opportunity to do just that. It should have made life more affordable for hard-working families. It should have created quality well-paying jobs. It should have ensured secure retirements. It should have fostered opportunities for young Canadians. What we got instead was a continuation of the austerity agenda, which is premised on the mistaken belief that we can cut our way to prosperity.

As David Olive from the Toronto Star noted in March of this year:

...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.

It is not as if the finance minister were oblivious to that. He, himself, has repeatedly warned of the threat that household debt poses to the economy, yet neither his spring budget nor Bill C-4 does anything to offer help to Canadians.

In a scathing review of the Conservative record on the economy, Michael Harris said, in iPolitics:

Apart from pitching a free-trade deal with Antarctica, the PM has nothing to offer on the economy besides glowing self-appraisals, bad commercials on the public dime, and discount-rate foreign workers inflating his dismal job creation numbers.

He also said:

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.

With that as the backdrop, let us have a look then at Bill C-4. Unfortunately, its provisions would do nothing to prove the previous statement wrong. Instead of acting on the economy and creating jobs for an agenda of growth, the Conservatives are doing the exact opposite. Instead of creating jobs, they are continuing their ideological attacks on Canadian workers. A full third of the bill is designed solely to undermine the rights of workers.

The bill would eliminate the basic right of workers to a healthy and safe workplace, and continues its attack on the federal public service. Allow me to say a few words about those outrageous changes.

It is no exaggeration to suggest that Bill C-4 would place the lives of workers in the federal sector at risk as a result of the cynical amendments that the Conservatives would make to the Canada Labour Code. The bill would attack the right to refuse dangerous work, a hard-fought right that offered basic protection to Canadian workers. By redefining and limiting the word “danger” and undermining the work and expertise of health and safety officers by giving many of their powers to the minister, the Conservatives are essentially saying that forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions is absolutely fine by them. No New Democrat will support that. No worker should ever be forced to work in unsafe conditions and I cannot believe that any member of the House would ever knowingly vote to put workers in harm's way.

I urge my Conservative colleagues to please do the right thing and respect the rights of workers. With lives literally hanging in the balance, I urge them to ignore the party whip and do what they must know is the right thing to do, which is to oppose these objectionable changes to Canada's labour laws.

In fact, let us delete all of the labour sections from the omnibus bill. The changes that Bill C-4 would make to the Public Service Labour Relations Act would eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. What could possibly be the motivation for that, other than to prompt labour unrest and conflict with civil servants. Again, if my Conservative colleagues do not believe in gratuitous attacks on the very people who serve both them as government and the Canadian public, then they must vote to oppose the bill.

I am sure all members heard the interview that the Conservatives' colleague, the MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka and President of the Treasury Board gave on CBC Radio in Ottawa yesterday. It must have given every Conservative backbencher pause. The minister was being asked about sections of the bill that arbitrarily designate what “essential services” are. This is important because, as members know, any public servants that are deemed “essential” are not allowed to go on strike. That is a very serious infringement of a fundamental right. In essence, the government is stripping workers of their full collective bargaining rights.

In the very tense exchange with the CBC reporter that I referenced above, the minister absolutely refused to spell out how the government would use this new power. The President of the Treasury Board said, “I am waiting for this legislation to pass and then details will come forward.” That is contempt of Parliament. How can we be asked to vote for something that is not defined?

In the interview, the minister suggested that border guards would be deemed “essential”, but he hedged on scientists. When he was asked whether he would clarify who would be deemed “essential” ahead of the upcoming contract negotiations with a large number of bargaining units over the coming year, the exchange got downright testy. He would not deny that he could change whom he deemed “essential” at any time, including in the middle of the bargaining process. I would commend the verbatim record of that exchange to all members of the House, and Bill Curry has helpfully reproduced it for us in The Globe and Mail.

To recap, we are being asked to approve a bill that fundamentally would change collective bargaining in our country, yet we are not allowed to know the details before we vote. Instead of being ashamed of that, the minister became downright hostile when interviewed on CBC Radio.

That attitude is all of a piece when it comes to the way the current Conservative government operates. Whether it is the Senate scandal or this budget bill, there is zero accountability. The Conservatives have utter disdain for Parliament, and by extension, for the Canadians who elect us to represent them here.

I am not worried about my voice being silenced; the government should be so lucky. However, I am profoundly worried about a government whose members believe they are above the law, a government whose members believe they can do whatever they want, a government whose members believe the end always justifies the means. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our number one priority has to be to address the real priorities of Canadians. That is what I was sent here to do, and that is the responsibility that my NDP colleagues and I take very seriously.

No, I cannot vote for this budget implementation bill, and I would encourage members on all sides of the House to oppose it with me. At best, we are being asked to adopt a pig in a poke. At worst, we are continuing down a road of stagnating wages, job insecurity and high household debt. Canadians deserve better. As parliamentarians, we can and must do better. As a member of the government in waiting, I can tell members that an NDP government will do better, starting in 2015.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Prince George—Peace River could expand on measures in Bill C-4 that build on the budget and address investments in communities and infrastructure. We know it is very important.

I know the member has some communities that are very challenged with respect to building up infrastructure. There is a lot of growth and there are some big needs when it comes to moving people and goods around. If the member could expand on that aspect, I would like to hear his comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

This act would implement key measures from economic action plan 2013. It would also implement certain previously announced tax measures that will help create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Canadians have come to rely on our Conservative government to remain focused on the priorities that matter most to them: creating jobs for hard-working families and economic growth for local economies in all of Canada.

Since the depth of the global economic recession, Canada's overall job growth record remains the strongest among all G7 countries. Our government's plan for jobs and growth has helped contribute to the creation of more than one million new jobs, and we are on track to keep creating jobs and balance Canada's budget by 2015.

However, we also recognize that the global economy also can be volatile. We sympathize with those who are still struggling to find a job and we realize we are not immune to what happens outside our borders. That is why our government is working hard to implement positive job-creating measures from economic action plan 2013. These includes tax breaks to help small businesses create jobs, the Canada job grant to help get more Canadians trained and into skilled jobs, the largest-ever federal investment in job-creating infrastructure, new tax relief to help our manufacturing sector, and much more.

Nowhere is it more apparent that we need more skilled Canadian workers than in my riding of Prince George—Peace River. In fact, several local employers have come to me to express their increasing frustration with their inability to fill jobs because they cannot find workers with the right skills. Meanwhile, there are also far too many Canadians out there looking for work. That is why so many employers within my riding are looking forward to the full implementation of the new Canada job grant.

The Canada job grant would provide $15,000 or more per person in combined federal, provincial, territorial, and employer funding to help Canadians get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. Once fully implemented, the grant will help nearly 130,000 Canadians each year to access training at eligible institutions such as community colleges and trade union centres. This new program will ensure that Canadians have the skills employers are seeking and that employers are able to fill those key jobs.

In addition to the new Canada job grant, economic action plan 2013 is investing in skills and training for Canadians by reducing barriers to apprenticeship accreditation, supporting the use of apprentices in federal projects, and strengthening training support for persons with disabilities.

Building on these important new job-creating measures, we continue to remain focused on Canada's long-term prosperity by introducing economic action plan 2013 act no. 2. As we all know, small business entrepreneurs are big job creators, responsible for nearly half of all private sector jobs in Canada, and are a key driving force in making Canada a leader on the world stage.

We also know that to help create jobs, we must also help businesses. That is why Bill C-4 introduces more positive job-creating measures for small business entrepreneurs. One important measure is extending and expanding the hiring credit for small business for one year to help employers with the cost of new hires.

In addition, we will promote stability and predictability for employers and their employees by freezing employment insurance premium rates for the next three years. This will leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

We have also included measures that will increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 and index it going forward. This positive measure will increase the rewards of investing in small business by making it easier for owners to transfer their family businesses to the next generation of Canadians.

Manufacturers and processors are also major contributors to our economy, employing approximately 1.8 million Canadians in a wide range of industries across Canada. A strong manufacturing sector also helps create jobs among suppliers and contributes to innovation throughout the economy. That is why in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2 our government is strengthening the competitiveness of this sector by expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation. This measure will allow businesses in Canada to face current economic challenges and improve their long-term prospects by adopting new and innovative technologies to increase productivity, thus helping businesses to compete globally while creating jobs in all regions of Canada.

These initiatives demonstrate our government's clear commitment to support small-business entrepreneurs to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians in all communities, like those in my riding of Prince George—Peace River.

At the same time, we understand that we must also respect Canadian taxpayers' dollars. Whether on job creators, hard-working families, or any other Canadians, low taxes are a crucial part of our economic success. Our Conservative government has cut taxes over 150 times, including income taxes, the GST, and business taxes, and we are justifiably proud of that record. Because of our actions, the average family is now saving over $3,200 a year. Economic action plan 2013 would take further action to support Canadian families by eliminating tariffs on babies' clothing, sporting goods, and athletic equipment.

Canadian seniors are also benefiting from a low-tax plan. In fact, the average senior pays $2,260 less in taxes each year as a result of our tax reductions. The average single senior can earn almost $20,000 a year and the average senior couple almost $40,000 a year without paying a single nickel of federal income tax, one thing that definitely affects my parents.

Small businesses as well are benefiting from our government's tax reductions. A small Canadian private business with a taxable income of more than $500,000 now pays 34% less federal tax than in 2006, equivalent to a tax savings of $28,000 that can be reinvested to fuel growth and job creation.

Bill C-4 would take further action to ensure Canadian taxpayers' dollars are respected by introducing measures to improve the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery.

Economic action plan 2013 also includes measures that would modernize the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery, as well as plans to phase out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

Meanwhile, we remain on track to balance Canada's budget by 2015. Earlier this week, the annual financial report of the Government of Canada for 2012-13 was released. It shows the continued downward track of Canada's annual deficit. In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12 and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10.

Our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars has played an important role in these results, with direct program expenses falling by 1.2% from the year prior and by 3.8% from 2010-11. This is just further proof that we are finding savings within government and are refusing to spend recklessly. We will find these savings without raising taxes or cutting transfers to Canadians or the provinces and territories.

These initiatives demonstrate our government's clear commitment to support small business entrepreneurs to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians while respecting Canadian taxpayers' dollars. That is why I am pleased to support this bill, Bill C-4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member who just spoke on Bill C-4 is wearing the poppy, like I am, and as all of us should be in these weeks before Remembrance Day.

I know the member, and I know he is sincere in wanting to honour the men and women who served our country with such courage and made such tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the Government of Canada and, more importantly, on behalf of all the people of Canada.

However, in Bill C-4, we have changes that adversely impact those very veterans we are honouring by wearing the poppy. Bill C-4 reduces the number of permanent members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, from 28 to 25. If we are going to be serious, we need to address the fundamental issues with respect to the board.

On this side of the House, my NDP colleagues and I, and in particular the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, have been advocating for a very long time that we replace the politically appointed board with a medical, evidence-based, peer-reviewed process for making decisions on veterans' disability applications.

I want to ask the member a question. He, like us, is wearing the poppy in this House today. Will he not do the right thing, honour veterans and vote against this bill that takes away services from Canada's men and women in the armed forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on our economy and the second budget implementation act of our government's economic action plan 2013. The implementation of these remaining provisions would have a tremendously positive impact on the lives of all Canadians. While many of the changes in Bill C-4 are technical in nature, many provide clear benefits for all Canadians.

Our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: growing the economy, helping to create jobs, balancing the budget and reducing the cost of government. We are achieving this with the longest-serving Minister of Finance in the G7 at the helm, who is providing Canada with strong fiscal leadership, management and responsibility.

Our actions have not gone unnoticed. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's most sound for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its AAA status in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid, and they are sustainable.

Canada is on a strong economic footing. Since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, mostly in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in the G7 over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, with close to 85% of those in the private sector. Also, the growth levels are above pre-recession levels, as I stated.

Jayson Myers, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, had this to say:

We have a strong Canadian dollar because investors around the world want to put their money into Canada. They see a better fiscal environment, a strong financial sector, and the strength of the resource sector.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax cost, which includes corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property taxes and wage-based taxes, is more than 40% lower than in the United States. In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth and job creation, and ensures that Canada has the strongest fiscal position and lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Earlier this week, the media were reporting that last year's federal deficit came in at nearly $7 billion lower than projected. This is an undeniable sign that our government is on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, a promise we made to Canadians back in 2011.

As many Canadians are now aware, our government recently reached an agreement in principle on a free trade agreement with the European Union. This historic agreement will create thousands of jobs for Canadians and give Canadian business access to half a billion new customers. This is the biggest deal so far in Canadian history, and may be remembered as the biggest trade agreement that Canada has ever signed. The Canada–European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement will open new markets to Canadian exporters throughout Europe and generate significant opportunities for all Canadians.The benefits of this agreement are equivalent to creating 80,000 net new jobs, or increasing the average Canadian household's annual income by $1,000.

On the first day that the agreement comes into force, 98% of all European Union tariffs will be eliminated, directly translating into increased profit and opportunity for Canadian businesses of all size and in every part of our country. Whether a fisherman in Atlantic Canada, a forestry worker in Quebec, an auto worker in Ontario, or an engineer in the west, each will benefit from this agreement. Jayson Myers went on to say that, “This is the Wayne Gretzky of trade deals”.

Canada's automobile industry, to name but one, stands to benefit tremendously from this deal. Currently, Canada exports approximately 13,000 vehicles a year to the European Union. This agreement will increase that number up to 100,000 units annually. It goes without saying that this increase in annual exports will have a direct correlation to the number of jobs in the Canadian automobile industry, undoubtedly adding hundreds, if not thousands, of employees to Canada's vehicle, equipment and parts manufacturing companies.

Kevin Williams, president of General Motors of Canada, had this to say:

We applaud Canada and the European Union for completing a modern, high-standard comprehensive economic and trade agreement that will provide enhanced opportunities for growth in both regions. We appreciate the hard work to find creative solutions that improve market access for Canadian-produced automobiles, while ensuring Canada continues to benefit from the integrated manufacturing sector that has developed in North America over the past 50 years.

Supporting small business is something our government takes very seriously. Small businesses make up to 98% of businesses in Canada, all of which are in the midst of celebrating Small Business Week. It makes me tremendously proud to speak about how this bill would provide support for Canada's job creators. This bill includes in it a number of key measures to support business, including extending and expanding the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. Approximately 560,000 small businesses will benefit as a direct result of this measure. We are also increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000 and indexing it going forward. The lifetime capital gains exemption will increase the reward for investing in small business.

In response to the global recession, the government froze the EI premium rate in 2010 at the lowest level since 1982. We are again freezing EI premium rates, this time at 2013 levels, for the next three years. With this freeze in 2014 alone, we are leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and Canadian workers. This tax relief will help provide employers, especially small businesses, with the certainty and flexibility that they need to keep growing.

Since forming government in 2006, our low-tax plan for Canada has allowed for small business to see their tax bills drop by 34%. Corporate income taxes have been lowered as well. In fact, Canada currently has the lowest corporate income tax rate in the OECD, as I referred to with regard to the KPMG report. That is a carrot that is more powerful and effective than any marketing campaign in attracting foreign investment to Canada.

In recognition of the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy, the bill also announces extending the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sectors for an additional two years. This will provide the sector with support of $1.4 billion over four years for retooling, and will enhance competitiveness and economic growth and enable manufacturing and processing companies to plan and invest over the coming years.

We are delivering a new $53 billion building Canada plan to invest in Canada's public infrastructure over the next 10 years. This will create jobs, promote economic growth and provide a higher quality of life for families in every city and community across this great country. One of the new building Canada plan's three key funds, the community improvement fund, has had a direct investment in my riding of Don Valley West, by providing just under $1 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The funds are being used to renovate, and eventually reopen, the CNIB's pedestrian bridge, which has been closed since 2011. This bridge is essential for patients, visitors and employees to safely cross one of Toronto's busiest streets.

I will wrap up by saying that this bill puts forth a number of measures that are meant to respect taxpayers' dollars. While the opposition is busy focusing on issues that do not matter to Canadians, our government remains focused on the task at hand. We continue to look for ways to increase the efficiency of the inner workings of government and making sure that job creation and economic prosperity are at the forefront of any new legislation. With that in mind, this bill would make significant improvements that would benefit all Canadians.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to speak to Bill C-4, the budget implementation act.

This is another example of a missed opportunity for the current Conservative government in terms of job creation and in terms of accountability and transparency. It really underlines the mean-spiritedness in which the government participates in the process of bills and law-making in this House.

I have been listening very carefully to some of the debates and comments from my hon. colleagues on the government side, and it is almost as though they live in this fantasy world where they give the greatest gifts to the wealthiest corporations and keep saying over and over what neo-conservatives have been saying for 30 years, that these wealthy corporations will just trickle that money down like manna from heaven and we will all just be fine.

I listened with particular interest to my colleague from Mississauga who talked about her father's small business. I also listened to the member across the way, who grew up in the town named after him, talk about his family and small business.

Where I come from in Toronto, small businesses are one- and two-person operations. Small businesses are operated out of people's kitchens and basements. Small businesses are a mother and father working 12 or 13 hours a day running a store on Bloor Street. They are looking for some relief and what they are hearing is that the government has been doling out these wonderfully handsome tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations in Canada, who are not investing back into the economy but are sitting on the money. There is nothing in this bill that deals with one of the most significant issues of our time, and that is how we deal with the explosion of precarious work in our society.

In Toronto, in the GTA right now, in the member's riding of Mississauga South no doubt, almost 50% of workers cannot access a full-time, stable job. That is an outrageous statistic, which should engage this entire House, not just because it is my city but because it is an outrageous statistic. We are letting down and failing workers, and in particular we are failing young workers.

This budget implementation act, which would again throw in more than 70 law changes with everything but the kitchen sink in here, has not a single thing to address precarious work in our society. We listen to the rhetoric of job creation on one hand and we see the stats on the other hand where 15%, 16% or 17% of young people are unemployed, and that is the official rate that does not include those who have given up and those who are working very marginal, part-time jobs. This is the reality for so many urban workers: precarious work. People cannot find a full-time job. We are talking about folks who are now working as independent contractors.

The Conservatives are so consumed, almost obsessed, with their attack on organized labour that they cannot understand that people who run a small business want customers to come in. Those customers actually have to make a living wage in order to spend some of their money in the store. This is what the Conservatives do not understand. They do not understand the realities of urban workers today. They do not understand the reality of small business today.

We proposed many measures that would make it easier for small business owners to deal with their business.

We have a consumer program this government has borrowed some ideas from. They should actually take the whole thing. We would be willing to give it to them, because there are some excellent ideas, and they would actually deal with some of the main problems small businesses face with things like transfer fees for credit cards at point of sale, and that sort of thing. These are the issues many small businesses bring to us, which is why we have brought our proposals to the Canadian public on some of the very important issues for small business.

This is a government that, along with the Liberals, pillaged the employment insurance fund to the tune of about $57 billion and that is making it harder for Canadian workers to access the program to which they contributed. This is not the government's money. It is workers' money. We have legions of workers who cannot access basic employment insurance, basic income security, in times of need. Those times of need for many people are right now.

The Conservatives talk about job creation. They never talk about the kinds of jobs they are creating. In the GTA, we have a preponderance of $10.50 an hour jobs. I do not know, and I would be interested to find out from the member from Mississauga, if people in her riding could live on $10 an hour. Could they pay their rent? Could they raise a family? Can people raise a family on minimum wage in Toronto or in this country? The answer is absolutely not. It is very difficult. That is why people are working multiple jobs. It is why the fabric of our society is in such turmoil. It is because people in our large cities are working day in and day out just to survive. It is impacting on people's health.

We now know that precarious work adds incredible stress to the body. We have not calculated the health care costs of ripping the support from under workers today. I do not see that calculation in this.

We have not seen the government actually focus any attention on youth employment. The other day, the minister said, in answer to a question on precarious work, that if young workers have a problem in their workplaces, they should complain to the various tribunals out there. They are putting the onus on young people who, right now in Ontario, for example, are graduating, on average, with about $37,000 of debt. Then they are being welcomed into a workforce where they are either offered jobs that do not pay any money, as interns, or piecemeal jobs. They cannot get into the fields they studied for. The other day the minister said that they could blow the whistle on their companies if they feel that they are being treated poorly.

We are failing young workers. The government has utterly failed to address some of the key issues that affect urban workers. The fact is that too many people cannot access a workplace pension. Too many of us cannot access any kind of workplace benefit, and there is absolutely no job security for urban workers. All the bill does is make it worse.

The member from Mississauga talked about key tax cuts that would reap benefits for all Canadians, but what we are seeing in reality is that the tools the government uses to deal with the economic issues have just made things worse.

Bill C-4 is the fourth attempt in two years by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. Canadians are watching. They want to see the government and this place function the way it is supposed to, which is with proper scrutiny. This side of the House, the official opposition, is doing its job. We would like to see the Conservatives start to do theirs.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on some of the key initiatives in economic action plan 2013 no. 2.

Our government remains focused on the economy and creating jobs, all while keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets. The key to success is balancing the efforts to support job creation and economic growth while respecting commitments to reduce deficits and return to balanced budgets over the medium term.

With the help of Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery. Canada has created over one million net new jobs, nearly 90% full time and nearly 85% private sector, since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. This is the strongest job growth record in the G7. Not only that, but both the IMF and the OECD project Canada to have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. In fact, the OECD recently projected that Canada will lead the G7 in growth in 2013.

Our government is also committed to keeping taxes low. Unlike the high-tax NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses. Since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings for a typical family of four in 2013 of over $3,200. Unfortunately, the NDP opposition thinks that higher taxes are the answer.

Just a couple of weeks ago the NDP leader reconfirmed his party's plan to impose a crippling tax hike on job creators and the millions of Canadians they employ, even as they continue to cope with a challenging global economy. As if imposing a $20-billion carbon tax on Canadians was not enough, the NDP leader has another multi-billion dollar tax hike he wants to impose. At a time of global economic uncertainty the NDP wants to take over $10 billion each year out of the pockets of Canadian entrepreneurs and businesses to fund big, bloated government schemes. This punishing NDP tax hike would target job creators, especially small and medium-sized companies with a nearly 50% increase in their tax bills.

When I was very young I started working for my father who had his own hardware wholesale business. Small business taxes at that time were crippling for him. While he managed to stay in business for many years, he always appreciated it when governments understood that small businesses were not in the business of feeding the government coffers. Their business is to sell goods and to employ people.

My father ran his own business over the course of 35 years. The periods of greatest growth were during times when business tax rates were reasonable and low. Our current Minister of Finance and our government understand this and that is why we continue to support job-creating businesses, like the one that I worked for when I was younger.

Of course I did not have to apply for the job. I was given the job automatically because my father owned the business, but I still worked hard. The business did well when it was not all about red tape and spending many hours working out the calculations needed to pay that kind of debt to the government. That is why I want to talk about the small business advantages that we are giving them and the tax increases that would kill jobs and stall Canada's economy. Clearly, Canadians cannot afford these risky tax-and-spend schemes. Thankfully, as I said, our Conservative government understands that high taxes are not the answer.

Our government also understands the importance of general fiscal responsibility. Indeed, before the global recession hit, our Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's debt to its lowest level in 25 years. This fiscal prudence and impressive debt reduction placed Canada in the best possible position to weather the global recession.

When the global recession hit, we were able to respond quickly and effectively with Canada's economic action plan. While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position of any G7 nation. In fact, our net to GDP ratio in 2012 was 34.6%, the lowest level among G7 countries, the second lowest being Germany at 57.2%. We can see the gap there. The G7 average is 90.4%.

While the NDP and Liberals want to engage in reckless spending, our government is on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015. Our plan to return to balanced budgets is working.

In 2012-13, the deficit fell to $18.9 billion. This was down by more than one-quarter from the deficit of $26.3 billion in 2011-12, and down by nearly two-thirds from the $55.6 billion deficit recorded in 2009-10. Our government's responsible spending of taxpayer dollars played an important part in these results with direct program expenses falling by 1.2% from the prior year, and by 3.8% from 2010-11.

Overall, measures taken by our Conservative government since budget 2010 will result in a total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion. This legislation builds on this effort. Bill C-4 will phase out inefficient and ineffective tax subsidies. One example is the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. Indeed, a number of independent experts have recognized this subsidy as being ineffective when it comes to creating jobs and supporting Canadian businesses.

Members should not take my word for it. I will tell them what others are saying about this tax credit, the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

A recent paper by the Montreal Economic Institute says:

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

Jack Mintz, a respected economist, said:

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.

He said that in 2012.

The C.D. Howe Institute also recognized that providing tax relief to these funds has been:

...a disappointing use of taxpayers’ money. Such funds have been shown in multiple studies, including this one, to do a poor job of achieving public policy aims.

That is from the C.D. Howe Institute E-Brief of September 2012.

I also want to talk about closing tax loopholes, which is contained in Bill C-4, loopholes and other schemes that only benefit a select few. Closing these loopholes is important because when everyone pays their fair share, our tax rates can be kept low, which makes Canada a more attractive place to work, save and invest.

In fact, since 2006 and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, our government has closed over 75 tax loopholes. This will result in $2.5 billion in additional revenues in 2013-14, and more than $2.6 billion in 2014-15. Indeed, the legislative proposals in budget 2013 to close tax loopholes are estimated to raise $100 million in revenue in 2013-14, rising to over $270 million in 2017-18, for a total of close to $1 billion over the next five years.

Shamefully, the NDP has voted against every single attempt by our government to close tax loopholes since 2006. I am not sure why it is doing that. I do not think they understand the importance of the one million jobs that have been created since the depth of the recession.

We understand there is still more work to be done and that Canada is not immune to the kinds of global challenges that come from beyond our borders. That is why we are so convinced that our job-creating measures are important and that we need to continue along this track. That is why I believe the legislation should go forward quickly.

The House may know that I had the good fortune to work with our esteemed Minister of Finance, who has won global accolades around the world for his work, his fiscal responsibility, his understanding of Canada's economy and for making sure that we are leading the G7 on so many indicators. It is difficult to be humble on his behalf. The Minister of Finance is, I believe, responsible in large part for the major credit rating agencies giving Canada a rock solid AAA credit rating. Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's have all given Canada this solid rating. It is something we take for granted. Canadians do not think about that every day. They are able to go about their business knowing that our economy is well looked after by the Conservative government and this Minister of Finance. It is important for Canadians to understand that our commitment to balance the budget by 2015 is an important one. It is ambitious, but we have made that commitment. Ultimately, it enables us to keep taxes low. We have cut taxes 160 times.

Earlier today my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre was talking about her family and the fact that she is not only a chartered accountant but a mother and that she appreciates the measures our government has taken on both of those fronts. I would say too that it is about helping families. We are looking at many countries in Europe that cannot afford to give tax breaks to families. They cannot afford to offer tax credits such as the children's fitness tax credit, which I have taken advantage of with my own children, the new children's arts tax credit and the universal child care tax benefit. These are the kinds of things that help families, putting money directly into their pockets so that they can use those funds for whatever they feel is necessary.

That is the kind of choice we like to provide to parents. We would not be able to do that if we did not have a strong economy. It is all about jobs, the economy and maintaining that long-term economic growth and prosperity. That is why I wanted to speak to the bill today, Canada's economic action plan.

If I might, I would like to compare that to something the Liberal leader said over the summer. I believe it was at the Liberals' caucus retreat. When asked when he would release his plan for Canada's economy, he said that it was too soon for him to be talking about the economy. He did not plan to release that for a long time, possibly a couple more years, maybe before the next election.

It is a good thing that the Liberal Party is the third party in the House, because I cannot imagine a prime minister without a plan for the economy. He has been the Liberal leader for many months now, since the beginning of the year, and he apparently needs a few more years to come up with an economic plan.

I am so proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Minister of Finance in Canada who already have a plan, and that plan is working.

I would be happy to take questions, if there is time, and talk about my support for job creation and this bill's support for job creation and Canada's economic action plan, which is working.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I hear my colleague from Manitoba shouting at me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some respect. I would like to be able to talk without being called names by my Conservative colleagues on the other side of the House. Thank you very much. I am entitled to respect when I am speaking. If they do not agree with what I am saying, that is all right, but I do not want them shouting at me when I am speaking.

The gap between rich and poor is growing. We are seeing an increase in the cost of living, because the Conservatives have forgotten about the middle class in all their budget measures.

We are seeing an increase in the cost of living, and incomes are lower than ever and they keep on dropping. Of course, if you are a highly paid executive, there is no problem. On the other hand, what is the government going to tell the people in the Toronto area, for instance, who cannot find stable employment? Will it tell them to take two or three jobs so they can make ends meet? No, that is not what a government should say.

In September, Statistics Canada announced that Canadian household debt had reached an all-time high of 166%. How is it that since 2006 the Conservatives have not been able to do anything to stop this increase?

This means that for every dollar a person has, he or she owes $1.66 on a loan or a credit card.

In 2008, our neighbours to the south in the United States learned the hard way just how seriously over-indebtedness could hurt their economy.

I think it is time to help Canadian families. Economists agree that Canadian household debt is a threat to Canada’s economy. Clearly, under the Conservatives, we are on the path to jumping in there with both feet.

The economic situation is even worse among young people, where the unemployment rate has reached 14%. This means that the next generation of workers will not be able to acquire the experience they need to replace the generation that went before.

Increased unemployment among young people early in their careers, and the precarious household debt situation—I think I have clearly described the critical situation to which I referred in my introduction and about which the government has refused to do anything.

In other words, they are in favour of justice and democracy, except when it does not suit their purposes.

We support various amendments in Bill C-4 that aim at reducing tax evasion. We support those amendments, but we are very concerned that the Conservatives are not paying serious attention to the issue of tax havens and the people and the companies that are not making a fair or just contribution to the Canadian economy.

As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan mentioned, we have here a budget that is once again a direct attack on the rights of Canadians.

As I have one minute left, I would simply like to tell the Conservatives that although they say we just vote against everything, we are only waiting for them to invite us to work with them in providing Canadians with a budget that is fair and equitable and gives everyone an opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy, not only the people who are on their side, but all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, which is of extreme importance to Canadians and Quebeckers.

We are living in critical times. It is time for us to have a productive debate here for Canadians. The situation is critical. I will explain why it is extremely important to discuss this bill without having a time limit imposed on us. Canadians need us today, and they expect us to take action because their indebtedness and that of young Canadians are at critical levels.

First of all, I want to say how disappointed I am with everything the government has done since its throne speech. Today is the first time I have had a chance to rise, and I am doing so under a guillotine. I know that the Conservatives will cite all kinds of reasons for that, in particular that this bill must be passed extremely quickly.

However, the situation is so serious that the government has no reason not to allow a fair and democratic debate in the House of Commons.

I really believed, but wrongly so, that the Conservatives would take the summer and the additional month to reflect and perhaps even consider the importance of democracy and respect for democracy. However, this bill shows that exactly the opposite is true.

This is the fourth omnibus bill. We know how the Prime Minister shouted and tore his shirt when he was in opposition and the Liberal government tried to introduce omnibus bills. Unfortunately, that was then and this is now, as they say.

This bill is 300 pages long and amends at least 70 statutes, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with the budget. We can already see the government’s bad intentions.

It is introducing a budget that, on the whole, attacks workers' rights, amends rules respecting the Supreme Court, and so on. There is not much about tax evasion or young people, for example. As for the government's new approach, it leaves something to be desired.

This is really a shame for democracy and for the Canadians and Quebeckers who are supposed to be represented here. This government's scandals and mismanagement are so unimaginable I no longer know where to turn. I do not even know where to start.

This is a failure. The government's economic plan is a failure. Instead of tackling household debt, it attacks workers' rights and the family itself. However, it is not focusing on the real problems. For example, the Conservatives are going to leave us with the biggest deficit in Canadian history.

It is unbelievable how the Conservatives can boast, but they offer nothing concrete. In 2015, Canadians will see how badly the Conservatives have mismanaged the economy. Canadians will see that the Conservatives have left them to deal with the biggest environmental, economic and social deficit in Canadian history. Canadians will have no trouble seeing that record because the figures prove it.

In addition, what is disturbing is that most of the measures in this budget are not budget measures. They amend the rules for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Prime Minister just realized he had to correct his own mistakes.

I challenge any Conservative to rise in the House and show me how changing the rules for the Supreme Court will help Canadian families get out of record debt. Can any Conservative explain that to us? I would really like someone to do that. I can hear them laughing on the other side. I do not think this is funny.

Today, my colleague from Gatineau moved a motion to remove the appointment of Supreme Court judges from the budget implementation bill.

I sincerely hope that the government will take this proposal to heart, because it is the kind of proposal that must be discussed. However, this should not be done within the framework of an omnibus bill, because these are things that involve our justice system, not our economic system.

The Conservatives never get tired of saying that Canadians know they cannot rely on the NDP to put their needs first and give middle-class Canadians a well-deserved break. However, the NDP’s view of the economy is one in which we maximize opportunities by drawing on Canada’s enormous advantages, in order to give Canadians the best in everything.

We have the best score on the budget, from sea to sea. This is a fact. It is as simple as that. My colleague has been shouting for a while now that I am being rhetorical, but it is a fact. The proof is in the figures. The NDP governments have the best scores in terms of budgets and finance.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to let you know that I will be sharing my time with my charming colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It is my privilege today to be able to speak to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. I am not privileged because of the quality of the bill, which still leaves something to be desired. I am privileged because so few parliamentarians will be able to debate this bill.

Just this morning, in fact, in the hours following its introduction in the House, the government imposed time allocation on Bill C-4.

After forcing us to wait a whole month before resuming work by proroguing Parliament, the Conservatives decided to bring in a time allocation motion that prevents members of Parliament from speaking to this omnibus bill. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to move time allocation on the bill in order to fast-track the debate. However, this bill is not just a simple legislative bill.

By means of Bill C-4, the Conservatives are trying for the fourth time in two years to escape the scrutiny of parliamentarians and the public. They are trying to get major changes through Parliament without sufficient study by Parliament, despite the fact that some of the amendments in Bill C-4 are meant to correct mistakes they made in their big rush to pass the last omnibus bill.

I will be voting against Bill C-4 both because of its content and because of the process used, which I feel is wrong. The New Democratic Party will not support the Conservatives in their attempt to avoid parliamentary oversight. The bill contains many extremely complicated measures that deserve to be studied a great deal more attentively.

The government before us today is worn out and negligent. The NDP refuses to play the Conservatives’ game. We must take Parliament and our institutions seriously and act accordingly.

Taking advantage of the introduction of Bill C-4 to amend through the back door a number of measures that are not even related to the budget shows a total lack of consideration for Canadians. The government is trying to make major changes secretly and without consulting those who will be affected by those changes.

I realize that the Conservatives are not really crusaders for consultation, but they should take the time to listen to what Canadians are saying. Canadians are giving serious consideration to what is currently happening on Parliament Hill. They are losing confidence in the political class, and the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing to help them regain that confidence quickly. I am highly critical of the government’s lack of study and I am deeply worried about the consequences it may have for our country. It greatly undermines action by Parliament.

I would like to highlight a few examples to clarify my point, and I would like to start with the frontal attack on the rights of workers. For the President of the Treasury Board, it must be absurd for the government to have to negotiate and deal with workers in good faith. Please let me explain.

First, the designation of essential services to Canadians would change with Bill C-4. At present, workers and the government decide in tandem what an essential service is and what it is not. Now the government wants to make the decision about essential services on its own.

How does this affect workers? Well, it is a direct attack on the right to strike. Essential services are services that must be made available to Canadians during a strike. The repercussions of this decision are extremely serious.

With the proposed changes, unions cannot call a strike if public servants designated as essential by the government are involved. Who is designated as essential, though? This question has gone unanswered. I even tried to get an answer from my Conservative colleague opposite who just spoke, and he was very good at being evasive.

My colleague from Pontiac tried to ask the President of the Treasury Board about this in question period earlier today. He refused to answer. We heard absolutely nothing.

Another major change to workers' rights is the change in the definition of the word “danger”. A worker who does not feel safe in his workplace can inform a health and safety officer of his concerns. Bill C-4 changes the definition to imminent danger or serious danger. What do these new changes mean? What tangible effect will this have on our workers? These are valid questions.

Furthermore, workers will no longer contact their health and safety officers about these problems. Instead they will contact the minister's office. Will he work 24/7 to respond to workers in danger? Will it be more difficult for them to exercise their rights? Will there be more accidents in our workplaces? The official opposition is truly worried about the health and safety of Canadian workers.

What worries me the most is that these measures that I just spoke about, which affect the rights of workers, have absolutely nothing to do with a budget implementation bill. What are the Conservatives playing at?

In conclusion, I would like to briefly mention the direct attack that the Conservatives made on francophones throughout Canada. Once again, I will provide some explanation.

I would like to quote an article by Marie Vastel that was published in the October 24 issue of Le Devoir. It says:

When the government introduces any major legislation, it holds a briefing for MPs, senators and their assistants in order to explain that legislation. Usually, simultaneous translation is provided and officials then answer questions in both official languages. However, such was not the case on Tuesday, when the briefing on the budget implementation bill that was introduced that same morning began in English only.

The government was giving a presentation on a bill that is over 300 pages long, the fourth mammoth bill that the Conservative government has introduced, and there was no simultaneous translation from English into French. It was an NDP member whose mother tongue is French who stood up during the government's briefing and asked for the French translation, saying that the bill was extremely complex, that it was over 300 pages long and that she did not understand the details. After she spoke up, there was some commotion. In the end, another English MP spoke up and said that someone would have to translate so that the member could understand. People left the room in protest and the government finally decided to postpone the briefing to Wednesday, which was yesterday. The briefing therefore began after Bill C-4 was introduced in the House.

The opposite never would have happened. There never would have been a briefing in French without simultaneous translation into English. That would never happen. Honestly, I am a bit surprised that it took so long for them to react. I cannot believe that this happened. Some MPs speak English, others speak French. Those are our two official languages, and this demonstrates a lack of respect, not only for the Quebec nation, but also for francophones across the country. I am extremely disappointed in the way Bill C-4 treats Canadians.

This bill touches on many areas; we could go on for days. This bill affects more than just workers' rights. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is given new powers, and I have yet to find the link between that and a budget implementation bill. It affects unions' venture capital funds. It addresses the mistake of increasing taxes on credit unions and so on. There are even changes to the Supreme Court. It makes no sense.

I want to say, once again, that I am extremely disappointed in how the Conservatives opposite are treating Canadians. I look forward to seeing how the voters will treat them in 2015.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his speech.

A little earlier today, the President of the Treasury Board had a hard time answering one of the questions asked by my hon. colleague from Pontiac regarding how the Conservatives are changing the designation of essential services for Canadians in Bill C-4.

The definition of essential services will no longer be decided on jointly by workers and the government. Instead, the government will unilaterally decide which services are essential.

My question to my colleague opposite is simple: what services will the government designate as essential?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of budget implementation act No. 2. This act would ensure that important provisions in budget 2013 would be implemented.

Before discussing the highlights of the bill, I want to mention the government's plan for balancing the budget and I also want to mention Canada's economic success. This government has an effective plan to balance the budget by 2015. It is a challenging task, but achievable. As with budget 2013, the bill would help the government to achieve financial sustainability.

World leaders, of course, are very interested in Canada as a result of our government's example and our economic success. Canada leads the G7 in job creation, in income growth and in keeping debt levels low. Canada is among the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating.

The government's continued sound fiscal management will generate continued respect, but despite our strong financial performance, there are still challenges that we must face. The United States is experiencing ongoing difficulties. The European Union is continuing its long upward climb.

Last week's historic trade deal between Canada and the European Union shows our government's determination to seize international opportunities for Canada. The government must reduce its deficit so Canadians will be encouraged to do the same. We must practise what we preach.

The deficit was a justified response to the 2008-09 economic recession, but it must be temporary. By 2015, the government will balance the budget and will introduce legislation to encourage balanced budgets in the future. This will ensure that in normal economic times there will be concrete guidelines for returning to balance after any economic crisis.

With an aggressive debt to GDP target of 25% by the year 2021 and a plan in place, this government is on the right track. I am proud that the government, during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years, remains recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. I am very proud of the leadership of our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance.

The bill will deliver real solutions for Canadians and it reflects the goals of reducing the country's deficit and returning to balanced budgets. I want to highlight three aspects of the bill that I am particularly pleased with. I will elaborate on how the bill would support job creators, close tax loopholes and also respect taxpayer dollars.

Job creation is especially important to me as the representative for Kitchener Centre. BlackBerry, based in Kitchener—Waterloo, has suffered losses over the past couple of years and some of my constituents are on the hunt for jobs that match their highly talented skills. We enjoy some business incubators which support start-up companies and these include the renowned Communitech and also programs at the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, world-class leading centres of education.

As Canada's small business week wraps up tomorrow, I am grateful to say that this bill would extend the hiring credit for small business. This would benefit 560,000 job creators across Canada, and hundreds of those job creators are in my region of Kitchener—Waterloo. With over one million jobs created since the depth of the global recession, this hiring credit would create even more places for the bright minds of Canada's future.

The bill would also freeze employment insurance rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone. EI costs employees and employers hard-earned money. When I look at small businesses employing just two, three or four individuals, I see that this freeze will help owners to balance their books just as the government is balancing its books.

The government will also help the environment through the expansion of the accelerated capital cost allowance to include investments in clean energy generation. I was very pleased to see this. It adds to the government's existing investment for small business which is given through a small business financing program offered by Industry Canada and by loans offered by the Business Development Bank and by grants from the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.

Achieving clean energy solutions is a priority. The challenge business owners face is to secure initial capital to develop those long-term solutions. Finding cost-efficient clean energy solutions is critically important for our future and developing those solutions takes extensive research.

As a long-time member of the environment committee, I am always looking for ways to ensure a sustainable future. Job creators will be encouraged to continue looking for clean energy generation through the accelerated capital cost allowance measure in this bill.

I am confident that Bill C-4 will benefit small businesses, start-ups and job creators in Kitchener Centre over the next number of years based on these new initiatives.

A second focus within this bill is closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion. I want to highlight the importance of these measures.

Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that the bill would ensure that everyone would pay their fair share of taxes. When everyone is paying their fair share, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and creates incentives to invest in Canada.

The government will introduce new administrative monetary penalties and offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of software designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.

Although this government will always keep taxes low, we insist that all citizens pay all of their required taxes. Heavier penalties will force wrongdoers to use proper software and pay what they owe.

The government will also close more tax loopholes related to money transfers to ensure that everyone pays their fair share. It has already introduced rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans. There is also an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions.

Finally, the government will extend in certain circumstances the time for the Canada Revenue Agency to reassess taxpayers who fail to report income from foreign property.

The third point that I will highlight are measures to respect taxpayer dollars through initiatives introduced in March, scheduled to be rolled out upon budget approval. For example, by modernizing the Canada student loans program with digital communication, the government will deliver efficient ways for students to pay down their debt quickly and to apply for loan approvals or extensions sooner.

Another timely measure in economic action plan 2013 are steps to prevent abuse of the temporary foreign worker program, abuses which concern my constituents. The program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians were not available. It was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace Canadian workers. The reforms brought forward in the spring budget stem from the government's ongoing review of this program.

The budget would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits, enabling immediate action against employers who did not comply with the rules. These changes would also require that employers using the temporary foreign workers program pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes made to the program to remove unintended incentives to hire foreign workers. These reforms would ensure that Canadians would always be at the front of the hiring line.

Other measures will deliver important savings for Canadians. The fact is that many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than in the United States. By removing tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, budget 2013 will ensure that difference is reduced.

We can all be pleased that budget implementation bill No. 2 delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and still balancing the budget by 2015.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. I ask that members vote yes to this bill.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my comments to today's debate on Bill C-4, a piece of legislation that would create jobs and economic growth in communities across our country, including my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Indeed, today's legislation is part of our government's plan to create jobs and economic growth and to secure Canada's long-term prosperity for years to come.

As a matter of fact, since 2006, our government has been taking concrete action to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong. Unlike the high-tax New Democrats 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. That is why since 2006 we have cut taxes over 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. Overall, our strong record of tax relief has helped remove over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls. That is not all. It has also meant savings for a typical Canadian family in 2013 totalling over $3,200.

How did we accomplish this? The answer is simple. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them: personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes, and more. This includes cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; increasing the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax; introducing pension income splitting for seniors; reducing the GST from 7% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family; introducing the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs; reducing the small-business tax rate from 12% to 11%; eliminating consumer tariffs on babies' clothes, sporting goods and exercise equipment. The list goes on.

It is measures such as these, which leave more money in the pockets of Canadians, that have helped Canada to emerge from the recession in one of the strongest positions among the developed world. In fact, since the depth of the recession, over one million net new jobs have been created, with most in high-wage industries. This is by far the strongest job creation record in the entire G7. Indeed, Canada's 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. Contrary to what the opposition leaders may believe, Canada is on strong economic footing.

However, we are not the only ones who think so. Let us see what others are saying. Moody's report on Canada for 2013 states that thanks to its diversity and solid fundamentals, Canada's economy has weathered the post global financial crisis period better than most of its peers.

According to Fitch Ratings:

Canada has a good track record of prudent fiscal management. Its fiscal credibility was boosted by the timely withdrawal of the fiscal stimulus implemented during the global financial crisis and the roadmap provided...to achieve a balanced federal government fiscal position by 2015/16. ...the consolidation path is realistic.

With reviews like these, it is no wonder Canada is one of the few countries in the world to boast a triple-A credit rating from the three major credit rating agencies.

Let us talk a bit about support for job creators. Despite Canada's economic success, we cannot become complacent, and our government understands that. We have repeatedly said that Canada's economy is not immune to economic challenges 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 the Canada–EU trade agreement is so significant. It will bring an additional $12 billion annually to the Canadian economy, creating 80,000 new jobs and opening up a market of 500 million consumers and a $17-trillion economy.

That is also 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 into the future.

Today's legislation contains a number of measures to support job creation and economic growth. This includes extending and expanding the job hiring credit for small business, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers and provide an estimated $225 million in tax relief in 2013. Bill C-4 would also increase and index the lifetime capital gains exemption. This positive measure would increase the rewards of investing in small business by making it easier for owners to transfer their family business to the next generation of Canadians. Today's legislation would also expand the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation.

That is not all. Our government is continuing to build on our sound economic position by freezing EI premium rates for the next three years. This action alone would leave $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Despite what the opposition may have us believe, this tax relief would help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustained, business-led, long-term growth. However, do not take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say. Diane J. Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada agrees. She says, “This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure.”

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the “announcement of an EI rate freeze is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs. 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.”

There is more. Joyce Reynolds, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association's executive-vice president of government affairs notes:

Payroll costs have a significant impact on overall labour costs. They are a barrier to hiring, particularly for inexperienced workers.... We are pleased the government is demonstrating commitment to youth...by holding the line on these profit-insensitive costs.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadian families. I encourage the members opposite to vote in favour of this important measure, which would leave more money in the hands of Canadians.

Canada is leading the world in job creation, with more than one million net new jobs created since the depth of the recession. However, there is work yet to be done. That is why implementing Canada's economic action plan is so important. It is for that reason that I urge all members of the House, and especially the members opposite, to support these job creating measures.

Although, who are we kidding, we all know the opposition will be voting against these measures as they have time and time again. The only thing the NDP seems to support are risky spending schemes and forcing a $20 billion carbon tax on Canadian consumers and job creators. That is more than I can say for the Liberals, who unbelievably do not even have a plan for the economy. They have announced the plan will be released during election mode in 2015. That is unheard of.

It is clear, and Canadians know this, that when it comes to the economy, our Conservative government continues to be the right choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-4 regarding the implementation of budget 2013. Budget 2013 is full of good news and helpful measures for my community of Mississauga and, indeed, all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the measures that are of great significance to my community, but before I do so, I believe it is important to note what is not in budget 2013. What is clearly missing from budget 2013 is new taxes. That is right; unlike Liberal budgets of the past and the dreams of the NDP, our government did not increase the tax burden on hard-working Canadians. In fact, our government has reduced the tax burden on working Canadians and job creators more than 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in more than 50 years.

Our government is delivering more than $60 billion in tax relief to job-creating businesses. The federal general corporate income tax rate was reduced from 21% to 15% and the corporate surtax that represented an additional 1.12% was eliminated for all corporations. The small business tax rate, which is so important to the thousands of small business owners and their employees in Mississauga, was reduced from 12% to 11% and the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000.

In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant annual savings for a typical family of four of over $3,200. We have achieved this by cutting the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%; increasing the amount that Canadians can earn without paying tax; introducing pension income splitting for seniors; reducing the GST from 7% to 5% and putting an estimated $1,000 back into the pockets of an average family; introducing and enhancing the working income tax benefit; introducing the tax-free savings account, which is the most important personal savings vehicle since the RRSP; and increasing the age credit and the pension income credit. Overall, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls.

As a lawyer engaged in advising businesses, I unfortunately witnessed thousands of jobs leave Canada during the 1990s and early 2000s due to very high personal and business tax rates compared to those in most other industrialized nations. For years, businesses chose to create jobs elsewhere and individual entrepreneurs and people with high technology skills chose to live in the United States because the unreasonably high tax rates in Canada made it difficult for them to operate a viable business.

Today, the combined federal and provincial corporate tax rates in Canada compare very favourably with those in jurisdictions such as the states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and California, places that we compete with every day for the creation of jobs. This is particularly the reason why our national unemployment rate is below that of the United States for the first time in 30 years and our job-creation record is the best in the G7. With our enviable fiscal situation, having the lowest net debt to GDP ratio in the G7, we are in a very good position to keep our taxes at low and reasonable levels while our counterparts in the United States and Europe will be forced to raise their taxes to reduce their deficits and debts.

When I first ran for office, people in my community said they did not believe that any politician would actually lower taxes. Our government, led by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, did exactly that, and they began reducing taxes immediately upon forming government in 2006. The Mississauga Board of Trade has told me it believes that our government's tax policies have helped its members' businesses survive the recession, recover, expand and hire new employees. These are some of the most important reasons that our economy is doing much better than our competitors in the United States and Europe and that Forbes magazine has declared that Canada is the best place in the world in which to do business. I am confident that our government's tax policies will help to ensure a bright economic future for all Canadians.

In addition to the good news about taxes, the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget speech that Canada remains on track to balance the budget in 2015-16. This is very good news indeed. In addition to holding the line on government growth, budget 2013 includes more savings in government spending, totalling $2 billion by 2015-16 through numerous common sense improvements, including reducing wasteful departmental spending, reducing travel costs through the use of technology, continuing to control public service compensation and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit a select few.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada is leading the G7 in net debt to GDP ratio, and at the recent G20 conference in Russia, the Prime Minister showed real international leadership in committing to further reduce Canada's net debt to GDP ratio to 25% and encouraged other G20 nations to follow Canada's lead and make the same government spending reductions necessary to reduce their debt ratios as well.

In today's very competitive global marketplace, it is important that our manufacturers continually upgrade their productive machinery and equipment to make use of the most efficient and up-to-date technology. Utilizing the latest processes improves the quality and marketability of their products, reduces their costs of production and makes them more energy efficient.

Our government understands these realities of modern business. That is why I was very pleased to see that in budget 2013, our government is providing an additional $1.4 billion in tax relief to job creators through a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new machinery and equipment.

This is very good news, especially in light of the Prime Minister's announcement of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. Our manufacturers now have very good reason to want to invest in new plants and machinery as they ramp up to take full advantage of the unprecedented access to the more than 500 million European consumers that the CETA agreement will provide to Canadian producers.

The extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance could not have come at a better time. Our government understands that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. More Canadians are employed in small businesses of less than 10 employees than in any other size of business.

Many of my neighbours in Mississauga are new Canadians. They have come to Canada from every nation in the world with skills, drive and ambition, strong work ethics and a determination to succeed. However, most new Canadians do not find work in the ranks of large industrial corporations. More often than not, they start their own small businesses and create work for other Canadians.

That is why I am happy to note that budget 2013 will extend and expand the temporary hiring credit for small businesses. An estimated 560,000 employers will benefit from this measure, and it is expected to save small businesses about $225 million in 2013.

I have been told by many small business owners that this has helped them to expand, and with the signing of the CETA agreement, these entrepreneurs will be able to meet the new opportunities created by opening European markets to our goods and services.

Investments in public infrastructure create jobs, drive economic growth and provide a high quality of life for families in Mississauga and every community across Canada. Mississauga and Peel region have benefited greatly from investments made by our government since 2006 in transit, roads, water treatment, a new celebration square, improvements to community centres, libraries and pools, a new instructional centre for University of Toronto Mississauga and a new Mississauga campus of Sheridan College, among dozens of other projects.

Mississauga and other municipalities have been asking for long-term predictable infrastructure funding. Budget 2013 delivers this certainty for the next 10 years by providing more than $53 billion in predictable infrastructure funding.

This represents the largest and longest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history, including a community improvement fund of $32.2 billion through gas tax fund payments and the GST rebate for municipalities to support community infrastructure projects that will improve the quality of life of Canadian families; a new building Canada fund of $14 billion to support major economic infrastructure projects; a renewed P3 Canada fund of $1.25 billion to build infrastructure projects faster through public private partnerships; and over $10 billion in investments in federal public infrastructure.

Canadians know that our Conservative government believes in keeping families strong. Budget 2013 contains several key measures to help Canadian families, including enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the unique costs associated with adopting a child, and supporting palliative care services.

Canadian businesses succeed globally and are well poised to take advantage of the new opportunities created by unfettered access to the European market by continually innovating and commercializing new products and technologies. Our government is supporting them by improving support for Canada's aerospace industry by investing almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, which will benefit important Mississauga employers such as Pratt and Whitney Canada and Honeywell.

All of these measures and more will ensure the future economic prosperity and security and quality of life for the people of Mississauga and all Canadians. For these reasons, I am pleased to support Bill C-4 and encourage all hon. members to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn our attention to changes in Bill C-4 that were necessitated by the rush in passing the previous budget implementation bill, the changes that were unintended that caused further tax damage to credit unions.

I am also aware of changes in this new bill, Bill C-4, that will be required because of mistakes made in treating income for fishermen by failing to properly deal with the income for fishermen versus highest weeks, versus their total take for the season.

It seems to me that we can make a very good case as members of the opposition that the Conservative Party mania for refusing amendments and for pushing bills through quickly is forcing Parliament over and over again to go back and pass new legislation months later to fix mistakes. Bill C-45 fixed mistakes that were in Bill C-38. Now Bill C-4 is fixing mistakes that were in Bill C-60.

Could my hon. friend give me any of her thoughts on the problems of holding up the House through passing bills too quickly?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. It was interesting to hear the Conservative House leader talk about the planned deficit reduction and how the Conservatives were ahead by $7 billion. A good question that would be welcomed at some point for the government to answer is exactly how much of that deficit reduction was as a result of money that did not flow to approved programs and services. We have certainly heard from communities that money they expected to see or proposals they had submitted had not been funded, despite the government announcements. Therefore, it would be good for the House to know that.

This bill is the second act to implement budget 2013. It is another budget implementation bill that is about 300 pages. This legislation amends or repeals 70 pieces of legislation. Some of what it tackles is: it strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers in the hands of the minister; it significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse to work in unsafe conditions; it moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service; and it guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council.

I want to thank our House leader, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for raising the fact that once again the government has limited debate. This is the fourth attempt by the Conservatives to evade scrutiny by parliamentarians and the public. In the past we had Bill C-38, Bill C-45 and Bill C-60. Canadians deserve an opportunity to hear a detailed, thorough, in-depth study of such wide-ranging pieces of legislation, yet we have the limiting of the ability of the House to scrutinize the legislation. Why should we care about that?

In the past we saw the government bring forward legislation that had errors in it. Because of the complexity of the legislation and the length of time we had to review it, the government had to bring forward subsequent legislation to correct that.

This legislation is fixing something that happened due to a technical mistake in Bill C-60, which would have doubled the taxation level of credit unions and caisse populaires. In September, tax experts discovered that the changes made in Bill C-60 would result in Quebec taxpayers being overburdened on dividends compared to taxpayers in other provinces.

Because I only have 10 minutes, I will focus on three particular aspects of the legislation.

First, the legislation would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Second, it would fix the mistakes with respect to the tax hike on credit unions.

Third, it would push ahead the Conservative plan on the $350 million tax hike on labour sponsored venture capital funds.

With respect to veterans, Bill C-4 would reduce the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from 28 to 25. What is disappointing is that it was an opportunity for the Conservatives to bring forward separate legislation that looked to improve the Conservative record on veterans affairs. We know the NDP has not always been happy with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, but simply changing numbers will not improve the situation.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the veterans office has closed and veterans are now forced to go further afield in order to get the services they require.

Just so Canadians understand a bit about the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, of the 76,446 Canadian Forces' clients of Veterans Affairs Canada, 1,400 are totally and permanently disabled and 406 of them will not receive a pension or allowance from the Canadian Forces.

The plan proposed by the ombudsman is based on an actuarial analysis to accurately determine for the first time how current benefits neglect certain veterans and will continue to neglect them unless changes are made quickly. Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has said that more than 400 of the most severely disabled veterans in Canada are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan, while hundreds of other permanently disabled veterans could suffer the same fate and risk spending their retirement years at a lower standard of living than they had before the age of 65 due to sufficient income.

Certainly in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we hear regularly from veterans and their families about their difficulties in accessing services, that they cannot get access to some services that they expected and that the money that is available simply does not respect and honour the service to our country that many veterans made.

I have spoken in the House previously about my father being a long-serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces and I am proud to say that I grew up on army bases from coast to coast.

I have a letter from a former member of the RCMP that talks about the assault on health care benefits for members of the armed forces and the RCMP. I will read a brief note from that because I think this is part of what the Veterans Appeal Board hears about the discrepancy and the difficulties in funding and whether a member is entitled to funding. The member said:

I have written...expressing my concern and profound disappointment with the fact that the government has arbitrarily decided to claw back so many necessary treatments after we risked our health and indeed our lives...I was assured that my health and the welfare of my family would be looked after. That sacred trust has been unabashedly broken.

While that in and of itself is repugnant, my greater fear is that once the members begin to see that their efforts in ensuring the safety of Canadians may actually result in huge costs to them, they will necessarily become more hesitant to engage in actions that risk their health and well being. This policy is short-sighted, unfair and contrary to Canadian values.

When we ask members of the armed forces or members of the RCMP to risk life and limb, we need to respect that when they come back to Canada or when they retire from the forces, they are treated in a fair and respectful manner. It would be incumbent upon the government to actually work with veterans and their families to ensure the services provided are adequate.

The second piece I will touch on is fixing the mistake on the credit unions' tax hike.

The bill introduces changes to fix a legislative error the Conservatives made by rushing the last omnibus budget bill through. Their mistake hiked taxes on credit unions to 28%, instead of the intended 15%.

I will read from the Credit Union Central of Manitoba remarks to a House of Commons standing committee on Bill C-60. The reason I quote from that previous presentation is because it highlights the importance of credit unions in our communities. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan we have a couple of different credit unions and they are very important in all of our communities, but in particular, in some of our smaller communities. The Credit Union Central of Manitoba said:

Many credit union branches are in communities that other financial institutions vacated because they were not deemed profitable enough. Our business model, paired with fair tax policy like the additional deduction, has made it both possible and attractive for credit unions to grow in places where our competitors have retreated.

It goes on to say that the removal in Bill C-60 of the additional deductions of credit unions would simply compound the impact of regulatory demands by requiring credit unions to pay a higher portion of their net income in federal tax and further reduce their ability to build capital, invest in new technology and stay competitive.

This was a brief that was presented when Bill C-60 was in the House for a reading and because we had limited time to debate that, there was not enough attention paid to that and other presentations on the impact of Bill C-60, so now we are amending that mistake.

It concludes its presentation by saying:

I would argue that this tax deduction has proven to be good public policy. If it were to remain in place it would continue to be good public policy because it will help credit unions provide effective competition in the financial services sector and assist with the federal government's stated desire to increase competition in this sector. It would also represent good public policy by helping maintain strong financial services in as many communities as possible and contribute to the sustainability of the many communities in rural Canada where credit unions are the only financial institution.

On the venture capital program, this has been a very successful program in British Columbia. There was an evaluation of the venture capital program and it indicated that not only did it contribute to job creation, but it also contributed to the fact that it helped grow companies which then went on to expand and become more successful companies.

Removing the supports for that program is unfortunate, particularly when the government continues to talk about the importance of job creation and supporting small business. Therefore, we would like to see the government reverse its decision on that.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition House leader for this opportunity to once again confirm the approach of the government when it comes to the use of section 78(3), which is time allocation.

The purpose of section 78(3) is to allow the facilitation of the scheduling of our business here in Parliament. The member has often said that it is designed to limit debate, but we have always said it is not designed for that purpose at all. Time allocation is designed to ensure adequate debate and to create certainty for members of Parliament so they will know when the debate will occur. It provides some certainty of when to expect a vote to occur, so that members can organize their affairs in that manner. It facilitates the business of the House so that there is adequate debate and decisions are made.

For that reason, he has said on a number of occasions now that the amount of time we have provided is as long as he wishes or longer than he wishes. That is because time allocation is not a device for eliminating debate but a device for scheduling the House in an orderly and productive manner. That has been our approach throughout, as it was today.

This afternoon, in that regard we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013 act. The bill was introduced on Tuesday on the heels of an impressive announcement from the Minister of Finance indicating that recent projections for the federal deficit show that the government is making strong progress, reducing that deficit by a further $7 billion.

Bill C-4 would build upon this strong track record. It includes initiatives that will build a strong economy and create jobs, support job creators, close tax loopholes, combat international tax evasion, and respect taxpayers' dollars.

Over half a million job creators will benefit from our expansion of the hiring credit for small business that is in the bill.

We are also introducing new penalties and offences for criminal tax evasion, while closing tax loopholes.

As always, we continue to respect taxpayers' dollars with initiatives that will improve the efficiency of the temporary foreign workers program and modernize the Canada student loans program.

That debate will continue tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday.

On Wednesday, we will debate a bill to establish the Canadian Museum of History, which is listed on today's notice paper.

Next Thursday, we start debating Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which was introduced this morning.

Finally, as hon. members will recall, the House unanimously—and kindly—agreed earlier this week that the House will not sit on Friday, November 1, to enable Conservative members to attend our policy convention in Calgary.

Second Reading

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to stand here today to talk about Canada's economic action plan 2013, a plan for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

Bill C-4 will allow us to continue with the implementation of our economic action plan 2013. With that in mind, I would like to remind my colleagues of the many great things contained in the budget this year. I encourage all of my constituents, and indeed all Canadians, to visit the website at actionplan.gc.ca, where they will be able to find all of the pertinent information regarding the budget, including Bill C-4.

Let us start with the new building Canada plan, which would provide funds of over $53 billion over 10 years. Part of that is the new building Canada fund. Economic action plan 2013 would provide $14 billion over 10 years. Of that, $4 billion will be found in the national infrastructure fund, which will support investments in projects of national significance. There is also a $10 billion provincial-territorial infrastructure fund that would support projects at the regional and local level.

The new building Canada plan also contains a community improvement plan, which consists of an indexed gas tax fund and an incremental GST rebate for municipalities. All of this would equal over $32 billion.

Last but not least, the new building Canada plan contains a P3 Canada fund, which would renew a project that already exists. We strongly believe that P3s are a good way to accomplish great things while saving taxpayers money.

I would like to talk about another major item in our economic action plan 2013. That is our plan to create high-paying jobs and help businesses succeed. This one contains many things that will be important to my riding.

One of the biggest items is the two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investment in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector. As we all know, Alberta is Canada's beating heart when it comes to growth of industry in the energy sector. In my riding, I know that some of the local firms are looking at expanding their operations, and I think the accelerated capital cost allowance will be a major factor in encouraging them to make that decision. That means more jobs for the people of my riding of Medicine Hat. That is a good thing.

Economic action plan 2013 continues to build on what we have already worked on for some time with continuing investments in world-class research and innovation.

One of the most important items contained in the plan is that we would extend the temporary hiring credit for small business for one year. That is encouraging, and I know it will be beneficial to small businesses in my riding.

The Medicine Hat District Chamber of Commerce's executive director, Lisa Kowalchuck, said our budget is a well-thought-out budget because we want to reduce the deficit and there are no tax increases, and from a business standpoint, that's positive. She went on to praise the extension of the temporary hiring credit. It has helped local small businesses and has contributed to their hiring of new workers.

I am proud of our government's continued support. After all, thanks to our economic action plan, we have seen the creation of over one million net new jobs in Canada since 2009. The majority of those, 90%, are full-time positions, and nearly 80% of those are in the private sector. If we want to talk about good news, that is one great piece of news.

We also have a record to brag about when it comes to supporting families. Our record of tax relief means savings of over $3,200 for a typical Canadian family of four in 2013. My colleague from Manitoba just expounded on that as a mother of four. Certainly she was pleased to have that $3,200 in her pocket to spend on her children.

Since 2006, we have cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We established the tax-free savings account. We introduced the children's fitness tax credit. We introduced the family caregiver tax credit. We introduced the universal child care benefit. We introduced the volunteer firefighter tax credit. I know some of my constituents are quite pleased with that one.

Continuing with our plan, I know that this year's phase includes many things that would assist farmers in growing their operations. I have a lot of farmers in my riding; those who grow wheat and barley are quite pleased with the fact that they can now sell their wheat to whomever they choose, including the Canadian Wheat Board. I think those farmers have seen record returns on their products since that change, but I digress.

Economic action plan 2013 contains many important points that will help farmers, and I would like to take a moment to enumerate a few of those things.

First, we are going to increase the restricted farm loss deduction limit. This measure in particular will help families that engage in part-time farming. We will raise the limit to $17,500, meaning that part-time farmers would be able to apply that much money against their income from other sources. This limit has not been raised in 20 years, so that is definitely due.

Another item in the budget that I think will be good for my farmers, and indeed farmers all across Canada, is the increase in lifetime capital gains exemption. Budget 2013 proposes an increase of $50,000 so that it would apply to capital gains up to $800,000. Also, the lifetime capital gains exemption would now be indexed to inflation for taxation years after 2014. That is another thing that will assist them. I am sure my farmers are tickled pink.

In terms of clean energy, our government remains committed to that industry. With that in mind, we will provide an accelerated capital cost allowance for those who have invested in specified clean energy generation and conservation equipment. In a time when we are looking for innovation in the energy sector, I believe that this will help spur it on.

Another measure in this budget that will be beneficial to my constituents is the section on tariff relief for Canadian consumers. This measure is extremely important for young families, especially in my riding. I know that it can be a hassle, so economic action plan 2013 would give tariff relief to Canadian consumers. Specifically, we are cutting tariffs on all baby clothing and on sports and athletic equipment. I believe that this is good news for young families who have active kids.

On a final note, I would like to enumerate some of the budgetary measures that will help us face our labour shortages, which are an issue for many Albertans and Canadians. I receive letters all the time from constituents concerned about finding skilled people to fill their job openings in their small businesses. It is an ongoing issue, and I am glad to see that with this budget our government has addressed some of the problems.

First, we are creating the Canada job grant, which should provide $15,000 or more per person, including the federal contribution and matching provincial-territorial portion and employers' portions, to ensure that Canadians are getting the skilled employees they are seeking. As a former employer, I know that employers know what skills their people need. I know a number of small business owners in my riding personally who will be investing that $5,000 to get more trained employees. They would get an employee who can get the training that they need, whether it is a community college certificate, an apprenticeship, or training by a trade union. They would have a job at the end of it, and it would be a win-win. Who could argue with that? This is a win-win situation for all involved, and what is not to like about that?

We are also creating opportunities for apprentices by making it more practical and easier to get the experience needed to make the leap to journeyman status.

We are also aiming at assisting persons with disabilities to have an easier time accessing the labour market. That is an ongoing task, and it is one that I am proud of. This budget would create the Canadian employers' disability forum. The forum would be led by a number of Canadian businesses, like Loblaws, and would be managed by employers. It would be a place where they could come together to share ideas about the hiring and retention of persons with disabilities.

Finally, we are bringing reform to the immigration system with programs such as the new expression of interest immigration management system. It would allow for Canadian employers, provinces, and territories to select skilled immigrants from a pool of applicants that best meet Canada's economic needs. This is crucial to my constituents. Many of them rely on hard-working new Canadians as the backbone of their workforce.

I know you have given me the signal, Mr. Speaker, but I encourage all of my colleagues to vote “yea” for Bill C-4 so that we can continue to implement our action plan 2013.

I look forward to any questions from my colleagues.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her questions, albeit misguided ones.

I am a mother of a 15-year-old and a 22-year-old. I have not seen many families who think they would rather take $3,200 and hand it to the government instead of spending it on their children, on their family, on their children's education, and on their children's future. I am a member of a government that has given $3,200 to every family, putting it in their pocket so that they can make decisions on how they choose to invest for their children.

I know we are very happy investing in the education of our children, and I know a lot of families feel the same way. Who better to be able to invest?

Furthermore, with Bill C-4 we are modernizing the Canada student loans program. We are very proud to be a part of such an essential part of enabling children to continue with their education as they become young adults. That is what we are about: making sure that we are giving the money to the people who can use it for their families.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat today.

I am so pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg South Centre and speak to my colleagues in the House of Commons about the economic action plan 2013.

As a chartered accountant, I am very proud to be part of a government that gives Canadians sound fiscal planning, job creation and economic growth.

As a mother, I am very grateful for the government's direction on long-term prosperity. We must always be mindful of how our spending affects future generations. We need to be responsible and ensure that our children start their lives without their futures mortgaged because of irresponsible tax and spend government. We have to ensure we do the best job possible for our children. It matters for their future.

Our government is acting to ensure that our children enjoy a prosperous future in Canada. On October 22, the hon. Minister of Finance tabled the economic action plan, part 2, Bill C-4. The bill provides support for job creators. It respects taxpayers' dollars and it closes tax loopholes to combat tax evasion and make it fair so when people are paying their fair share of taxes, they know someone else is also doing the same.

We made promises to Canadians to follow through and we are acting on those promises, the ability to ensure that we are delivering for Canadians, not dithering and talking about it.

Regarding the economic action plan of March 13, I would like to recap a few things regarding the economy, job creation and particularly tax cutting that we have already done for Canadians. Our budget laid the groundwork to reduce taxes for hard-working families, to reduce taxes for hard-working businesses that are creating jobs for hard-working families and to lay the groundwork for long-term prosperity.

We all know and have seen daily in the newspapers that by implementing Canada's economic action plan, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7 and our net debt to GDP ratio remains the lowest in the G7 by far, at 34.6%. I want to ensure that people realize what an accomplishment that debt to GDP ratio is, because our closest colleague is Germany at 57.2%. In fact, the average in the G7 is well over 90% net debt to GDP ratio, so Canadians can and should be extremely proud of the efforts that this government has made to put us on a firm fiscal framework.

At the same time, we do not presume that we are out of the woods yet. We know the economy remains fragile and we are taking actions to ensure we are well protected. That is why we have created jobs. We have created more than one million net new jobs since the depths of the global recession in July 2009 and the vast majority of those jobs are full-time and in the private sector.

The unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 2008 and it is significantly lower than the United States.

We have extended the enabling accessibility fund by providing $15 million a year in perpetuity. It is permanent funding to support community projects that improve accessibility, remove barriers and allow Canadians with disabilities to participate fully and contribute to their communities.

As well, economic action plan 2013 delivers a new building Canada plan that will provide over $53 billion in predictable infrastructure funding. That is the largest and longest federal investment in job creating infrastructure in all of Canadian history.

We have introduced the accelerated capital cost allowance for new manufacturing machinery and equipment by increasing support to manufacturers. Just the two years of extension puts $1.4 billion in the pockets of job creators, businesses that are making those important investments to get Canada working.

We have added $1 billion to the strategic aerospace and defence initiative. As a member of the aerospace caucus, I feel it is very important to underline that 40 businesses with over 5,500 employees working in Manitoba will benefit tremendously from those investments.

Cutting taxes is what we do. We have colleagues in the NDP and Liberal Party who want to increase taxes. Our Conservative government believes in low taxes and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job-creating businesses.

As a proud Manitoban, I have never encountered an individual who wanted to pay more taxes. Recently, we have seen the anger of people who would much rather have a dollar in their pocket to spend on their children than adding 1% to the PST in the province. We are not just talking about cutting taxes, we are actually doing it.

Since 2006, we have cut taxes 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest in 50 years. That tax reduction work has put $3,200 on average more in the household account, in the personal income, of an average family of four. As a mother of an average family of four, I am very grateful. Parents know how to spend the money. Moms know how to spend the money.

We are a government that is reducing the tax cost to all families and ensuring that families have more money. We have done that by increasing the amount that Canadians can earn without paying any tax. We have reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We have introduced pension income splitting for seniors. We have introduced tax-free savings accounts, which is the biggest tax free personal saving vehicle for Canadians since the introduction of the RRSP. We have cut the GST.

Just on that point, I saw an interesting quote that our colleague, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, made on raising the GST. He said, “It's an option. All I can say is that it is consistent with our approach”. This is a tax option and an approach that is consistent with the Liberal approach. The Conservative government lowers taxes.

We are so proud that the Prime Minister signed the CETA agreement. That will make an enormous difference. It is another accomplishment that adds more than $1,000 on average to the average taxpayer's income.

Not only will the agreement contribute to our significant economic well-being, we are a government that is committed to ensuring we are focused on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity, long-term prosperity not just for our generation but for all the generations to come. Our government is absolutely focused on this expenditure. We are doing that with Bill C-4.

We are making the right choices. We are making the hard choices. However, we are being responsible and ensuring that we will have a firm framework for all Canadians in the future.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to ask the hon. member if there are any businesses in her riding that might benefit from the accelerated capital cost allowance, which we have put into Bill C-4, our new budget. This is going to have an impact of $1.4 billion just for the two-year extension. That is significant. Are there any businesses in her riding that might benefit?

Also, are there any people with disabilities in her riding who might benefit from the $15 million annually in perpetuity that we are funding so people who live with disabilities can be an integral part of our community, have more accessibility and be able to contribute?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Bill C-4, the budget implementation bill, was introduced on Tuesday. That same evening, the government provided a briefing on the bill in English only. Since it was in English only, which is against the rules, the Conservatives had to start over last night, after the debate had already started. When the second presentation on Bill C-4 was given—this time in both languages—the Conservatives themselves admitted that they had not consulted everyone affected by the bill. The Conservatives are not doing their job. Their measures are flawed, haphazard, amateurish and disrespectful.

What is more, the Conservatives are once again imposing a time allocation motion. They are allocating only five days of debate to a third, botched omnibus bill that is 300 pages long and amends dozens of laws, many of which have nothing to do with the budget.

This shows just how little respect the Conservatives have for our democracy and our parliamentary structures. This lack of respect clearly demonstrates that the Conservative government is old and worn out and has no vision for the future of Canada and our various regions.

Once again, parliamentarians must debate and examine important changes, including some meant to correct errors made by the Conservatives themselves. This government is attacking Canadians' quality of life by gutting environmental protections, raising the price of consumer goods and doing nothing to protect consumers. Furthermore, the Conservatives have failed to kick-start the economy and create high-quality jobs.

With this bill, the Prime Minister is once again undermining the government's ability to help and protect Canadians. Workers are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

The most substantial and most reprehensible changes in the latest budget implementation bill will affect Canada's labour environment. This bill fundamentally changes Canadians' right to a healthy and safe working environment.

When workers' health and safety is being attacked, there is a problem. Yet that is exactly what this bill does. Indeed, it removes the powers granted to health and safety officers by the Canada Labour Code and gives those powers to the minister. Do the members opposite really believe that taking basic protections away from workers will go unnoticed?

In addition, it will be harder for employees to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. The NDP firmly believes that no worker should ever be forced to work in dangerous conditions. Why place nearly all powers related to health and safety in the hands of the minister? It is likely in order to be able to place employees and send them wherever the minister wants to send them.

We definitely see a pattern in the government's decisions in recent years. Employment insurance is an excellent example. The bill eliminates the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board and gives the Minister of Finance the power to manipulate rates. Having an independent and accountable body to oversee EI financing was in fact a Conservative promise. Now that promise has been broken. This is just one more broken promise.

People from Charlevoix, the upper north shore, many regions in Quebec and the Maritimes remember the back-to-back Liberal and Conservative governments that shamelessly pillaged $57 billion from the employment insurance fund, that artificially pushed premiums too high to surreptitiously tax people, or that artificially dropped premiums too low to prove that the program did not work and needed to be cut. Workers deserve better.

The bill also extends the $1,000 hiring tax credit for small business. The NDP proposed a $2,000 hiring tax credit that would not come out of the employment insurance fund and that would help businesses hire and train young workers.

The Quebec economy is built on small and medium-sized businesses. They create jobs in the regions. Côte-de-Beaupré, Île d'Orléans, Charlevoix, the upper north shore and Quebec City are no exception. There is also the fact that so many of our industries are seasonal. However, this government does not seem to care about our communities.

This bill also affects National Research Council Canada. Once again, the government is gutting a Canadian institution, just as it gutted some of our most respected scientific research institutions, just as it fired some of Canada's best scientists and researchers without consulting the scientific community and without evaluating the potential consequences on Canada's scientific capability and its international reputation. Myriad experts, scientists and civil servants were muzzled or fired for not toeing the Conservative line.

The budget implementation bill has the National Research Council in the crosshairs. The Conservatives are cutting nearly half the jobs, but are giving the president, whom they appoint, more authority. Wow, bravo.

The Conservatives made a mistake when they increased taxes on credit unions. This bill proposes changes to fix that mistake, which was made when they rammed the omnibus budget bill through the House.

As result of this mistake, credit unions were facing a tax hike of 28% rather than 15%. On this side of the House, we are very disappointed to see that the Conservatives have not learned from their mistakes and that they are once again using an omnibus bill. It was a bad decision to raise credit unions' taxes, but the Conservatives like raising taxes secretly or on the sly.

The NDP has been fighting tax evasion since the party was created. We support the various technical amendments in this budget implementation bill that seek to reduce tax evasion.

However, we find it troubling that the Conservatives are not taking the issue of tax havens seriously and are not cracking down on individuals and companies that do not pay their fair share of taxes. Let us not forget that, even as this government claims to want to do more to fight tax evasion, it is making cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

Another area that is affected is the public service, which is clearly being attacked in this bill. The changes being made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act do away with binding arbitration as a method of settling disputes. Why would a government make such a change if not to instigate labour disputes among public servants?

My colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, gave a very good speech about venture capital funds. The Conservatives are going ahead with their $350 million tax hike on venture capital funds, despite the strong opposition of that sector and the fact that a lack of venture capital has a negative impact on the ability to start and grow businesses. The Conservatives are going after one of our country's most important economic drivers, and it does not make any sense.

In conclusion, we are currently dealing with a Conservative government that makes purely ideological decisions and that is hijacking the government process—both Parliament and responsibilities of the state—for its own partisan purposes. The government is sabotaging programs to make it easier to eliminate them. It is sabotaging our parliamentary structures and it is circumventing our election laws.

Because of a lack of time, I mentioned only a few aspects of this bill. I spoke about them in a fairly general way and there were some that I did not have time to talk about. We should have the time to debate every aspect of the bill. That is what happens when a government has contempt for democracy and our parliamentary structures.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-4.

Earlier, when I asked the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques a question, I wanted to know whether the process behind all this was flawed. There was a mistake in another budget implementation bill, and it had major repercussions on credit unions such as the Caisses Desjardins in Quebec. That mistake was discovered after the bill was passed by Parliament, at which point the situation had to be corrected.

I wonder whether my colleague can assure us today that in this 308-page bill there will not be similar mistakes that fly under the radar because the process is too quick for studying such lengthy bills.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

The bill cannot be considered in isolation. Bill C-4 implements parts of this year's budget, and this year's budget is just another phase in Canada's economic action plan, an approach to governance that has allowed Canada's economy to lead the world through unstable times. Since the global financial crisis that triggered this uncertainty, each year I hear members opposite claim that the government's policies would end up hurting Canadians. Each year statistics prove their worries are totally unfounded. While members opposite continue to attack our Minister of Finance, impartial experts continue to honour him as the world's best.

While I expect the hyperbole to continue in discussing Bill C-4, I would remind Canadians to consider the following when they hear the opposition parties attacking our record. Our debt to GDP ratio is by far the lowest in the G7. Since the depth of the global recession, Canada has created almost a million net new jobs, the strongest record in the G7. These facts are praiseworthy on their own, but please also remember that we are on track to return to surplus. When the budget returns to surplus, we will not only enjoy the strongest record of job creation and fiscal discipline in the industrialized world, but we will also enjoy the benefits of investments made during the stimulus phase.

In Waterloo region, we have seen much needed expansion to our local post-secondary institutions to develop the talent and innovation that we need to remain prosperous. Conestoga College is better positioned than ever before to help business innovate their processes, and now operates a school of food processing technologies. Food and food processing is Ontario's second largest industry, but this school is the first of its kind in Ontario. We have seen community centres built or refurbished, and critical infrastructure such as waste water and roads renewed. We have witnessed the explosive growth of high technology startups, coalescing around the federally supported Communitech hub.

We have seen the impact of programs designed for southwestern Ontario delivered by way of the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, or FedDev, helping businesses such as Miovision Technologies capture new markets, and non-profits such as the Southern Ontario Locomotive Restoration Society build a station for the Waterloo Central Railway, a tourist link between the city of Waterloo and St. Jacobs in the township of Woolwich. The agricultural adaptation program has supported businesses such as Martin's Family Fruit Farm, bringing apple chips to market, a healthy snack food that opens new markets for Canadian orchards. I could devote an entire speech to the investments our government has made in the Region of Waterloo Airport in Breslau that resulted in a safer facility, capable of handling a more diverse set of aircraft, which is critical for our area's continued growth.

All of this was accomplished during the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, while remaining on track for our return to surplus and without raising taxes on Canadians; all of this without raising punitive taxes on Canadians, as both opposition parties are calling for; all of this without gutting transfers to the provinces, as the previous Liberal government did. How is it possible, Canadians may wonder, for a government to maintain the world's best financial position, while also maintaining low taxes, maintaining transfers to provinces and individuals, and renewing Canada's infrastructure on top of all of that.

In my opening comments I noted that Bill C-4 implements budget 2013, which is the latest phase of Canada's economic action plan. However, even Canada's economic action plan is itself an implementation of our Conservative government's long-term financial plan for Canada, released in 2006, called Advantage Canada. Advantage Canada outlined the five priority themes our government would focus on through good times and bad. Our belief was that if Canada could focus on lowering taxes, keeping our books in order, unleashing our entrepreneurial culture, building world-class talent and maintaining world-class infrastructure, Canada could reach new levels of prosperity to pass on to our children and to our children's children.

Budget 2013 continued our focus on these priorities, and Bill C-4 implements measures that will enhance Canada's advantage in these key areas. Bill C-4, among other things, expands the eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance to include a broader range of equipment used in clean energy generation and biogas production. Budget 2013 renewed the accelerated capital cost allowance, and Bill C-4 expands on that application.

The accelerated capital cost allowance has been praised by businesses of all sizes in my riding. From Riverside Brass in New Hamburg to Chemtura in Elmira, businesses are investing in new equipment to keep themselves on top of a competitive global economy, thanks to our initiative. Depreciation is used by businesses to write off the value of their equipment according to government-set schedules. By accelerating the depreciation schedule to a more realistic rate, we are allowing the tax system to recognize the speed of business rather than slowing business to the speed of government. By making more of the equipment that is used in clean energy and biogas production eligible for the accelerated capital cost allowance, we are removing obstacles to growth.

Bill C-4 would also implement budget 2013's commitment to extend the hiring credit. This measure incents small businesses, Canada's largest source of job creation, to expand and grow by providing up to $1,000 to offset the increase in EI premiums as an employer takes on employment with new growth. Over a half a million small businesses would take advantages of this opportunity, creating jobs for Canadians.

However, the legislation would do more than help small businesses grow and create jobs. Bill C-4 would make it more attractive for Canadians to pursue entrepreneurship and to pass their businesses on to the next generation. Small-business owners were happy to hear that Bill C-4 would increase their lifetime capital gains exemption by $50,000 to a total of $800,000, but they were ecstatic to learn that going forward this would be indexed. Many of them remember when the lifetime capital gains exemption went unadjusted for almost two decades, until this government assumed office. That is one more example of 13 years of inaction. It was wrong. It was unfair to small-business owners, who often put over 60 hours each week into their business, to blame inflation for making their retirement less and less viable. Never again.

If I could be permitted to diverge for a quick moment, many of my colleagues have asked what the mood is like in Waterloo Region, given the uncertainty around BlackBerry's future intentions. Despite recent challenges at BlackBerry, our mood remains positive and confident. Our community is headquarters to close to 1,000 technology companies that generate $30 billion in annual revenue. The collaborative sensibilities, scientific excellence and entrepreneurial culture that fostered BlackBerry's growth remain strong. Our government's initiatives will certainly provide encouragement. Our investments supporting the creation of the successful Communitech hub, investing in talent at local universities and at Conestoga College, reducing red tape and incenting venture capital into the system have all been well received and are already making tangible results.

However, in government there is always a cost. On this side of the House, we feel these costs are justified as investments that will pay dividends for years to come, but that does not mean our ability to spend is limitless. Especially in these uncertain times, with so many priorities competing for federal dollars, it is more important than ever that all levels of government collect every dollar they are legitimately owed. Individuals and businesses who evade their taxes are not just pulling a fast one, they are denying money to our hospitals, first nations, student aid programs and other critical needs. Every tax dollar owed that remains uncollected is an extra dollar that someone else's tax bill assumes. Tax evasion has become much more sophisticated and our enforcement measures must keep pace.

As a member of Parliament who has encouraged action against the underground economy, I was pleased to see that Bill C-4 would introduce sanctions including monetary and criminal penalties to deter the use of software designed to falsify sales records for the purpose of tax evasion. This is not a revolution in approach; it is a natural evolution of our laws in response to the evolution of technologies, which is continually accelerating. It is much like the action called for in my Motion No. 388 targeting Internet predators, which received the unanimous support of the House several Parliaments ago. These types of improvements can be supported by all parliamentarians regardless of partisan stripe.

Bill C-4 would be the final step in implementing budget 2013. I ask all members of the House, especially those who claim to make decisions based on evidence, to accept the opinion of impartial experts from around the world that the Conservative government's approach has brought Canada to lead the world, to accept this latest phase of Canada's economic action plan, which would be just as beneficial to Canadians, and to get on board.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague and I am pleased to ask him a question. His speeches are often well balanced and I am sure his answer will be no exception.

Bill C-4 contains various measures. Why did the government choose to include provisions on the Supreme Court, for instance, in the budget implementation bill? Can he explain the link between these provisions and his government's budgetary measures that he boasted about throughout his speech? He boasted about his government's job creation record. We have heard all about that.

Can he make the connection between that and the various provisions that have nothing to do with a budget? Can he explain what prompted his government to make these choices?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question. This is going to come up quite often. This bill is massive; it is another omnibus bill that contains many measures. Some measures address fiscal matters, which we are not opposed to. There are many other measures that have nothing to do with our country's fiscal reality.

Why would changes to the way Supreme Court justices are appointed be included in a bill such as this one? It has nothing to do with the budget, yet it has been included in the bill. There are also significant changes to the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, which are part of the Canada Labour Code. Those should be discussed separately.

A Globe and Mail editorial condemned this way of doing things, which the federal government has used routinely. Moreover, the members of the Standing Committee on Finance will not have the time to analyze this 300-page bill. The committee will meet twice at the end of November to study and analyze Bill C-4. We will not have enough time to analyze it. Such abuses, which we have also seen with other budget implementation bills, have led to catastrophic mistakes that the government has had to subsequently correct. These mistakes could have been prevented had the bills been studied carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss and debate Bill C-4, the second budget implementation bill.

This is yet another omnibus bill, which, at second reading, is again the subject of a time allocation motion. Our debate will therefore be limited, which will also be the case at the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member. Indeed, we will have only two meetings to discuss a bill that is over 300 pages long and that amends a great many pieces of legislation, and not just budget-related legislation or legislation related to the nation's finances.

We strongly object to this way of proceeding, as we have from the beginning of the last session of Parliament, when the government decided to make a habit of this.

I would like to focus my remarks on one aspect in particular of Bill C-4, that is, the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which was announced in budget 2013. This is an extremely crucial measure. On the one hand, the government claims that it will save $355 million over five years. On the other hand, it wanted to please private investors and decided to invest $400 million in private venture capital funds. However, the two kinds of funds are very closely related, and I will expand on that in my speech.

This measure constitutes an attack on a tool that is crucial to economic development in Quebec: labour-sponsored venture capital funds. These funds are considered a crucial tool for economic development, not only by those who benefit from them—mainly small and medium-sized businesses—but also by the Quebec business community, which objected immediately and still opposes this measure. These funds play a major role in Quebec. Eliminating this tax credit will hit Quebec particularly hard, which is why I am focusing my remarks on Quebec. In fact, 90% of the investment by labour-sponsored funds is currently in Quebec.

I will focus my remarks on the Fonds de solidarité FTQ in particular since it has been around for more than 30 years. Fondaction CSN is another very active fund in Quebec, but the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has a 30-year history of economic investment. It has benefited corporations in Quebec as well as small and medium-sized businesses. That will be the focus of my remarks.

In the last 10 years alone, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ's investments have created or maintained over half a million jobs in Quebec.

I was saying that this is related to venture capital funds too. That is extremely important. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ is currently investing not only in Quebec companies and in starting up or rescuing companies in jeopardy that have the potential to contribute significantly to Quebec's economy, but it is also investing in private venture capital funds. Currently, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is investing in 47 different funds. Some are international funds, but they are opening offices in Quebec.

Another dozen or so are Canadian funds, including the Ontario Venture Capital Fund, which was created by the Government of Ontario in the 2000s when the Ontario tax credit was eliminated. Venture capital invested in Ontario's economy had plummeted. Ontario tried to offset that by creating this agency, and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ invested heavily in it. Obviously there are also venture capital funds in Quebec that are invested in Quebec.

There are private venture capital funds, but there are also funds of funds. The largest fund of funds in Canada at present is Teralys Capital with access to $700 million. Some $250 million of that amount was invested by the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. In total, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ has invested over $1 billion in all private venture capital funds combined in Canada.

Consequently, the measure announced in Bill C-4 by the Conservatives affects more than just the ability of labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and Fondaction, to directly invest in small and medium-sized businesses in order to help them start up and grow.

It will have a serious impact on the ability of the Fonds de solidarité and Fondaction to contribute to the success of private equity funds.

This is one of the major reasons why Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association is opposed to this Conservative measure. I will say it again: it opposes this measure.

The government tried to appease them with a $400 million investment, but the association understands the negative impact this measure will have on their activities, namely using venture capital to fund businesses in Canada.

I would like to quote the president of Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association:

Namely, that eliminating the credit could put regional investment at risk, as [labour-sponsored venture capital corporations] are particularly active outside the main centres of economic activity. And, [the second concern is] that these vehicles “play a structural role” in the venture industry, and are frequently co-investors. “By eliminating the federal tax credit, a critical piece of infrastructure may be stripped from the entrepreneurial and venture capital eco-system,”....

Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association understands the havoc and destruction that will ensue as a result of this Conservative government measure, and it is not the only business association to oppose this measure.

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec opposed the government's intention to abolish the tax credit as soon as it was announced in budget 2013.

I would like to share two quotes from Françoise Bertrand, president and CEO of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec.

Before the government's announcement, she was already praising the positive impact of labour-sponsored funds, including the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

This is what she had to say on March 1, 2013, before the government announced that it was going to abolish the credit:

They understand your business. On innovation, they’re still there. The Fonds has been involved in digital technology. It’s not easy; the banks are not there. The Fonds was really ahead of the game. One thing we should say is the extent of their interest and participation in businesses in the different regions of Quebec. They have been very active in making sure that they have not been missing any opportunity.

When the government announced in budget 2013 that it intended to abolish tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, there was an immediate reaction from the Fédération des chambres du commerce du Québec. Françoise Bertrand said:

These funds are important to the economic development of Quebec, and if the government cuts these tax credits, it will eliminate an important tool for promoting business start-ups.

Were those the only negative reactions? No. Michel Leblanc, the president and CEO of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, denounced this measure the day after budget 2013 was tabled:

The contribution of labour-sponsored funds is invaluable for our economy. These funds make long-term investments in small and medium-sized businesses in sectors that tend to be less well served by private funds. What’s remarkable is that their investments are countercyclical, because they maintain a high level of investment during economic slowdowns. Plus, the return on investment for the federal government is amply recouped, whether in terms of tax and quasi-tax revenue or recovery time.

What does that mean? Mr. Leblanc looked at two studies. One was conducted in June 2010 by SECOR Group, which was led by Marcel Côté, who is now a mayoral candidate in Montreal.

SECOR Group analyzed the return on investment of these tax credits for the Quebec and Canadian governments.

SECOR concluded that the tax credits were very positive for both governments. On average, the governments recouped the investment they made by way of this tax credit in less than three years. This means that in less than three years, these governments earn back the revenue they lost.

A second, quite recent study was conducted after the government announced the abolition of the tax credit. This study was carried out by IREC and was revealed by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. In Canada, for every dollar of tax credit going to savers who invest in labour-sponsored funds, the government receives in return the equivalent of $1.26 in additional tax revenue. This is a gain.

For Quebec, this measure is even more important, because for every dollar that goes to savers in tax credits, the Quebec government receives $2.05 in tax revenue. Any company with an opportunity to make a similar return would jump on it. With this measure, the Canadian government is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Clearly, the Conservative government does not really understand either the impact labour-sponsored funds have on the Québec economy or how they work.

The member for Beauce and Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture tried to defend the decision announced in budget 2013 by saying that only 11% of the capital in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is invested as venture capital.

That is not true. In fact, Quebec law requires both funds, the Fondaction CSN and the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, to invest at least 60% of their assets in venture capital, which means in businesses. This is unsecured venture capital. It is risky, because it is low in the creditor pecking order should the investment go bad. That is why they also call it risk capital. Currently, the Fonds de solidarité FTQ invests 67% of its assets.

When he refers to the 11%, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture and member for Beauce is all confusion. This relates to new investment made last year. Obviously, when you invest in a business and it prospers, the FTQ can give up its shares in the business and reinvest elsewhere. There is constant turnover.

The fund’s total investment is 67% of its assets. There are businesses from which the Fonds de solidarité FTQ withdrew its funding in order to invest the 11% elsewhere.

We can therefore see to what extent the Fonds de solidarité FTQ plays a crucial role in Quebec’s economic development. It has existed for 30 years, but in the last 10 years alone, over $6.3 billion has been invested in Quebec businesses, private venture capital funds and funds of funds. Some 2,239 businesses in Quebec and Canada have benefited from this, and 80% of them have fewer than 100 employees. We can therefore see the impact on SMEs.

I suggest that my Conservative colleagues listen carefully, because they are always talking about their interest in promoting SMEs and helping them develop. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ plays a crucial role in the development of SMEs. Today in Quebec, it is estimated that 171,000 jobs have been created or maintained through the efforts of the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

The tax credit does not go to the Fonds de solidarité FTQ; it goes to the savers who decide to invest in it. It is estimated that the immediate result of this Conservative measure will be the loss of about 20,000 jobs in Quebec alone. The measure will not create jobs; it will destroy jobs that Quebec and, by extension, Canada desperately need at this time. Labour-sponsored funds of this kind, and in particular the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, have also created funds that operate regionally. That is another crucial point.

This has extremely useful spinoffs regionally. In the Quebec City area, 70,000 savers are currently contributing to the fund and receiving the tax credit, which is an incentive to save for them and an economic development lever for the fund.

The fund has invested about $1 billion to date in the Quebec City area. In the last three years alone, this has benefited 400 businesses, and 45,000 jobs have been created or maintained in the area. In my own case, for example, 25 businesses in the Lower St. Lawrence region are receiving support from the Fonds de solidarité FTQ.

Why are these businesses especially concerned? Because the fund invests largely in the regions, where private venture capital and the banks do not dare to go.

Let us think about where we would be now if we had not had help from this fund, given the number of small and medium-sized businesses that need a hand with their economic development, particularly in the regions.

This is where the Conservative government fails to understand the real consequences of its actions. It is my impression that either in the Prime Minister’s Office or in that of the Minister of Finance, they told themselves that this was a labour-sponsored venture capital fund with connections to the union and they could score a big hit by abolishing the tax credit and returning it to the private sector, which will do things better. On the other hand, people in the private venture capital field understand the importance of such funds. They protested against the move. Is the Conservative government listening? No. It is proceeding with the measure.

I would like to talk about these funds from another angle that is extremely interesting: the saver’s angle. Savers currently benefit from a 15% tax credit on their investments in the Fonds de solidarité FTQ or the Fondaction CSN. This is a necessary and crucial incentive. The government tells itself that they will be able to reinvest elsewhere if they want to and that the Fonds de solidarité FTQ is now big enough, with its $9.6 billion in assets.

However, these funds have a specific role to play that private venture capital funds do not. Their particular mission is to invest in higher-risk areas. Their return is therefore much more uncertain. Sometimes—although this was not the case during the last economic recession—they may have a lower return because less than 30% of their assets is invested in the speculative market. Nearly 70% is invested in venture capital.

This is therefore a real deterrent to savings. Now, if savers seek higher returns, they will be much more inclined to turn to private funds such as mutual funds, venture capital funds or something else that will assure them of less uncertain, more stable and higher returns. This is why the tax credit is there in a complementary role.

I do not understand this decision by the Conservative government, which is determined to eliminate the tax credit. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the Fondaction CSN are two key drivers in the development of the Quebec economy. They have proven their value and they are needed. The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal recognize the need for these development tools. The Conservative government is jeopardizing all this by eliminating the tax credit.

I would like to know why no one is taking the trouble to study this particular measure, which will have such a significant impact on the Quebec economy. The Conservatives are fond of saying that they work to ensure that they walk the talk. They should therefore conduct an impact study to assess the real effect of this measure, because it will have serious consequences.

I therefore expect to be able to discuss this measure in the Standing Committee on Finance. I hope to have informed questions from my colleagues. They should understand that this goes against the government's plan—and it is a plan, we certainly hear it often enough—for Canada's economic development.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to note that when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he was exceptionally critical of the government of the day because there was a 100-page budget implementation bill. Now that he is in the Prime Minister's chair, he has increased the size of it almost tenfold. This bill contains 400 pages. Huge pieces of legislation that are completely and absolutely irrelevant to the passage of the budget are being proposed. That is one issue.

The other issue which is equally important is the fact that the government has brought in time allocation. All of these potential pieces of legislation that should have been stand-alone bills have all been incorporated into the budget bill. The Prime Minister, more than any other prime minister in the history of Canada, then says that his government is going to put a finite amount of time on debate. The government is putting in closure to force this legislation through second reading. That prevents MPs from being able to debate the budget bill and give it due diligence, let alone all of the other things that the Conservatives are trying to bring in through the back door.

How can the member believe, in good faith, that colleagues from all sides of the House can positively contribute to all the required debate to give due diligence to Bill C-4?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, overall, the federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in half a century. As a result of our government's low-tax plan, in 2013 the average Canadian family now pays $3,200 less in taxes.

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

We know that they have been growing. We see the results. Canada is leading the world in job creation with more than one million net new jobs created since the recession. With lower taxes, businesses can now invest in new equipment, hire more workers, and expand their operations.

Tax cuts benefit Canadians, all Canadians, including both Ontario and Quebec's manufacturing sectors. In fact, Suzanne Benoît , president of Aéro Montréal, had this to say:

By actively supporting this...sector with effective and well-designed programs, the Canadian government is helping ensure the industry's long term growth and the creation of high quality jobs for Canadians.

In Ontario, Carlos Paz-Soldan, president and CEO of the Toronto-based Tenet Computer Group, added:

This budget recognizes the strong link between the innovation needs of firms such as mine and the skills and talent of college and polytechnic students across the country.

Richard Paton is president and CEO of the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada. CIAC said that it was:

...pleased by the federal budget's focus on manufacturing, jobs and growth. Funding to encourage innovation and improve the competitiveness of Ontario's manufacturing sector was especially welcomed....

As members can see, specific actions taken by our government have enabled businesses to grow. For example, during the recession, our Conservative government extended and expanded the job-creating hiring credit for small business, which benefits an estimated 560,000 employers; increased and indexed the lifetime capital gains exemption to make investing in small business more rewarded; expanded the accelerated capital cost allowance to further encourage investments in clean energy generation; and more.

During the recession, the opposition voted against these tax relief measures. Why does the opposition continually vote against supporting Canadian businesses? Why do they not support Canadian workers? If the opposition had its way, it would have the government engage in risky spending schemes or would force a $21-billion carbon tax on Canadian consumers or would hike taxes on job creation, thereby stalling economic growth.

These ideas will not work. Indeed, time has proven over and over that the way to support economic growth is by lowering taxes. Simply put, we cannot tax our way to economic prosperity.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on our government's significant action to support small businesses since 2006, which includes reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, increasing the small business limit to half a million dollars, lowering the federal corporate income tax rate to 15% to help create jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and communities, and eliminating the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008, which was particularly beneficial to small business corporations, as the surtax represented a larger proportion of the overall payable tax.

This also includes introducing a code of conduct for the credit and debit card industry. Indeed, our government just recently improved the code by expanding it to include mobile payments, a move welcomed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which said it:

...will help make the Code even more relevant and useful to small business owners, and we applaud the government...

Overall, a typical small business now has $28,600 in savings, because of our Conservative government's low tax plan.

Having said that, our government is under no illusions that our work is finished. The global economy remains fragile, with growth in advanced economies slower than expected, and Canada is certainly not immune. That is why Canada's economic action plan actively pursues new trade 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 net new jobs in Canada. Do not take my word for it. Let us hear what others have to say.

John Manley, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, agrees that:

...the [comprehensive and economic trade agreement ] will create jobs, spur investment and promote economic growth.

Unlike the opposition, we understand that the pursuit of free trade is beneficial for Canada's economy. Our government's 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 negotiating with many more. We have also concluded foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with 16 countries and are currently in active negotiations with many others. 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 China, India and Japan, reflecting our belief that freer and more open trade is a key stimulus for economic global recovery.

Unlike the opposition, we know that by growing international trade and creating additional export opportunities for Canadian businesses, we will improve the standard of living for all Canadians. Free and open trade has long been a powerful engine for Canada's economy. Canadian businesses need to access key export markets in order to take advantage of new opportunities. Economic action plan 2013 builds on these measures through targeted actions that will help our manufacturers and businesses to continue to succeed on the world stage and secure a prosperous future for all Canadians.

Our government is continuing to build on our sound economic position with the implementation of economic action plan 2013. The second budget implementation act would deliver a three-year freeze on employment insurance premium increases. This tax relief would help support Canada's continuing economic recovery and sustained business-led long-term growth. However, again, do not take my word for it, let us hear what others have to say.

Diane Brisebois, president and CEO of the Retail Council of Canada agrees:

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 in Canada, create jobs for Canadians and foster long-term economic growth. In fact, Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business agrees:

—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.

Most important, freezing EI rates would have a significant impact on low-income Canadians. Joyce Reynolds, the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association executive vice-president of government affairs, notes:

Payroll costs have a significant impact on overall labour costs. They are a barrier to hiring, particularly for inexperienced workers...We are pleased the government is demonstrating commitment to youth employment by holding the line on these profit-insensitive costs.

Unlike the opposition, our government understands that tax relief is important to Canadian families. I encourage members opposite to vote in favour of this important measure, which would leave more money in the hands of Canadians.

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 certainly not gone unrecognized. Indeed, KPMG's “Competitive Alternatives” 2012 report concluded that Canada's total business taxes were more than 40% lower than those in the United States and confirmed that Canada had the lowest tax burden on business in the G7. Along with promoting investment in our support for free and open trade, the 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:

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.

She concluded by saying, “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 the private sector to reinvest in the machinery, equipment, information, technology and other physical capital that would further boost the recent productivity gains we have seen in businesses across Canada. Most important, lower taxes would allow businesses to hire more Canadians and offer higher wages as they extend production and take on the world.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-4.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and of the amendment, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who has a different style: bringing in huge, massive budget implementation bills. This is unprecedented. No other prime minister in the history of Canada has attempted to bring in so much legislation through the back door of budget legislation. Not only does he have the tenacity to continue to bring this stuff forward, but today we again have closure on a budget bill that does a lot more than implement budget measures, all done through the back door.

On this particular time allocation, it is important to note that the briefing for Bill C-4 took place last night, while the government House leader introduced time allocation in the afternoon. He brought in time allocation prior to the briefing on the bill.

For the government House leader, why would he bring in time allocation even before the briefing on this massive, backdoor budget legislation that has been introduced to the House?

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, not more than four further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of this Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the fourth day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successfully, without further debate or amendment.

Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 471 and 472 related to the appointment of Supreme Court justices be withdrawn from Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-6; that Bill C-6 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; that Bill C-4 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-4 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes and corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

You understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that this motion be adopted unanimously. The government has found itself in a predicament over the appointment of Justice Nadon. What is more, yesterday we found out that the Government of Quebec is challenging the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, the government's assumption that it can proceed in such a way and the two provisions included in the mammoth bill. I think that this is an important debate, one that cannot simply be relegated to a footnote at the end of a budget bill.

Second Reading

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it is not the quantity of time but rather the quality, as the opposition has so aptly demonstrated to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to add my comments to the debate on Bill C-4. As my colleague has already so eloquently stated, we are proud of our government's achievements since the storm clouds first gathered over the global economy in 2008. Today, I will focus on the ways economic action plan 2013 helps strengthen Canada's economy in these uncertain times. Be assured, our government remains committed to what matters most to Canadians. That is jobs, job creation and economic growth.

First, our government firmly believes in helping small businesses grow. That is why we have lowered taxes and tariffs, cut red tape and improved conditions for small business. These steps have established a solid foundation that has allowed Canadian businesses to create jobs and drive economic growth. Indeed, by implementing Canada's economic action plan Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances among the G7 countries, both during the global recession and throughout the recovery.

Contrary to what the opposition leaders may believe, Canada is on strong economic footing. Since the depth of the recession over one million net new jobs have been created, most in high-wage industries. There are now 605,000 more jobs than at the pre-recession peak. This is the strongest job growth in G7 countries over the course of the recovery. Almost 90% of all jobs created since July of 2009 have been full-time positions with close to 85% of those being in the private sector. Also, growth levels are above pre-recession levels.

That is the best performance in the G7. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next. The World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest for the fifth year in a row. Three credit rating agencies, Moody's, Fitch, and Standard and Poor's, have all reaffirmed their top credit rating for Canada and expect it will maintain its triple-A rating in the year ahead. Canada's fiscal fundamentals are solid and they are sustainable.

However, to truly understand the strength behind this performance, one has to consider the hard work that took place long before, through the actions our government took to pay down debt, lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote free trade and innovation.

Bill C-4—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or Standing Order 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage 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 the said stage.

I would like to give the House the courtesy of knowing that I intend to propose that four further days of debate be allotted, in addition to today, for a total of five days.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. At over 300 pages, Bill C-4 is the latest in a long line of bloated Conservative omnibus bills.

Half of what is in this bill is totally unrelated to the budget. It contains important and worrisome changes to the Canada Labour Code, the National Research Council, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the immigration regime, the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees across Canada, and the Supreme Court Act.

In 1994, the leader of the opposition, the current Prime Minister, questioned how members could properly represent their constituents when forced to vote on omnibus budget bills.

Why does the hon. member think the Conservatives no longer recognize the undemocratic, anti-democratic nature of such omnibus bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that serious question. In a country where the cost of housing is eating up a bigger share of the budgets of Canadians and where the issue of homelessness is still a massive problem for so many Canadians right across this country, it is shocking that the current government does not even mention housing and homelessness in this budget implementation act, Bill C-4. It is sad that there is so little action taking place on this pressing issue.

I understand the point the member is making. There is housing stock in co-op housing and elsewhere that is in need of investment for maintenance. There is nothing in this budget to provide for that. I am sorry also that in the 1990s, the Liberals cancelled the national housing strategy. That was a terrible blow to housing funding in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the second federal budget implementation bill in 2013, and the fourth omnibus bill introduced in the House in the past two years. This time, the Conservatives have pushed the urgency to new levels to get their files through the House.

Bill C-4 was introduced yesterday morning and we have already started debate on a bill that is over 300 pages and that amends or repeals 70 legislative measures. This is yet more proof of the Conservatives' absolute contempt for the democratic process.

Once again, the NDP must express its opposition to these heavy-handed tactics. Canadians deserve better.

Canadians were asked to wait for an extra month for their MPs to come back to work here in Ottawa. The Conservatives said the prorogation was necessary and that it was time to reset the government's policy agenda. I certainly agree that the government's policy needs a serious redo, but that is not what Canadians heard last week in the Speech from the Throne.

Instead, despite soaring youth unemployment and nearly 300,000 more people unemployed today than before the recession, the Conservatives failed to lay out a jobs plan or take concrete action that would create good middle-class jobs.

Just today, the Bank of Canada issued a report. It said that it had significantly overestimated growth in its last report and has now lowered GDP growth projections for 2013, 2014 and 2015. That is the kind of job the government is doing. The Bank of Canada is now predicting that in 2013, GDP growth will be a meagre 1.6%. Clearly, the government's economic agenda is failing. The Prime Minister has failed miserably. I will say it again. The Prime Minister's economic agenda has failed miserably.

In fact, the government is pushing ahead with its plan to claw back $300 million from skills funding for the most vulnerable workers, even in the face of united opposition from the premiers. Bill C-4 focuses more on gutting Canadians' right to a safe and healthy workplace and prompting conflict with civil servants than it does on job creation.

Despite all the Conservative spin, Canadians know that only New Democrats can be trusted to put their needs first and to give middle-class Canadians a fair break. Canadians need a government committed to genuine consultation to get to the bottom of this. Only by working together and pulling in the same direction can we have an economy performing to meet the needs of all Canadians and Canadian businesses.

The NDP vision for the economy is one where we maximize the opportunities we have, based on our enormous advantages as a country, to deliver the best we can for Canadians.

Since the 2008 financial crisis, the economy has been at the heart of Canadians' concerns. We have faced an endless number of foreign economic threats. Our recovery was marked by fear of a debt spiral in Europe and political impasses in the United States.

Today, the Canadian economy is facing new challenges. We still face threats abroad, but we are also facing threats that originate much closer to home.

Canadian families are struggling like never before. They are caught between a rising cost of living on the one hand and disappearing middle-class jobs on the other. Over the last 35 years, income is up for the top 20% of wage earners, but down for the bottom 80%. Our economy has grown nearly 150% over that 35-year period of time and yet median household income has declined by 7%.

Professor Miles Corak at the University of Ottawa said:

Over the last couple of decades or more the median wage rate has hardly changed, and wage rates below the halfway point have fallen by five to as much as 10 percentage points....

This means that many families who face lower wage rates have to run harder just to stand still....

In my own city of Toronto, a recent report by the Daily Bread Food Bank found that almost one-quarter of the people accessing food banks have someone in their households who is working. In the 905 region, that number is almost 40%. Therefore, paid employment, even a full-time job, is clearly not always a ticket out of hunger and poverty. That is shocking. That is simply unacceptable.

In September, Statistics Canada announced that household debt had reached a whopping 166% of disposable income. More than one in eight households has a debt-to-income ratio higher than 250%; that is one in eight. Mortgage debt alone now stands at roughly one trillion dollars. In many communities the cost of housing is squeezing household budgets.

A report by the Toronto Community Foundation found that according to 2001 figures, almost one-third of Toronto region households are spending 30% or more of their total income just on housing. Among the city's renters, the number was even higher, at over 43%. According to the OECD, the Canadian housing market is now among the most overvalued in the world. Taken as a whole, Canadian household debt is now dangerously close to American debt levels just prior to the financial crisis of 2008.

Before leaving his post as governor, Mark Carney warned that mounting household debt may force the Bank of Canada to pull back on economic stimulus. While the rate of growth of household debt has slowed somewhat since Mr. Carney's departure, the Bank of Canada says that household debt is still the “biggest domestic risk” facing our economy.

All of this, the rising cost of living, coupled with stagnating wages, has major implications for domestic demands. After all, if a consumer-driven economy is to succeed, consumers need money in their pockets to spend. This is, of course, what every business knows, especially small businesses.

Earlier this year, The Economist magazine remarked on Canada's economy:

...five years on, consumers are showing signs of flagging. ...So the authorities are casting around for another source of growth. The trouble is they cannot seem to find one.

The Conservatives promised to focus on affordability in their throne speech with a so-called “consumer first” agenda for the new session of Parliament, but Bill C-4 makes no progress for Canadian consumers. The Conservatives have made big promises about protecting consumers for seven years, but have failed time and time again to help consumers in need and consistently vote against consumer-friendly provisions put forward by the opposition.

Consumers are failed by the government. The Conservatives have been big on talk and very small on follow-through. By contrast, New Democrats have led the way on consumer protection and will be looking to hold the government members to account to ensure their actions match their words. We know that any serious attempt to tackle this complex issue has to start with an honest look at the economic conditions facing business and labour markets as well as families.

The Canadian labour market is facing significant challenges, in both the short and medium terms. Today, our unemployment rate remains stubbornly high. There is only one position available for every 6.5 Canadians looking for a job.

Even worse, youth unemployment is now over 14%, which means that the next generation of workers cannot gain the experience they will need to replace the older generation.

In my city of Toronto, one in five youth is unemployed. With households and workers facing such challenges, it is no wonder our business sector is struggling as well. We have heard the statistics, $600 billion in private money sitting on the sidelines. The former governor of the Bank of Canada has spoken about this.

While the Minister of Finance admonishes business to just step up and invest, New Democrats are more interested in working with business leaders, listening to them and finding out what the barriers are to them investing in the current climate. While Liberal and Conservative governments sat back and watched a generation of middle-class jobs disappear in Canada, pausing occasionally to wag their fingers at business for not doing better, we are more interested in working together, pulling together to create the next generation of middle-class jobs here in Canada.

Let us talk about those jobs, an area that the Conservatives have continually failed to take any action on, even in four omnibus budget bills. The real question is this. What kind of jobs are we creating?

Simply put, we want Canada to own the most profitable and productive slice of the global supply chain, 21st century knowledge economy jobs, in the most modern, innovative and energy-efficient industries, instead of falling further behind under the current government. I know that is easier said than done. However, the fact is that with as many challenges as we have ahead of us we have opportunities too. Canada has many advantages. Canada is among the most entrepreneurial countries in the world. Even through the worst of the recession, Canadian small businesses continued to thrive and multiply.

Yet one of the most disturbing trends in Canadian business development is that alarmingly few of those small businesses are growing into medium businesses and beyond. From 2006 to 2010, Canada lost more than 1,500 medium-size businesses, even as the number of small and large businesses grew. During that period, mid-size businesses were 10 times as likely to shrink or shut down as they were to grow.

Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz told the Vancouver Board of Trade:

A characteristic of a naturally growing economy is a steady increase in the population of companies. However, for five years after the start of the crisis, we saw virtually no increase in the population of Canadian companies.

This matters, a lot.

To maximize our potential we need effective education and skills training programs so that we have innovative companies ready to adapt to a changing global economy. This means doing the best job possible to tap into first nation communities so that they can develop to their full potential, while providing a badly needed skilled workforce, especially in remote areas.

Under the current government, a generation of young Canadians is facing double-digit unemployment; precarious, uncertain, low-paid jobs; and an equally uncertain future. The unemployment rate fell in September, but only because 20,000 young Canadians gave up searching for work. Yet Bill C-4 has only deafening silence to offer on youth employment. Instead, the Conservatives are focused on ensuring that Canadian workplaces will be less healthy, less safe and less secure for workers in the future. It makes no sense.

Canadians know that the NDP is the party most focused on the next generation. New Democrats have proposed a job creation tax credit for small and medium-sized businesses as well as large corporations. Therefore, the NDP is targeting businesses that create new jobs and contribute to economic growth.

Under the NDP proposal, companies could receive up to $1,000 for hiring a young employee and an additional $1,000 in compensation for the training of that employee. The tax credit would be doubled in the regions with particularly high youth unemployment rates.

The NDP tax credit for hiring young people would benefit both young workers and the companies that hire them. Canadians do not want to be left behind or told that they have to settle for less.

We want to do better, improve the situation and show leadership. These are our objectives.

In the 21st-century global economy, Canadian cities will be the engines of economic growth. Cities are the economic hub that brings together the mix of investment, technology and talent that allows our economy to thrive. There is a growing body of research that highlights the key cluster effect that cities play in our larger, macroeconomic picture, and the role that government can play in bringing these elements together. In my own city of Toronto, we have a film and television industry that is growing at the rate of 25%, more than double the economic growth rate of China, vastly outpacing the industry as a whole because of a partnership between industry, labour and government that has delivered these results. We need more models like that. Unfortunately, we are faced with a government that does not focus on the vital role that cities play as engines of economic growth.

Bill C-4 offers nothing for cities to address the massive infrastructure deficit that is a drag on our economy. In fact the PBO revealed that under the guise of a long-term infrastructure funding plan of $50 billion over 10 years, the Conservatives had actually cut infrastructure funding in budget 2013 by $5.8 billion. This is over the next few years. It is easy to make promises for years when they will not even be in government, I suppose.

What is needed is a serious commitment to sustainable and predictable funding in our urban centres. There are some things we can just do better when we work together. Investing in our future is one of them.

We should be asking ourselves what we can do better as a nation, what we can do together in addition to our efforts as families and communities. The Conservative government keeps telling Canadians, “We'll cut your taxes, but you're on your own. Don't count on us”. Services are being cut back. Programs are being cut back. Conservatives, again in this bill, are telling Canadians that they are on their own to ensure safe and healthy workplaces. When it comes to the needs of the country's veterans, when it comes to EI financing and taking real action for a more prosperous Canada for all Canadians, they say, “you are on your own”.

Speaking to Canadians across this country, I know that people still believe we need to work together to build for a better tomorrow.

Canadians understand governments have a role to play in supporting the economic conditions that improve their lives. In dealing with broad economic problems, we need solutions that address all sides of the ledger: creating good, high-quality jobs; making life more affordable for families; encouraging Canadians to save and invest for retirement; fostering the conditions for businesses and communities to succeed; ensuring all Canadians have a place to live; investing in needed infrastructure such as transit; taking a co-operative approach with the provinces on education and training; building a future full of opportunities for Canada's youth.

We need a balanced approach that will help us succeed. New Democrats can do better. We know that Canadians deserve better and New Democrats will stand up for Canadians every day until they get better.

In my time remaining, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, because it:

(a) decreases transparency and erodes democratic process by amending 70 different pieces of legislation, many of which are not related to budgetary measures;

(b) dismantles health and safety protections for Canadian workers, affecting their right to refuse unsafe work;

(c) increases the likelihood of strikes by eliminating binding arbitration as an option for public sector workers; and

(d) eliminates the independent Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, allowing the government to continue playing politics with employment insurance rate setting.

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

Mr. Speaker, my first comment is for my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Although this administration has reduced corporate taxes dramatically, economists such as Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, found that corporations were not using it to create jobs. In fact he called it “dead money”.

An RBC economist has pegged that amount at over $600 billion, money that corporations are saving, not spending. They are not spending it on jobs. They are not spending it on growth. It is in fact dead money and we need to adjust the corporate tax rate to the benefit of Canadians.

I have a lot of questions. I attended the briefing last night, and I think the hon. member did the right thing postponing until tonight, but it means I have a lot of specific questions. I do not know what this has to do with budget 2012. I never saw in budget 2012 that the intention of the budget was to change the Canada labour code so workers covered by it would be less protected against dangerous assignments.

The revision in clause 176, found by coincidence at page 176 of Bill C-4, changes the definition of “danger” and removes, as a reason a worker can refuse to participate in that work, injury or illness that could result in chronic illness, removes the words “injury or illness” and insists that to be dangerous it has to be an “imminent or serious threat to the life or health” and removes what is in the current definition of damage to the reproductive system.

In other words, it is a systematic attack on the rights of a worker to refuse to work in dangerous conditions. That was never cited in budget 2012. I would like to know if the hon. member could explain it to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity today to highlight some of the key initiatives in economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

I would like to begin by saying that our government is very proud of the steps we are taking to support the economy through today's legislation. As always, we want an open, public, and timely debate on these measures; we also look forward to a detailed committee study in the House and in the Senate.

In keeping with previous budget legislation under our government, in addition to having the bill studied by the finance committee, we will recommend even further study to the provisions in today's legislation. It is for that reason that we will be asking the following committees to look at certain portions of the bill: citizenship and immigration; human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities; and justice and human rights. Indeed, I will move a motion at the finance committee to this effect once second reading is completed by the House.

I hope opposition members will give their support at second reading as an indication that they genuinely want these committees to study the legislation instead of just playing political games.

On that note, let me outline why the opposition should support this legislation.

Economic action plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year. In addition to the portfolio of initiatives we have introduced since 2006 with affordable measures to create jobs, promote growth, and generate long-term prosperity, it will help to further unleash potential for Canadian businesses and entrepreneurs to innovate and thrive in the modern economy.

Let us revisit the facts.

Today Canada has the strongest job growth among G7 countries since the recession. Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level in four years. It is significantly lower than that of the U.S., which is a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. Meanwhile, we have created over one million net new jobs, nearly 80% of which are in the private sector, and our government continues to make new opportunities for Canadians to find employment. Today's legislation does little to detract from this goal.

Both the independent International Monetary Fund, IMF, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, are projecting that Canada's growth will be among the strongest performances in the G7 in the years ahead. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels and is the best performance in the G7.

While other countries continue to struggle with debt that is spiralling out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. Canada still remains on track to return to balanced budgets n 2015.

However, our government has been very clear that we will not raise taxes on Canadians to balance the budget. Unlike the NDP, which continues to push high-tax schemes, our government believes that keeping taxes low means more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians, and that in turn helps keep our economy strong.

A recent study by KPMG concluded that Canada's total business tax cost, which includes corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and wage-based taxes is more than 40% lower than it is in the United States. In short, our government has created an environment that encourages new investment, growth, and job creation, and one that ensures Canada has the strongest fiscal position and the lowest business tax costs in the G7.

Having the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7 translates into Canada having a competitive business tax system, one that plays a key role in supporting businesses in all sectors of the Canadian economy to invest, grow, and thrive.

Let me share some highlights of our tax relief initiatives.

Our government has implemented broad-based tax reductions that support investment and growth and is delivering more than $60 billion of tax relief to job-creating businesses over 2008-09 and the following five fiscal years.

For example, in order to boost investments and productivity, we reduced the federal corporate income tax to 15% from its 2007 rate of 21%.

In addition, the federal capital tax was eliminated in 2006, and the only corporate tax was eliminated for all businesses in 2008.

Furthermore, we reduced the small business tax rate to 11% in 2008 from 12% in 2007, and subsequently the amount of income eligible for this lower rate was increased to $500,000 in 2009.

Canada's system of international taxation was strengthened in order to better support cross-border trade and investment and to improve fairness.

These measures are part of a policy framework designed to increase our economy's production capacity and improve Canadians' quality of life.

Cutting federal corporate income tax and making other tax adjustments boost the assumed rate of return on investment and reduce capital costs. These measures encourage businesses to invest in Canada and hire Canadians.

That approach increases Canada's production capacity and improves Canadians' quality of life.

Economic action plan 2013 focused on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets, ensuring Canada's economic advantage remains strong today and into the future.

However, the job does not end there. Bill C-4 would 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's low-tax plan is helping to guide the Canadian economy along the path of sustainable economic growth. Bill C-4 builds on our successes and maintains our government's focus on the economy.

I would like to discuss three key aspects of the bill today: a continued focus on job creation and support for job creators, a firm response to tax loopholes and tax evasion, and an overall respect for taxpayers' dollars.

While we believe in the benefits of lower taxes, our government fully understands that sustaining an effective tax system also rests on the foundation of tax fairness. That is why economic action plan 2013 is committed to closing tax loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share. Broadening and protecting the tax base supports our government's effort to return to balanced budgets, responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on our shared tax bases, and helps give Canadians confidence that the tax system is indeed fair.

The efforts made to ensure that everyone pays their fair share also help keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses. In so doing, there is more motivation to work, save and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, and including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. Today's legislation takes additional steps in support of this objective.

Two examples include further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules—which limit the amount of Canadian profits that can be distributed to certain non-resident shareholders as deductible interest payments—to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities, and introducing stiff 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.

We are also providing the Canada Revenue Agency, the CRA, with new tools to enforce the tax rules to combat international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, all while we are taking immediate action to improve the integrity and neutrality of the tax system. Specifically, economic action plan 2013 does this by streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks; requiring certain financial intermediaries, including banks, to report to the CRA clients' international electronic fund transfers of $10,000 or more; and introducing a new program to stop international tax evasion that would pay rewards to individuals who report major international tax non-compliance.

As the opposition can see, tax fairness is a basic principle that our government is committed to upholding. We make no apologies for doing so. In fact, we are proud of our record and we are building on it.

A level playing field is what Canadian businesses deserve and require, and we are delivering. For example, the Income Tax Act contains a number of provisions intended to constrain the trading of corporate tax attributes among arm's-length persons. Unfortunately, despite the various provisions intended to curtail the inappropriate trading of loss pools, transactions to circumvent these provisions continue to be undertaken.

Our government understands the need to introduce practical legislative measures to ensure that there are appropriate tax implications attached to these transactions. This bill does just that. It introduces an anti-avoidance rule to support the existing loss restriction rules that apply on the acquisition of control of a corporation.

As everyone can see clearly, our government is committed to putting in place the right framework to ensure tax compliance. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants had this to say about economic action plan 2013:

The budget looks to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, reduce international tax avoidance and tax evasion and improve tax fairness. It also provides the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules.

The statement continued with a strong backing of our initiatives and stated:

We support efforts to maintain the integrity of the tax base....

The bottom line is this: our government is committed to fighting tax evasion and giving Canadians a tax system they can have confidence in. There are those who would rather take advantage of the system to skip their fair contribution; Bill C-4 introduces strong new measures to combat this and would ensure that any previously mentioned measures from economic action plan 2013 come to fruition.

Lowering taxes is not the only way our government is furthering taxpayers' dollars. Canadians deserve streamlined services and efficient programs.

Today's legislation contains several measures fully in line with our government's respect for taxpayers' dollars. A few examples include 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, phasing out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit, and modernizing service delivery for Canadians by accelerating the move from paper-based to automated passport application e-services.

These are all changes that I am extremely proud to speak to. It is measures like these that demonstrate our government's commitment to making it easier for Canadians to access services that are cost-effective and efficient. While many of the changes in Bill C-4 are technical in nature, many provide clear benefits for Canadians.

I know that my constituents back home expect a fiscally responsible government. Let us take the modernization of the Canada student loans program as an example. Students in my riding of North Vancouver rely on this important program to help achieve their goals and make their educational aspirations a reality. This change in Bill C-4 would not only eliminate a cumbersome and often long process of paper agreements and identification but would also provide the government with approximately $10 million in cost savings per year. It is just common sense to provide a better service to Canadians and while saving taxpayers' dollars at the same time. It is initiatives like this that make bills like today's all the more important to pass.

I have talked about how we are working hard to make our tax system fair and how we are doing everything possible to maximize taxpayer money, but I have not forgotten about an area that Canadians have on their minds: jobs.

Quite simply, our government values job creators and we have been working hard with them in recent years to ensure that they are in the best position possible to provide jobs for Canadians.

The legislation I have the privilege of speaking about today introduces some new ways our government can support job creation in this country. Examples 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; freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of job creators and workers in 2014 alone.

Let me elaborate on one of these measures that I think will have a big impact for small businesses.

Among the many ways that Canada's income tax system supports small business owners, farmers and fishermen is the lifetime capital gains tax exemption, the LCGE. In order to increase the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing, economic action plan 2013 proposes to increase the LCGE from $750,000 to $800,000 in 2014. The exemption helps these entrepreneurs better ensure their financial security for retirement and facilitates the intergenerational transfer of their businesses. In 2007 our government increased the LCGE to $750,000 from $500,000, the first increase in the exemption since 1988.

In addition, to ensure the real value of the LCGE is not eroded over time, economic action plan 2013 proposes to index the $800,000 LCGE limit to inflation for the first time ever. The first indexation adjustment will occur for the 2015 taxation year. This is added security for the small business owner and provides financial freedom to create new jobs.

The initiatives set out in economic action plan 2013 are based on domestic government measures to improve the overall strength of Canada's tax system and to once again demonstrate our government's commitment to using taxpayers' money responsibly.

With a comprehensive and forward-looking agenda, these initiatives will deliver high quality jobs, economic growth and sound public finances.

Economic action plan 2013 would allow Canada to meet these challenges and emerge from them stronger than ever today and in the future.

While the opposition continues to focus on issues that do not matter to Canadians, our government remains focused on the task at hand. Economic growth did not stop at the last budget or the last budget implementation act for that matter. We continue to look for ways to maximize taxpayer dollars, increase the efficiency of the inner workings of government and make certain that job creation and economic prosperity are at the forefront of any new legislation. In this respect, the bill would make significant improvements that would benefit Canadians. I urge members of the House to pass it.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

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

Use of Official Languages in Departmental Briefing

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising with some reservations on this question of privilege, but I feel the seriousness of the incident in question warrants a formal response and that the Chair is best equipped to deal with this particular matter.

Last night, members of Parliament were invited to attend a departmental briefing hosted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on the government's budget implementation bill, Bill C-4, which is set to be debated for the first time this very afternoon. It is a crucial element for the preparation of members of Parliament, ahead of debating a bill, to actually be able to comprehensively understand what is in the piece of legislation.

This is a particularly complex bill by the government, another omnibus motion that includes all sorts of non-budgetary items, as well as those that have some pretense to affect the Canadian economy.

When members arrived, it quickly became clear that there was no simultaneous translation and no intention to fix that problem for the meeting. When we asked the minister's representatives to repeat the bill summary in French, the parliamentary secretary replied that that was not possible. Very quickly, and as the situation deteriorated, some members began to leave. The meeting ended very abruptly, before the members could really learn anything about the bill in English and before any explanations were given in French.

According to Erskine May, the classic definition of parliamentary privilege is as follows:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, sets out certain legislative guarantees for parliamentarians when it comes to the use of Canada's official languages. These include the right to use either language in legislative debates, the use of both languages in the official records of Parliament, and the use of English and French in printing and publishing acts. While departmental briefings are not specifically covered by the Constitution Act, university law professor André Braën notes that the purpose of section 133 is to grant “equal access for Anglophones and Francophones to the law in their language” and to guarantee “equal participation in the debates and proceedings of Parliament”.

Bill C-4, the bill that was being discussed last night in English only, is more than 300 pages long. It was put on members' desks just yesterday morning. A departmental technical briefing was promised so that members could digest some of the information and be prepared to begin debate on the bill this afternoon. That is barely 24 hours to pick apart 300 pages and prepare to debate. Surely not providing for a bilingual briefing does not allow for equal participation in the debates and proceedings in Parliament.

In Blaikie v. Quebec, Chief Justice Deschênes of the Superior Court of Quebec upheld the obligation to use English and French at the same time throughout the legislative process, and found that any disruption of that practice violates both the letter and the spirit of section 133.

We live in a bilingual country. We debate and pass bilingual laws for a bilingual populace. When members of Parliament are prevented from doing their jobs because one of our official languages is being treated as an afterthought, particularly on something as serious as the budget implementation act, we have a significant and serious problem.

I can only, as an anglophone MP, ask my anglophone colleagues to imagine going to a budget briefing in which departmental officials are made available to describe and interpret very technical pieces of legislation, to find that only French was available both in text and in the presentation. It would not be acceptable to any of us. We would find that to be an incapacity to do our jobs as members of Parliament in only having French available in a briefing that actually mattered to the affairs of the nation. The reverse is no more acceptable.

I am therefore asking the Chair for a ruling to confirm that this was indeed a breach of members' privileges, and I would certainly be prepared to move the appropriate motion if I am invited to do so.

I just have one additional comment. I have heard from my colleagues that the text of the actual bill was printed in both official languages. Congratulations for following the basic aspects of the law.

Documents were provided for MPs to understand what the technical text actually meant, because as all members of Parliament will know, in studying a 300-page bill, it does not read like cursive English. It is not prose. It is legislation and law. The understanding of what the law actually indicates needs to be done in such a way that MPs are able to function and perform our duties on behalf of those we represent, whether we are English or French.

This is a serious matter. It is fundamental. I can only suggest that it was an error of some judgment or another, but it is the practice of this place. Again, if the reverse were true and English members of Parliament had a technical briefing on a budget bill that the government only provided in French, with no translation and no opportunity to ask questions in English, my English colleagues, like myself, would be frustrated and somewhat aggrieved at the fact that we could not do our jobs and understand the legislation before us.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)