Bill C-43 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it
(a) extends the intergenerational rollover and the lifetime capital gains exemption for dispositions of property used in farming and fishing businesses;
(b) extends the tax deferral provision with respect to breeding animals to bees, and to all types of horses that are over 12 months of age, that are kept for breeding;
(c) permits income contributed to an amateur athlete trust to qualify as earned income for RRSP contribution limit purposes, with an election available to taxpayers for up to a three-year retroactive application;
(d) extends the definition “split income” to include income from a business or property that is paid or allocated to a minor child from a partnership or trust where a person related to the child is engaged in the activities of the partnership or trust to earn that income;
(e) eliminates graduated rate taxation for trusts and certain estates with an exception for cases involving testamentary trusts whose beneficiaries include individuals eligible for the Disability Tax Credit;
(f) eliminates the 60-month exemption from the non-resident trust rules;
(g) allows an individual’s estate to carry back charitable donations made as a result of the individual’s death;
(h) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment to include water-current energy equipment and a broader range of equipment used to gasify eligible waste fuel;
(i) adjusts Canada’s foreign accrual property income rules in order to address offshore insurance swap transactions and ensure that income from the direct or indirect insurance of Canadian risks is taxed appropriately;
(j) better circumscribes the existing “investment business” definition in the foreign accrual property income regime;
(k) addresses back-to-back loan arrangements involving an intermediary; and
(l) extends the existing tax credit for interest paid on student loans to interest paid on a Canada Apprentice Loan.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) alleviates the tax cost to Canadian-based banks of using excess liquidity of their foreign affiliates in their Canadian operations;
(b) ensures that certain securities transactions undertaken in the course of a bank’s business of facilitating trades for arm’s length customers are not inappropriately caught by the base erosion rules;
(c) modernizes the life insurance policy exemption test;
(d) amends the foreign affiliate rules to ensure they apply appropriately to structures that include partnerships and makes generally relieving changes to certain of the base erosion rules to ensure they do not apply in unintended circumstances;
(e) amends the rules for determining the residence of international shipping corporations;
(f) provides for the appropriate taxation of taxpayers that invest in Australian trusts;
(g) amends the foreign affiliate dumping rules to ensure the rules apply in appropriate circumstances and, if applicable, provide appropriate results;
(h) excludes from the definition “non-qualifying country” in the foreign affiliate rules those countries or other jurisdictions for which the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters is in force and effect;
(i) avoids unintended tax consequences with respect to the British Overseas Territory of the British Virgin Islands;
(j) simplifies the rules for the Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit regime;
(k) amends the trust loss restriction event rules to provide relief for investment trusts that meet specific conditions; and
(l) increases the maximum amount that may be claimed under the Children Fitness Tax Credit and makes the credit refundable starting in 2015.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that pooled registered pension plans are subject to similar GST/HST treatment as registered pension plans;
(b) implementing real property technical amendments that provide for the consistent treatment of different types of housing and ensure that the special valuation rule for subsidized housing works properly with the GST/HST place of supply rules and in the context of a GST/HST rate change;
(c) clarifying the application of GST/HST public service body rebates in relation to non-profit organizations that operate certain health care facilities; and
(d) relieving the GST/HST on services of refining precious metals supplied to a non-resident person that is not registered for GST/HST purposes.
Part 3 amends the Excise Act, 2001 to provide a refund of the inventory tax, introduced in the February 11, 2014 budget, on cigarettes that are destroyed or re-worked, in line with the refund of the excise duty that exists for tobacco products that are destroyed or re-worked.
Part 4 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Industrial Design Act to make that Act consistent with the Geneva (1999) Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs and to give the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations for carrying it into effect. The amendments include provisions relating to the contents of an application for the registration of a design, requests for priority, and the term of an exclusive right for a design.
It also amends the Patent Act to, among other things, make that Act consistent with the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty. The amendments include reducing the requirements for obtaining a filing date in relation to an application for a patent, requiring that an applicant be notified of a missed due date before an application is deemed to be abandoned, and providing that a patent may not be invalidated for non-compliance with certain requirements relating to the application on the basis of which the patent was granted.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Aeronautics Act to authorize the Minister of Transport to make an order, and the Governor in Council to make regulations, that prohibit the development or expansion of or any change to the operation of an aerodrome. It also amends the Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations in respect of consultations by the proponents and operators of aerodromes.
Division 3 of Part 4 enacts the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act, which establishes a new federal research organization that is to be responsible for advancing knowledge of the Canadian Arctic through scientific investigation and technology, promoting the development and dissemination of knowledge of the other circumpolar regions, strengthening Canada’s leadership on Arctic issues and ensuring a research presence in the Canadian Arctic. It also repeals the Canadian Polar Commission Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends section 207 of the Criminal Code to permit charitable or religious organizations to carry out, with the use of a computer, certain operations relating to a provincially-licensed lottery scheme.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to adjust the national standard for eligibility for social assistance to provide that no minimum period of residence is to be required for Canadian citizens, for permanent residents, for victims of human trafficking who hold a temporary resident permit or for protected persons.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Radiocommunication Act to:
(a) introduce an administrative monetary penalty regime;
(b) explicitly prohibit jammers, subject to exemptions provided by the Minister of Industry;
(c) provide for the enforcement of rules, standards and procedures established for competitive bidding systems for radio authorizations;
(d) modernize wording relating to the powers of inspectors and the requirements to obtain warrants;
(e) authorize inspectors to request information in writing and to seize non-compliant devices; and
(f) authorize the Minister of Industry to share information with domestic and foreign bodies for the purpose of regulating radiocommunication.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the Revolving Funds Act to correct an error in the heading before section 4 by replacing the reference to the Minister of Foreign Affairs with a reference to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The amendment is deemed to have come into force on July 2, 2013.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act to eliminate the anticipation of profit by the Royal Canadian Mint with respect to the provision of goods and services to the Government of Canada.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Investment Canada Act to require foreign investors to provide notification whenever they acquire a Canadian business through the realization of security on a loan or other financial assistance, unless another Act applies. It also allows public disclosure of certain information related to the national security review process and makes related amendments to another Act.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Broadcasting Act to prohibit a person who carries on a broadcasting undertaking from charging a subscriber for providing the subscriber with a paper bill.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the Telecommunications Act to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) with the authority to impose certain conditions concerning the offering and provision of services on providers of telecommunications services that are not telecommunications carriers, to prohibit providers of telecommunications services from charging subscribers for the provision of paper bills, to allow for sharing of information between the CRTC and the Competition Bureau, to provide the CRTC with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties for violations of the Telecommunications Act, CRTC decisions and regulations, to provide the Minister of Industry with the authority to establish a registration system and update other processes relating to telecommunications apparatus in order to assess conformity with technical requirements, and to update inspection powers for ensuring compliance with that Act.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Business Development Bank of Canada Act to clarify the financial and management services that the Business Development Bank of Canada is authorized to provide, including financial services in respect of enterprises operating outside Canada. It also makes some changes to the governance provisions of that Act.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Northwest Territories Act — enacted by section 2 of chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014 — to provide that, if the election period for the first general election under that Act would overlap with the election period for a federal general election, then the maximum duration of the first Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories under that Act may be extended until five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at the last general election under the former Northwest Territories Act (chapter N-27 of the Revised Statutes of Canada).
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to allow for the refund of a portion of employer premiums paid by small businesses in 2015 and 2016. An employer is eligible for that refund if its premium is $15,000 or less for the year in question.
It also amends that Act to exclude from reconsideration under section 112 of that Act decisions of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission made under the Employment Insurance Regulations respecting the writing off of penalties owing, amounts payable or interest accrued on any penalties owing or amounts payable.
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act in order to implement amendments to the dispute resolution mechanism of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement.
Division 16 of Part 4 amends the Canada Marine Act to provide for the power to make regulations with respect to undertakings that are situated in a port. It also authorizes those regulations to incorporate by reference documents, including the laws of a province. Finally, it authorizes port authorities to acquire federal real property or federal immovables and to lease or license any real property or immovable other than federal real property or federal immovables.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the DNA Identification Act to, among other things,
(a) create new indices in the national DNA data bank that will contain DNA profiles from missing persons, from their relatives and from human remains to assist law enforcement agencies, as well as coroners, medical examiners and persons or organizations with similar duties or functions, to find missing persons and identify human remains;
(b) create a new index that will contain DNA profiles from victims of designated offences to assist law enforcement agencies in identifying persons alleged to have committed designated offences;
(c) create a new index that will contain DNA profiles derived from bodily substances that are voluntarily submitted by individuals to assist in either the investigations of missing persons or designated offences;
(d) establish criteria for adding and retaining DNA profiles in, and removing them from, the new indices, and transferring profiles between indices;
(e) specify which DNA profiles in the existing and new indices will be compared with each other;
(f) specify the purposes for which the Commissioner of the RCMP may communicate the results of comparisons of DNA profiles and the purposes for which that information may be subsequently communicated; and
(g) specify the uses to which the results of comparisons of DNA profiles may be put.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Access to Information Act and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Division 18 of Part 4 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to provide that certain foreign entities that are engaged in the money-services business are included in the definition “foreign entity”.
Division 19 of Part 4 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to eliminate the limit on the number of full-time and part-time members of the Social Security Tribunal.
Division 20 of Part 4 amends the Public Health Agency of Canada Act to create a new position of President as deputy head of the Public Health Agency of Canada, thereby separating the responsibilities of the Chief Public Health Officer from those of the deputy head of the Agency.
Division 21 of Part 4 amends the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 in order to provide that certain provisions of Division 8 of Part 3 of that Act apply to any corporation resulting from an amalgamation referred to in that Division, and to provide that certain provisions of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act continue to apply to the Blue Water Bridge Authority after its continuance.
Division 22 of Part 4 amends several Acts to discontinue supervision of provincial central cooperative credit societies by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, to eliminate tools for federal intervention in relation to those centrals and to provincial local cooperative credit societies, and to facilitate the entry of provincial cooperative credit societies into the federal credit union system by simplifying the process for continuation and amalgamation that applies to them.
Division 23 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to authorize Her Majesty in right of Canada to neither pay nor collect low-value amounts, except amounts owed by Crown corporations to persons other than Her Majesty in right of Canada, amounts payable to Crown corporations by such persons, amounts payable under the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001, the Excise Tax Act, the Income Tax Act or the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, and amounts related to the public debt or to interest on the public debt. It also provides Treasury Board with the authority to make regulations to set a low-value threshold, to specify circumstances for the accumulation of amounts and to exclude amounts, as well as regulations generally respecting the operation of the authority to neither pay nor collect low-value amounts.
Division 24 of Part 4 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) replace references to an opinion provided by the Department of Employment and Social Development, with respect to an application for a work permit, with references to an “assessment”;
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Employment and Social Development to publish on a list the name and address of an employer who, among other things, has been convicted of certain offences; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations
(i) regarding the publication and removal of the names and addresses of employers,
(ii) regarding the power to require documents from any individual or entity for inspection in order to verify compliance with regulatory conditions,
(iii) requiring an employer to provide prescribed information in relation to a foreign national’s authorization to work in Canada for the employer,
(iv) governing fees to be paid for rights and privileges in relation to an assessment provided by the Department of Employment and Social Development with respect to an application for a work permit,
(v) governing fees to be paid in respect of the compliance regime that applies to employers in relation to their employment of certain foreign nationals,
(vi) regarding the collection, retention, use, disclosure and disposal of Social Insurance Numbers, and
(vii) regarding the disclosure of information for the purposes of cooperation between the Government of Canada and the government of a province.
Division 25 of Part 4 amends the Judges Act and the Federal Courts Act to implement the Government’s Response to the Report of the Special Advisor on Federal Court Prothonotaries’ Compensation with respect to the salary and benefits of the prothonotaries of the Federal Court.
Division 26 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Payments Act to make changes to the governance structure of the Canadian Payments Association and to add new obligations in respect of accountability, including by
(a) changing the composition of the Board of the Directors of the Association and the procedures for selecting the directors of the Board;
(b) establishing a Member Advisory Council;
(c) expanding the power of the Minister of Finance to issue directives to the Association; and
(d) adding new obligations in respect of the preparation of annual reports and corporate plans.
Division 27 of Part 4 amends the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to expand and enhance the oversight powers of the Bank of Canada with respect to systems for the clearing and settlement of payment obligations and other financial transactions, so that the Bank is better able to identify risks related to financial market infrastructure and to respond in a timely and proactive manner. It also makes minor consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 28 of Part 4 enacts the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act in order to impose the following obligations on entities that are engaged in the commercial development of oil, gas or minerals for the purpose of implementing Canada’s international commitments in the fight against corruption:
(a) the obligation to report to the responsible Minister certain payments made to payees; and
(b) the obligation to make reported information accessible to the public.
For the purpose of verifying compliance, the Act provides for an inspection regime and gives a power to the responsible Minister to require an entity to provide certain information. Finally, the Act provides for certain offences relating to the obligations under the Act.
Division 29 of Part 4 amends the Jobs and Economic Growth Act to provide that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. (CNL) is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, effective as of the date of CNL’s incorporation, and to provide that CNL will cease to be an agent on the day on which Atomic Energy of Canada Limited disposes of CNL’s shares. The Division also amends that Act to provide that the Public Service Superannuation Act will apply for a transitional period of three years to persons who are employees of CNL on that day.
Division 30 of Part 4 repeals a provision of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 that amended a provision of the Public Service Labour Relations Act. It also amends provisions of the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 that amended the Public Service Employment Act in respect of the staffing complaint process.
It also makes a technical correction to a coordinating amendment in the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.
Division 31 of Part 4 transfers the pensionable service that is to the credit of certain Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension contributors under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to the Public Service Superannuation Act and deems those contributors to be Group 1 contributors under the Public Service Superannuation Act. It also amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to repeal provisions relating to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not holding a rank.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to introduce Bill C-43 at second reading. Today's legislation builds on the strong foundation that was laid last year. We are continuing to build on our portfolio of initiatives we have introduced since 2006, with affordable measures to create jobs, promote growth and support long-term prosperity.

This key strategy is working, creating jobs, keeping the economy growing and returning to balanced budgets in 2015. Since we introduced the economic action plan to respond to the global recession, our economy has created nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the depths of the recession in 2009, one of the strongest job creation records in the G7.

I would be remiss if I did not tout some of the outcomes of our economic action plan.

According to KPMG, total business tax costs in Canada are the lowest in the G7 and 46% lower than those in the United States. When was the last time that happened? What is more, Canada leapt from sixth to second place in Bloomberg's ranking of the most attractive destinations to do business in the world.

Both the IMF and the OECD still expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and next.

For the seventh year in a row, the World Economic Forum rated Canada's banking system the soundest in the world.

All the major credit rating agencies accord Canada a top AAA rating with a stable outlook, a rating shared by very few countries.

A recent New York Times study found that after tax, middle-class incomes in Canada were substantially behind in 2000 and now appeared to be higher than those in the United States. In fact, the Canadian middle class is among the richest in the developed world for the first time ever.

The federal tax burden is at its lowest level in over 50 years, and remember we have removed more than one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls entirely. The average family of four will save nearly $3,400 this year and a small business earning $500,000 now saves over $28,000 in taxes, thanks to our low-tax plan.

It is clear that Canada has become an international success story, but Canada is still not immune to the global economic challenges beyond our borders. Our government has been adamant that as long as Canadians are still looking for jobs, there is more work to be done.

With that, let me now turn to the measures in today's legislation that would build on our success and ensure that we would continue to keep Canada on track for job creation and balanced budgets.

First, Bill C-43 reaffirms this government's commitment to making our tax system simpler and fairer. It also closes tax loopholes and strengthens tax enforcement to ensure low taxes for all taxpayers, not only a select few.

Allow me to highlight some of the measures we have taken to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system.

First, today's legislation would simplify the tax rules relating to the lifetime capital gains exemption, LCGE, and the intergenerational rollover for taxpayers who carry on farming and fishing businesses in combination. This builds on our original measure to increase the potential rewards of investing in small business, farming and fishing.

Economic action plan 2013 increased the LCGE from $750,000 to $800,000 in 2014. To ensure that real value is not eroded over time, we also indexed the $800,000 limit to inflation for the first time ever. The first indexation adjustment will occur for the 2015 taxation year. To accomplish this, the government proposes to generally treat a taxpayer's combined farming and fishing business the same as separate farming and fishing businesses conducted by the same taxpayer. This would ensure consistent treatment for taxpayers who conducted farming and fishing activities in different legal forms.

Similarly, a special income tax rule is currently available to farmers who dispose of breeding livestock due to drought or excess moisture conditions existing in specific regions in a given year. This rule permits farmers to exclude up to 90% of the sale proceeds from their taxable income until the year following the sale or a later year if the conditions persist.

Bill C-43 proposes to extend this tax deferral to beekeepers and horse breeders, effective for 2014 and subsequent taxation years. These are two examples of our Conservative government standing up for the interests of Canadian farmers, fishers, and others who own and operate businesses in Canada.

As I mentioned, our government takes tax evasion seriously, and we want to close loopholes to ensure that all taxpayers are paying their fair share. Bill C-43 would tackle tax loopholes head-on.

It is vital that the government have the ability to obtain tax information from other jurisdictions through revised tax treaties and through tax information exchange agreements with non-treaty countries. Current, reliable information is key to our government's efforts to verify compliance with Canadian laws and to reduce opportunities for abuse. Bill C-43 would take another important step in this direction by adjusting the policy encouraging the exchange of information for tax purposes.

Specifically, the definition of “non-qualifying country” in the Income Tax Act is relevant in determining the foreign accrual property income of a foreign affiliate of a taxpayer for a year. Today's legislation in that regard proposes two changes. First, it proposes to amend the definition of “non-qualifying country” so that it does not apply to those jurisdictions for which the convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters is in force and in effect. Second, it proposes to ensure that the FAPI rules do not apply inappropriately with respect to the British overseas territory the British Virgin Islands, a jurisdiction that now has a comprehensive tax information agreement with Canada.

Our Conservative government has also consistently demonstrated that it recognizes the importance of a strong financial sector. Bill C-43 would be no different. Our government is moving forward with its dual agenda with respect to credit unions, ensuring that the regulatory framework is clear and supporting those provincial credit unions that want to be federally regulated.

Since the financial crisis, we have pursued an important agenda of regulatory reform to ensure that the federal financial system is stable and competitive and serves the needs of various participants. Stability has been the dominant theme of the federal reform agenda.

Bill C-43 would deliver on the announcement made in economic action plan 2014 about withdrawing the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions' supervision of provincial credit union centrals and clarifying access to federal intervention tools for provincial credit union centrals, credit unions, and caisses populaires.

As many hon. members appreciate, Canada's credit unions are a valuable source of financial services in communities across the country, including in my area of North Vancouver. We want to promote the continued growth and competition of the credit union sector on a national scale.

In recognition of the important role credit unions play, our government created in economic action plan 2010 a new legislative framework for federal credit unions as a platform to broaden choices for consumers and to improve services for existing members. To continue to grow, some credit unions are looking to amalgamate with credit unions in other provinces to become a federal credit union.

In economic action plan 2014, the federal government also announced streamlining the process of amalgamating provincial credit unions, continuing into the federal credit framework, to make it less costly and complex. Bill C-43 would deliver on that announcement.

Yes, there is more. As we have said many times, we understand that the main priority of Canadians is jobs. Let me highlight three measures that are helping small businesses and ensuring that Canadians are first in line for jobs.

Bill C-43 would implement our recently announced small business job credit, which would save small employers more than $550 million over 2015 and 2016. It would also lower EI payroll taxes by 15%. This is real money that a small business could use to help defray the cost of hiring new workers and to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities supporting growth and job creation.

We have listened to the experts on small business. For example, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that our small business job credit would create 25,000 person years of employment over the next few years.

Monique Moreau, of the CFIB, said, “small businesses in Canada should be thrilled with this announcement...because they told us time and time again that payroll taxes like EI are the biggest disincentive to hiring.”

Our Conservative government recognizes the fundamental importance of small businesses in fuelling the Canadian economy, so while the opposition insists on attacking job creators with massive tax hikes, we will continue to lower payroll taxes for 90% of businesses to support some of Canada's most important job creators.

However, that is not all. Today's legislation would build on our support for small businesses and entrepreneurs by reducing barriers to the international and domestic flow of goods and services. This measure in today's legislation would promote job creation and would improve the conditions of business investment.

Currently, Canada's framework for protecting intellectual property is not aligned with international practices, creating unnecessary costs for innovative businesses. Harmonizing Canada's intellectual property regime with international norms would help improve Canada's innovative businesses' access to international markets, lower costs, and draw foreign investment to Canada by reducing the regulatory burden and red tape faced by businesses. Economic action plan 2014 proposes to modernize Canada's intellectual property framework by ratifying or acceding to the following widely recognized international treaties: the Madrid protocol, the Singapore treaty, the Nice agreement, the patent law treaty, and the Hague agreement.

Bill C-43 would complete the required legislative amendments to the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act, and the Industrial Design Act to align Canada's intellectual property framework with international practices. The benefits expected for Canadian businesses from these reforms are significant. For example, accession to the trademark treaties would make it possible for a company to obtain protection for trademarks in a number of countries through a single international application, filed in one language and in one currency with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, thus cutting red tape and reducing paperwork and business costs.

Finally, we are implementing certain reforms to the temporary foreign worker program. Our message to employers has been clear and unequivocal: Canadians must always be first in line for available jobs. Our comprehensive and balanced reforms would restore the temporary foreign worker program to its original purpose as a short-term, last resort for employers when there are no qualified Canadians to fill available jobs.

Make no mistake about it, through these amendments in Bill C-43, we are making a comprehensive and balanced overhaul of the program. This clearly contrasts with the Liberals and the New Democrats, who have been completely incoherent about where they stand. While inundating our government with requests for foreign workers for their individual ridings, they are voting in favour of an expansive moratorium on the program. While they are demanding change to the program, they have voted against all our previous reforms to tighten access to the program and to crack down on abuse. These reforms would require that employers make greater efforts to recruit and train Canadians for jobs through initiatives like the Canada job grant.

Some of our temporary foreign worker program reforms include the following:

Employers seeking to hire high-wage TFWs would now be required to submit transition plans showing how they will be hiring more Canadians.

A new enhanced job-matching service would allow Canadians to apply directly, through the Canada job bank, for jobs that match their skills and experience. It would provide information to program officers reviewing an employer's labour market opinion impact assessment application on how many qualified Canadians have applied for specific jobs, meaning more and better labour market information.

There would be stronger enforcement and tougher penalties for abuse of the program through the expansion of the ability to publicly blacklist employers who have been suspended and are under investigation and those who have had an LMIA revoked and are banned from using the program. There would be improved information-sharing among departments and agencies involved in the oversight of the TFWP, including in provincial and territorial governments.

At the end of the day, this program should accomplish exactly what the name says. It would only be used to provide temporary help where clear and acute labour shortages exist and Canadians are not available.

Our government will always stand up for connecting Canadians with available jobs, and these measures allow us to do just that.

I could talk all day about the positive measures in the bill, so let me list a few more before my time runs out.

We are supporting families by doubling the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable. As we promised in our 2013 Speech from the Throne, we are ending the pay-to-pay billing practices of telecommunication service providers whereby subscribers are charged to receive bills in paper form. We are creating a national DNA-based missing persons index to assist law enforcement in investigations and to help bring closure to the families of missing persons through DNA matching. We are reducing the administrative burden on charities by allowing them to use modern electronic tools to raise funds. The list goes on.

While these measures are a sign of excellent progress, again, our work is not done. Our government will continue to ensure that our tax system is fair for everyone. We will continue to close loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules, and crack down on international tax evasion and avoidance. In doing so, our government will also build on the responsible management that has kept taxes low for Canadian families and has kept Canada's net debt burden the lowest, by far, among the Group of Seven countries.

For those reasons, and many other measures in today's legislation that I have not mentioned, I urge all hon. members to accord the bill their full support.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start my question with a comment about something good that is in this massive 460-page omnibus bill. I do not know if the word “omnibus” actually left the member's lips during that entire 20-minute speech, but it is huge and has very little to do with the actual budget itself.

The DNA data bank is an important thing that has been recognized by police forces and by victims' families for a number of years. New Democrats have been asking for this option. We are glad to see it here in the budget.

The member mentioned the temporary foreign worker program and somehow attempted to cast aspersions that it was someone else's creation, this monster that has been taking jobs from Canadians, and in effect suppressing wages for those Canadians who are able to find jobs.

The temporary foreign worker program began under the Liberals but exploded under the Conservative government. If the member is looking around for someone to blame, certainly he can at least acknowledge some level of ownership for the mistakes that were made.

In the budget bill, there are a number of changes to the temporary foreign worker program to increase monitoring, and as he said, crack down on those who abuse the program, so that the temporary foreign worker, in his words, should not be a first option for employers.

My question is simply this. The program has been around for years but has been expanded massively by the Conservatives. Why was it allowed to grow to this point where it was a first option for so many employers, where Canadians had to wait second and third in line behind temporary foreign workers? Why was there so little monitoring done of the program? It is only being introduced now, in 2014, only after it hit the news and only after it became such an abused and misused program.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is absolutely correct in the sense that the temporary foreign worker program was introduced by the previous Liberal government. We are now taking important measures to reform that program to ensure that Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs and that the program continues to operate in the best interests of Canadians and our economy.

Over the past two years, we have made several reforms as part of the temporary foreign worker program review. Specifically, the government has already taken action to impose conditions on employers who hire foreign workers They must do the following: demonstrate that they are meeting the conditions of hiring foreign workers, such as paying them proper wages and providing safe and healthy working conditions, consistent with Canadian standards; allow CIC and ESDC officials to conduct inspections of employers who hire foreign workers to ensure that they are meeting the conditions of employment; allow CIC to revoke or suspend the processing of work permits and ESDC to revoke, suspend, or refuse to process labour market impact assessments; and require employers requesting LMIAs to pay temporary foreign workers at the prevailing wage by removing the existing wage flexibility.

These are some of the measures we have brought in to reform the program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is being somewhat less than honest with respect to the role the current government has actually played with the temporary foreign worker program. This is a program that has provided great economic and social benefit for Canadians for many years. Yes, it was a Liberal prime minister who ultimately brought in the program, but the program had been a huge success prior to the current government taking office. It is the current government that embellished, and in essence, put the program into a crisis situation.

If we go into the Prairies, or even into Atlantic Canada and other regions, we would find that there has been a great value to the program. It is the current government that has made a mess of the program. It has turned it into a crisis situation, and the Canadian economy is paying as a direct result of its incompetence.

My question for the minister is with respect to areas of the country where the temporary foreign worker program has proven to be very useful and necessary. I am sure if he did some work by going out and checking with some of those employers, maybe the government would recognize that there is some value to properly fixing the program to get it back on track so that the overall economy would be that much better.

This is a very specific question. Does the minister believe that the temporary foreign worker program has a valuable role to contribute to Canada's economy?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member opposite is so defensive, because it did come into effect under his government, and, as we have seen, it did have significant problems.

Obviously, we do recognize the value of the temporary foreign worker program in its reformed state, which is why we are reforming it, and not getting rid of it. There are obviously regions in this country that rely upon it and it has helped out significantly in those regions. What we are doing now is ensuring that compliance is done appropriately and that the government has effective penalties and fines in place for those who chose to abuse the program.

Here are some more of the reforms that we have made to the program.

We will introduce fees for employers for the processing of LMIAs and increase the fees for work permits so that taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the cost of the program. We will ensure that employers who rely upon temporary foreign workers have a firm plan in place to transition to a Canadian workforce over the long term because too many businesses have, as part of their business models, relied on this program. We want to ensure there is a transition in place so that they can transition to a Canadian workforce over time. We are suspending the accelerated labour market opinion process, and we are prohibiting employers who request an LMIA from requesting a non-official language as a requirement of the job.

We think these are very important changes and reforms to the program. It will continue to be an important program, especially for those regions of the country that rely upon it.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, one of the members of the House said:

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?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.

The Prime Minister believed that 20 years ago. Where has the Prime Minister been in the past 20 years to lose such faith in those fundamental values of democracy?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite feels that he is being forced to vote en bloc, I suggest he take it up with the leader of his party.

I can tell him that this particular bill will be debated lively in the House. It will be debated in numerous committees of the House, as well. He will have his opportunity to discuss and debate the bill.

However, let me just tell members a few things.

First, Canadians expect their government to make decisions to take action on our commitments. That is what our government is doing in the House of Commons with BIA 2. We will continue to keep our commitment to Canadians by introducing and advancing important legislation, legislation such as supporting job creation and growing Canada's economy by introducing the new small business job credit, and by strengthening Canada's intellectual property regime to promote job creation and to improve conditions for business investment and access to international markets.

We are amending legislation to implement certain reforms to the temporary foreign worker program. We are making the tax system simpler and fairer for farming and fishing businesses. We are extending the existing tax credit for interest paid on government-sponsored student loans to interest paid on a Canada apprentice loan. Finally, we are also introducing new reporting standards to meet Canada's 2013 Group of Eight commitment to increase transparency for entities operating in the extractive sector.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are debating a mammoth bill.

Frankly, I think that Canadians are starting to get sick of seeing this government try to pass such controversial bills that are harmful to society. The government is raiding the employment insurance fund to create a program that will cost $500 million to create 800 jobs.

Does the government think it has taken enough from the regions, or will it not be satisfied until the regions are completely crushed?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would simply take the time to read the bill he would understand that we are not taking money out of anywhere. Rather, we are giving money back to those who are paying it. It is a payroll tax that is being reduced by 15%. That is $550 million that stays in the pockets of employers and employees, the ones who are paying that money in the first place. We are simply allowing them to keep it in their pockets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find a way to say that it is a pleasure to speak to this particular piece of legislation but it is not, simply because of what we have in front of us. The story that is best told about this mammoth bill, Bill C-43, is the story of the good, the bad and the ugly.

Let me start with the good because it is the shortest section. In here, we have the government seeking to go halfway with respect to some consumer protection. New Democrats have been fighting for years to protect consumers from businesses that operate in hat we believe is an unethical way. We think that is the proper role of government. The Conservatives agreed in part.

Pay to pay, a term that was coined in an NDP office in Toronto, is a concept that Canadians should not have to pay to receive their bills. It is adding a little insult to injury. The Conservatives said, yes, certainly with the telecommunications companies, with which they have a particular fight, and certainly for some of the broadcasting companies, with which they also have a dispute right now. Those will be banned. Pay to pay will not be allowed there by law. However, the banks are a special case for the Conservatives and the Prime Minister. It seem the banks do not earn enough money to have to do away with this unfair practice to their customers, so banking consumers will continue to pay to receive their own bills in the mail.

A second piece that is a good and important piece, which has nothing to do with the budget but here it is in the budget bill, is the establishment of a DNA bank for missing and in some cases murdered Canadians. This is also something the NDP has long believed in, after listening to victims groups and police associations that said this was important. We are happy to see progress there.

Now let us move to the bad, because in the 460 pages that are in this massive bill, most of it is bad. Certainly at the very best it is completely unassociated to anything that we would know as a budget. There are 460 pages with 401 clauses changing dozens of laws in the stroke of a pen. When we vote on the bill it will be a six- to seven-minute process and all of a sudden all of these laws, as has been the case before, will be changed all at once.

What is remarkable about this failed process from the Conservatives is that in this massive omnibus bill are a number of changes to fix mistakes in the last omnibus bill, which fixed mistakes from the previous omnibus bill. If the Conservatives consider this competent governance I would hate to see what they think is incompetent because all this does is make up for the arrogant mistakes that get made time and time again by the government. It says rather than debate any of these individual pieces of legislation, among the dozens, at separate times so that we could hear from witnesses who know what they are talking about and so that MPs could vote freely and fairly with their conscience on each aspect, the Conservatives do this kitchen sink approach.

It is a Trojan horse. Buried within the bill are so many concepts, and some of them at odds with each other, that when we had the briefing last night with government officials they needed to roll in dozens and dozens of civil servants to address all the different parts of Canadian law that would be changed by the bill. I had a great deal of sympathy for these folks. They drag them in here and we sit until eleven, twelve, one o'clock in the morning for these things. The officials get up to the front of the room for their six minutes to address one section out of this massive bill and then go home. I am sure they are salaried and not getting overtime for this hassle the government continues to put them through.

The mistakes that continue to be made by doing legislation by bulldozer is a problem for the government. It is a problem for the Canadian people. My colleague just read a quote from the right hon. Prime Minister from when Conservatives used to occupy these benches. We have quotes from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Industry and virtually every senior Conservative in cabinet who was at one point in opposition and hated this process when the Liberals did it.

When the Liberals used omnibus bills to ram through legislation, the Conservatives talked about the conscience of Parliament, the inability of MPs to represent their constituents properly and fairly and how this was an abuse of the democratic process.

We agreed with them when they had that conscience. Now, it is the same old story because they picked up some of the worst habits from my Liberal colleagues, and these omnibus bills have grown massively over time. Now we have hundreds and hundreds of pages of legislation being rammed through Parliament with little oversight, affecting virtually hundreds of Canadian laws. They are changing everything from the nuclear act to public safety and Canada's medical act. It goes on and on.

However, what is not in the bill is important. What is in a bill is sometimes very critical. What is not in this so-called budget implement bill is greatly worrisome for me and I believe for the Canadian economy. Taken in the current context, with virtually no private sector growth at all over the last 18 months, the private sector is not creating jobs. We have personal debt rates in this country that are the highest in our history, dramatically higher than any generation has seen before.

We have youth unemployment that is twice the national average and persists from the worst moments of the recession. For young people getting into the economy, getting that first job, which we know is critical for them to become productive and effective members of society, that first job is the most important step.

Youth, as they are coming out of school, training and university, if they are not able to find work, the statistics consistently show us that they will find whatever work they possibly can, and it is usually not in the field for which they trained.

We say we have a skills shortage in this country and in parts of this country we do. However, what we desperately have is an experience shortage. Young people are not getting the apprenticeships, not getting the training and not getting into the jobs for which they were educated.

When we have a youth unemployment rate nearing 14%, and that is not capturing the full rate of unemployment, that should be a problem for any government. This persists. This lasts longer than that one single year. We have also seen 1.3 million Canadians who are unemployed.

I am reminded by the sounds coming from the gallery of something else that is not in this bill. There is no affordable child care in this bill. We know statistically, because we now have evidence from Quebec, and it is proposed by the NDP, that affordable child care is one of the best things that can be done for the economy, never mind for families, never mind for single moms looking for options, and never mind for those families that are struggling to just pay the bills.

When considering having kids, one of the largest factors that comes into play is whether a family can afford it or not. We hear of daycare rates of $2,100 per child per month in places like Vancouver and Toronto. What single mom can afford that? What couple can afford that? We see rents and the cost of living continually going up.

We have suggested to the government that this is an ideal opportunity to increase women's participation in the workforce, as has been evidenced in Quebec, and to increase the fertility rate of this country. As we know, we have a stalled and declining fertility rate or replacement rate in this country. We have seen a baby boom in Quebec.

I thought Conservatives were focused on family and interested in what happens with family affairs. I guess not so much when it comes to actually providing help for those families.

We have seen the loss of 400,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs just since the Conservatives have taken power that have not come back. According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, 700,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last decade that have not been replaced. The trend is continuing.

There are actual aspects of this bill that we believe offer less scrutiny for foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, a back door process, to allow even less oversight of foreign companies taking over Canadian assets. We know the experience. We have the list of promises made when Canadian firms are taken over. The government just does not even bat an eye. It is a problem for Canadians and it should be a problem for the government.

We see, from the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the serious concern of long-term unemployment. We see time and again that if long-term unemployment persists, it has a huge and important effect on our economy, and there is nothing in here.

We heard from those same lobby groups the Conservatives like to quote all the time, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and average ordinary everyday people who have businesses. They say that merchant fees, credit card fees, are too high, and that the influx of new credit cards that consumers enjoy is hurting those small and medium-sized businesses.

From Restaurants Canada, we heard that the profit made by restaurants on certain meals, if paid for by certain credit cards, is less than the fees they have to pay to the credit card company. They have to pay fees on the tips that are given to their employees and it comes directly out of the owner's pocket.

If the Conservatives were actually interested in doing something to help small businesses, this would be a good place to start. It hits them and helps them right in the bottom line right away.

However, these are two competing interests. Let us see who wins out, the small businesses of Canada or the large banks and credit card companies. Looking through these 460 pages, the banks and credit card companies win yet again, as they did under the previous Liberal regime.

Let us get into some of the other global concerns. We see a weakening in China. The EU is in trouble again. Paying $80 for a barrel of oil should be a concern as the Alberta government is now publicly saying that its budget estimates were based on $93 a barrel. We are asking the government what its estimates are based on because we know how critical the price of oil is as it relates to how much revenue the federal government is able to receive. As one economist said to the finance committee, if oil stays at or below $80 a barrel and we are losing upward of $4 billion a year, there is no accounting for that at all.

There is no Conservative budget here. Very expensive promises are about to be made, like income splitting, that will cost the taxpayer upward of $5 billion just as we remain in a flat and fragile Canadian economy with very little private sector job growth, with a global economy that remains uncertain and with oil prices that have dropped off dramatically. The Conservatives do not seem to acknowledge any of this and yet they call themselves managers of the economy. How could that possibly be?

Let us look at the one job scheme that the government has placed in this legislation. I say scheme purposely because there is nothing else to call this thing. We asked officials last night to give us the evidence that supports any of the claims that the Minister of Finance makes. One would think that if the finance minister and his department had run the numbers and found that the government's half a billion dollar employment scheme would create a lot of jobs in Canada, they would be more than happy to produce the numbers and give us the evidence. They told us that was all advice to the minister and it was protected by confidentiality.

As if ripping off the employment insurance scheme for $550 million was not the business of the people who paid into it, the employers and employees. As if slipping a bit of advice to the minister was somehow to protect those people from knowing what was happening to the employment insurance fund they paid into.

It is not the government's money. The Conservative member from Toronto who sits on the finance committee said that very thing just this week to a witness. This is not the government's money. Why does the government, as previous Liberal governments, treat it otherwise, as some sort of slush fund that it can use for its pet projects?

The only true analysis we have seen of this scheme so far has been from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has a good record when it comes to analyzing Conservative costs. We remember the whole Afghanistan cost, which the Conservatives denied.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has to routinely go to court just to get data from the government, which is ironic and tragic considering it was the Conservatives who created the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer in the first place. He spends half his time in court trying to drag the numbers and the data from the government, so that he can do what he was mandated to do. Why spend the money on this office? Why create the office through legislation in the first place if it is going to be starved of information and denied its right to do its honest and good work?

The PBO did study this employment insurance scheme and found a couple of extremely worrisome discrepancies. One is the perverse incentive regarding employers that sit right around the threshold line as designed in this plan, that are just above the EI contributions of $15,000. They would have a $2,200 incentive to drop below that line. How do they drop below that line? They will have to fire somebody. They would have a $200 incentive to hire somebody that might put them above the line.

Let me do the quick math for my Conservative colleagues: a $200 incentive to hire somebody and a $2,200 incentive for those same small and medium-sized businesses to fire somebody. We hope they will not do that. Most small and medium-sized business owners have a good conscience and want to help create jobs. Why, for heaven's sake, would a government create a program that would give them the incentive to do the opposite while taking from the EI fund to do it?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also ran the numbers on this and found that the $550 million scheme would create upward of 800 jobs. Wow. That is $550 million in employment insurance contributions out, 800 jobs into the economy. When that number is broken down, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer did publicly and transparently for everyone, that works out to $550,000 for every new job created.

I have emails sitting in my inbox and posted on my Facebook page from Canadians saying they want one of those jobs. They want to know how to apply for one of these fancy EI scheme jobs if they are going to be given half a billion dollars. My goodness. Who came up with this thing?

How bad could it possibly be for the Conservatives that they have to grab and desperately search for job creation plans that cost half a million dollars or more per job? My gosh, they have to do better than this. I guess 8, 9, 10 years in, they have completely run out of ideas.

As Churchill once said about anything he would like to change about all his time in government, he said, “Circumstance”. He wished that he could have changed the circumstance.

However, the circumstance and reality for the current Conservative government is that our economy continues to struggle from the depths of the recession. The Conservatives cannot have 18 months of virtually no private sector job growth and be satisfied as a government. How can that possibly be true? I would love for the Conservatives to get up and deny that reality. Where does that number come from? It comes from Statistics Canada, the government's own reporting agency.

Let us look at another aspect of this so-called budget bill. Refugee claimants are clearly a concern of the government because it has to crack down on the billions of dollars going to refugees. Oh wait, the changes the Conservatives would make do not affect the federal treasury at all.

What would the changes do? They would affect real people's lives, and those claiming and seeking refugee asylum status in Canada will be denied, through the provinces, which would be enabled by the the bill before us, to receive social assistance.

This is coming after the most recent experience of the Conservative government denying refugees medical service and protection, which a Federal Court judge said was cruel and unusual punishment. Members do not have to take my word for it, they can listen to the judge who, when faced with this case, this absolute atrocity of legislation and policy coming from the government, said that any government that does this to anybody is performing something that is cruel and unusual.

Rather than back up that particular train, the Conservatives decided to double down and say that clearly the refugee claimants are making so much money and living so well that we need to deny them, and we will help the provinces deny them.

We then asked, “Which provinces asked for this measure? Which refugee claimant groups asked for this?” The best we got from the government was that it notified the Ontario government of the changes.

Would members like to know what the Ontario government's official policy is on denying refugee claimants social assistance? It is against it. Therefore, the one province the Conservatives even mentioned this to said not to do it, but here we have it.

The Conservatives, on some ideological rant, some xenophobic policy, meant to attack some perceived enemy, some problem that does not exist. They say that their government cares about people. How dare they. How shameful for them to put this in the middle of an omnibus bill and say that it is about the economy.

The Conservatives go to Canadians and say that they are working for them, yet the first thing they are going to do is go after those refugee claimants because obviously people who are seeking refugee status in Canada have been living so well and have had such a good experience in life that they have decided to seek refugee status here.

Where is that compassionate conservatism? Where are those Canadian values that say we are a place that welcomes the world as we have welcomed millions over the years? This strikes at the very core of our values and the Conservative have gotten it wrong.

What possible solutions do the Conservatives have?

Well, let us start with one of them. The Prime Minister, in a rare appearance at the UN, did not talk about climate change or activities of peace around the world, but about his program on maternal health, which is a good and decent program. He said that an important thing about the program is that the government is going to measure it because “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Well, guess what? We do not have good statistics to measure what is going on in the labour force in Canada. The Conservatives have denied gathering census data, which all the economists, banks and credit unions say is an atrocity and a bad way to run a government.

This is a story of the good, the bad and the ugly. It is a story of a government that has absolutely gotten it wrong yet again. It is a failed opportunity to actually help Canadians and our economy.

I move, seconded by the member for Laval:

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-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, because it:

a) amends dozens of unrelated Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight;

b) fails to address persistent unemployment and sluggish economic growth;

c) aims to strip refugee claimants of access to social assistance to meet their basic needs;

d) imposes a poorly designed job credit that will create few, if any, jobs while depleting Employment Insurance Funds; and

e) breaks the government's promises to protect small businesses from merchant fees and to ban banks from charging pay-to-pay fees.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on an area with which I know the member is somewhat familiar. It is an area that is really important to all Canadians, even though there is no real mention of it within this budget bill. That is the issue of the infrastructure expenditures. The government has cut actual spending, estimated to be between 80% to 90%, for this year in anticipation that possibly in the next year, the election year cycle, we might see some substantial increases.

The real concern is that the infrastructure is so vitally important. We have seen this in some of the municipal elections that have taken place. We talked about Toronto yesterday and the city of Winnipeg a week prior. Different council members, mayoral candidates, and others talking about the need for infrastructure. This is at a time when the federal government has not seen fit to recognize it within this bill or within its overall budget. This is important to the Canadian economy. Investing in the infrastructure not only helps create direct jobs, but also indirect jobs, and adds so much more value to the Canadian economy.

Would the member comment on the importance of infrastructure and why it would have been good to have had it incorporated it into the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have essentially back loaded all of their infrastructure promises. They announce a large, long-term number with 90% of it coming in the 9th and 10th year, and 4% or 5% of it coming in the first year. Then they say that the number is really large and that they are investing more than ever. We just have to read the fine print when it comes to Conservative promises.

The challenge is this. One example is that the Conservatives handed down new water regulations to the cities last year. The FCM estimates that the cost to meet the new federal standards is somewhere in the order of $18 billion. One would have assumed that the federal government knew this when handing down these new requirements for cities to achieve and that it would also have handed down maybe something like money to help the cities meet the $18 billion gap, because cities are able to tax the lowest. They have not.

We also know that gridlock is one of the largest drags on the Canadian economy right now, simply getting from A to B, that is both people getting to work and getting products to market, and we see a government that has turned itself away completely. There is no infrastructure mentioned in the budget at all. My friend is right.

We need to have something balanced and we have to work with the cities as opposed to working against them, or as opposed to in isolation from them, which seems to be more and more often the case of a government that has become used to doing things its way and not the right way.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we had implemented smart growth policies 20 years ago, we would be in a much different situation with infrastructure.

Facing a lack of rational economic policy from the other side, I would like to engage in a visioning exercise with my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

The member knows that global competitiveness is being harmed in Canada. Countries which are succeeding, such as Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, all have robust cradle-to-grave programs from compassionate governments, and it pays economically.

If we look at Finland, which has had universal access to quality child care since 1990 and pre-school since 1996, the outcomes that have been tested and measured in Finland show it is more competitive globally as a whole society.

Finland's head of international relations for Helsinki's education department says that it is not a place where people dump their children when they are working. It is a place for their children to play, learn and make friends. Good parents put their children in daycare. It is not related to socio-economic status.

Could my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley elaborate on the vision the NDP has in place of this imagined—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting thing. Some watching may wonder why there is a question about child care on a speech about the economy and the budget. However, everyone who has studied the aspects of affordable child care knows that the impacts can be enormous for the economy. It represents, much like infrastructure spending, a true investment. We throw the term “investment” around here all the time, but we know that some things are investments and some things are not. Investing in affordable, good child care is a smart thing to do, both on the social side and the economic side.

We see other G7 and OECD countries struggling to increase worker participation in the economy, spending tens of billions of dollars to help people get into that economy because productivity is so low. Canada has struggled with productivity for years now, and one would argue generations. There is a great deal of evidence, and this is not coming from one sector of economists, left, progressive or conservative but across the board, showing that to help families out directly is an effective way for government to invest in the economy. This is not with some token $100 cheque that comes once a month, which gets taxed, and pretending that is a child care strategy, but a real child care plan. We have working models from which to borrow. We can look to Quebec and understand what the benefits have been to it as a society and its economy. The government gets back more than it puts in. That is a good investment for me.

Perhaps the Conservatives believe in some other world view. That is obviously the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a fellow member of the finance committee. A range of witnesses who came before that committee, from the Canadian Labour Congress to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said that we had an unprecedented opportunity to invest in infrastructure. We have a record low of bond yields and real interest rates are negative. It is an opportunity to invest in fixing Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

Does the member agree that we have a significant opportunity and that our pension funds, such as OMERS, teachers' and CPPIB, could be very important partners in progress in fixing Canada's infrastructure? Our pension funds are building infrastructure around the world. We probably have the greatest concentration of expertise in the design, financing and construction of infrastructure in the world resident in Canada. Does the member agree that we should be engaging those pension funds in Canada to fix our infrastructure?

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

Mr. Speaker, the analogy of a household is often used by Conservatives when talking about the economy, that we have to manage ourselves like a household would. If our house were falling down, if we did not have enough food in the fridge, if our parents said that whatever we did we had to pay off the mortgage today or next month and that it did not matter if the roof leaked and the kids did not have shoes on their feet, that would be a bit of a drastic economic model.

When bank economists come to us and when the world view is predominated by the idea of incredibly low interest rates, it seems like an opportunity to invest in infrastructure now rather than at some point later when interest rates rise. That investment could lead to a more productive economy and could help our completely stagnant private growth sector rate. We know productivity is directly connected to our ability to move around the country. As my friend has said, there are willing and incredibly competent fund managers who know what they are doing because they are building things around the world and they are doing it well. However, it runs up against an ideology that has its eyes transfixed on an election promise, such as income splitting. The government would rather spend $5 billion helping out a little less than 16% of Canadians who are predominately wealthier, leaving 86% of Canadians with nothing. It would rather fixate on this ideological promise rather than address the reality in front of it.

This is the demise of every government. It seems that over time its ability to listen and learn from what it hears is replaced increasingly by its idea that it always has it right, that it cannot listen to anybody else, that everybody is an opponent who needs to be beaten down rather than a conversation that needs to happen in a place like this, on the floor of the House of Commons and at the finance committee, where we to listen to experts and we talk about what the options are going ahead. Investing in child care is important. Having a living wage is something that is worthwhile to our economy. It helps small and medium businesses because those people spend money locally. We know that and a living wage makes sense.

In large part, I agree with what my friend has to say. It is about time the Conservatives drop the ideological mantra of their fixations and pet projects and actually pick up the evidence in front of us and realize that this our economy needs a little help right now. Otherwise, future generations will certainly curse our actions of today.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, The Environment; and the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, The Environment.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was reminded by a colleague, just recently, it is the 30-year anniversary of the Thrilla in Manila, the fight between Ali and Frazier—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The Rumble in the Jungle.

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

The Rumble in the Jungle, excuse me.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Foreman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will get it right. I got my year wrong. Against Foreman, there was a technique used by Ali that was later called rope-a-dope. I do not think he fixed the fight but the rope-a-dope idea is to just sort of lay back and let the opponents swing wildly away, burning themselves out.

While that is an amusing pugilistic tactic, what we are worried about in this particular budget is that if the government continues to swing wildly away with these very expensive schemes, the effect would not only be burning through a great deal of actual capital, and real and perceived political capital, but it would hurt Canadians in the long term.

What we have heard from small businesses and the business community at large is that merchant fees, in particular, are a grave concern, that restaurants and small businesses across the country are getting hit with higher and higher fees when customers use these credit cards, and that there is a voluntary but useless program that has been invoked by the Conservative government.

Would my friend join with me in suggesting that we need to begin to have mandatory rules set out for credit card companies and banks to restrict these abusive practices that hurt small—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The voluntary approach has not worked. When we talk to the restaurant association or the retailers or the CFIB, they acknowledge that more needs to be done. Some of them point us toward the Australian model and potentially capping rates.

Just to show how perverse the current system is, if a persons goes into a store in Windsor, Nova Scotia, and buys a pair of shoes with a credit card, the merchant can be dinged with a 3% charge upon the sale of those shoes. The person takes the shoes home, finds out his spouse does not like them, brings them back and exchanges them. There is another 3% charge for the merchant. The merchant has been hit by a 6% charge and has not sold a pair of shoes yet. That is one of the best ways to illustrate how ludicrous the current situation is and how important addressing it is for the engine of Canadian economic growth: small business.

A mandatory approach may be the best way, but ignoring it with a voluntary approach certainly has not worked.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a good speech. I know he only had a 20-minute opportunity to speak.

He talked about the lack of infrastructure investment the government has made and continues to make. In his conversations during the pre-budget consultations, did he consult his own mayors and the premier in his own province? What is their input? What are the discussions involving infrastructure?

Every time I talk to a local mayor or a local politician or somebody at the provincial level, it is always about lack of infrastructure. Whether it is in my province of Quebec or not, I hear that the Canadian government is not in partnership in any projects and that it is reducing investments in programs.

I wonder what the member thinks about the lack of money in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke recently with Mayor David Corkum, the mayor of Kentville in my riding, he stressed the need for infrastructure investment. He also stressed the need for us to take investing in social infrastructure, such as housing, seriously.

There is a strong role for the federal government. This is certainly not the time for the federal government to cut by 89% planned infrastructure spending for next year. It is doing that, again, to pad the books on the eve of an election. It may be good politics. It is bad economics.

The reality is that, if we listen to David Dodge or the OECD or the IMF, with bond yields at historic lows, with real interest rates actually negative, we have an historic opportunity to invest in Canadian infrastructure, to create jobs today and to improve Canada's competitiveness tomorrow. We heard that from the former deputy minister of finance yesterday, Scott Clark, at committee.

Beyond that, we have the greatest concentration of expertise in the design, construction, and financing of infrastructure in the world resident in Canada in our pension funds. Let us work with them to invest in fixing Canada's infrastructure and create good jobs here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, there was some debate before my colleague spoke about the changes to the temporary foreign worker program that exist within this omnibus bill. The reason I raise it is that there has been some dispute as to whose fault this all is between my Liberal and Conservative colleagues.

It was a program started by the Liberals some years ago. It was somewhat limited. It started to grow a little. There were some scandals with its use and application for professional dancers, exotic dancers, at one point under the Liberals that got some attention, if I recall correctly. Then the program was expanded massively under the Conservatives.

My question is from the briefing we had last night and from the speech earlier that said the new changes will make it so that the temporary foreign worker program is not a first option program for Canadian employers. There were some other revisions as well, a reporting mechanism, an outing and naming of those employers who chose to abuse the program.

It is not as if these concerns are new. We had concerns, particularly across the west but also in other parts of the country, that this had become a program of first resort rather than last resort for many employers. How could we have designed it this way?

I assume that is what the changes are meant to fix. There are design flaws in the DNA of the temporary foreign worker program. Were those flaws inherent in the program that was established by the Liberals? Were they newly incorporated when the Conservatives took over?

I want to understand when it was that the temporary foreign worker program became a first option for too many employers. The minister mentioned that it was 2002, when those changes came in. Perhaps my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, can allow the minister some time to answer a similar question with some accuracy as to who was the most abusive of the temporary foreign worker program.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the temporary foreign worker program were ever being used to bring in professional dancers, I would certainly express concern, particularly if there was a lack of gender balance.

Beyond that, let us be very clear. The temporary foreign worker program, on a limited basis, worked quite well for a long period of time. It has grown massively under the current government and is being used in areas where it was never intended to be used. Historically, if we look at temporary foreign workers in the horticulture or agriculture side, it is something where everyone acknowledges, and not just in Canada but elsewhere, there is a legitimate role for temporary foreign workers.

What we have been troubled by and what makes no sense is the skyrocketing of the use of temporary foreign workers in areas of high unemployment, for example, in the Windsor, Ontario area, and the threat and the very real risk of it depressing wages in those areas. What we believe ought to happen is that we consider temporary foreign workers policy as part of an overall immigration strategy, and we restore the opportunity and the linkage between people who come here to work as part of our production chain of products, goods and services, with immigration.

If we look at Manitoba, it has done a great job of immigration. There were approximately 16,000 new Canadians who moved to Manitoba last year, compared to the 2,000 in my province of Nova Scotia. Manitoba has a whole-of-government approach. One of the things they do there is streamline the process and make it easier for people who come here to work to move on to permanent residency and then on to immigrate to Canada.

As a country, we ought to look at the Manitoba model. We need more new Canadians. We need to attract them, not just to work on a temporary basis but to become full partners in progress and citizens of this country.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver South.

I listened this afternoon to all the speeches. The job of members opposite is to be the opposition. I listened to some of the speeches from the NDP side and I know it has never been in government, so it can pretty well say anything. As far as the Liberal side is concerned, it too is in the same position.

When in government we have to make sure everything is in balance. We expect criticism, which is fine. However, let us look at the global picture. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in Canada. That is over 82% full-time jobs and 80% in the private sector since the end of the recession in July 2009.

When we look at our country, Canada is the envy of the world because Canadians as a whole live well, and as a whole we are safe. It is the best country in the world in which to live.

As parliamentarians and members on this side of the House know, as we went into the recession, the most important thing was to ensure that our country's economy was balanced so that there were jobs, so that people could live in their homes and buy their food. In any country, nothing is perfect. There are housing problems and other issues in all countries. However, in Canada, we have a lot to be proud of. Canada has one of the strongest job growth performances in the entire G7. That is quite incredible looking at the global economic problems that the world has faced. Canadians have also enjoyed one of the strongest income growth performances in the G7 and Canada's business investment performance has been the strongest in the G7 over the recovery. This is very important. Why? It is because this gives a sense of security to Canadians.

Since 2004 Canadians have put our government into power because they had the confidence that the economic part of their lives would be secure. That does not mean to say every single Canadian is secure. It means that we are the best country compared to others. Canada has a AAA rating in this economic environment worldwide. We also know that the middle class in Canada lives better than in the U.S. and many other countries. Also, we now have 180,000 children who are now out of poverty.

There is a lot to be proud of. For the sixth straight year the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system the soundest in the world. This means something. With all due respect, even though there are always things to improve and do better, this is indicative of Canada's standing on the world stage and indicative of its very sound economic planning and practices. Does that mean everyone is going to get everything they want, daily? No, that does not mean that. It means that the economy within the country is sound, jobs are growing, people can go to work, children can go to school, and our country is the best country in the world in which to live.

I listen to all these criticisms and all the hyperbole. In Parliament, hyperbole is something that we hear every single day on probably every single topic.

When Canada is leading the global economic recovery, that is something to be proud of. There needs to be a recognition that Canada and this government are doing something right. When we listen to members opposite, we hear all the talk of gloom and doom. They think they can do things better. The fact of the matter is that this is not what the Canadian public thought, because those members are not sitting on this side of the House.

Canada has the lowest overall tax rate in the G7 on new business investment. That is a red flag right there. It shows that this government is creating new business.

Canada is one of only two G7 countries to have a rock solid AAA rating, with a stable outlook, from all the major credit rating agencies, such as Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's. That is important. A lot of countries cannot claim that, because they have no plan in place. War-torn countries have not had the opportunity to put a plan in place. It is impossible for them to do that. This government has been able to meet that high standard.

There is a reason our government's top priorities are job creation, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. It is so people can have families, work, prosper, and have a future.

Our government has become aware of many issues that have presented themselves through businesses. For instance, small business is the engine of this country. It pushes out so much of the economy. Women are some of the top small-business owners, and that is a real change from 20 years ago.

More small business opportunities have been created through the small business job credit, and that has been a real asset to those women who want to start businesses. That is not often spoken about in the House. Some of these businesses are run out of the home. Some are run out of small offices. These businesses are providing income for families.

The budget implementation bill will make life more affordable for Canadian families. What is important to a family? A lot of children participate in sports. It was presented to our government that a lot of families could not afford to pay the registration fees for sports, such as soccer and other kinds of sports, so in this particular budget, our government has doubled the children's fitness tax credit to $1,000 and has made it refundable.

Paying attention to individual families has made a huge difference in balancing Canada's economy. We have heard today many instances of how families have been impacted. Unfortunately, because I only have 10 minutes to speak, I cannot list them, but they were listed earlier.

We should work collaboratively to give suggestions. When the bill goes to committee, amendments can be made, if need be. We should look at how we can build together and recognize the fact that this government has put in a strong economic plan.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the member's speech that she wants us to cut through the hyperbole and the usual rhetoric, so I will get right down to it.

One of the things that concerns us on this side of the House is that this is an omnibus bill. When the member sat in opposition, she had the same concerns about omnibus bills.

We are particularly concerned about refugee issues. We have seen cuts to refugee health. There is a notion that this would help out the provinces. I wonder if the member could name the provinces that requested this.

With regard to the bill itself, would she not agree with us that if there is a need for debate, amendments, and careful study, as she has suggested, we should not have an omnibus package in front of us? We should actually have these things separated and actually have a budget bill, not something of this nature.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this particular bill is not unusual. I keep hearing that it is an omnibus bill, a great big bill with a lot of pages. That said, it is not unusual when we compare it to other budget implementation bills that have come forward over the years.

Also, we have had this bill for over eight months. I think it has been eight months and twelve days, actually, so there has been a lot of time to go through it. It does not take that long.

Provinces all across this country have had challenges in that the temporary foreign worker issue has been abused. Jobs for Canadians come first. Having had that collaboration across the country, we have had to look at putting Canadians first, jobs first for Canadians, and at the checks and balances that are long overdue in the temporary foreign worker program.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I get a little nervous when I notice the government House leader. I am thinking of the potential for time allocation.

That said, my question is for the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

In terms of co-operation, we made the suggestion that the government consider EI premium breaks for all new hires. We have had many third-party stakeholders who have commented on just how valuable this recommendation is. It is an idea that would create thousands of jobs.

If we want to fight for the middle class when debating the proposed legislation, I think a big part of that would be fighting for jobs. Allowing EI premium breaks for new hires would go a long way.

Would the member not support initiatives that would cause employers to create literally thousands of new jobs at a relatively marginal cost? I would be interested in her thoughts on that.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the bill does go through committee. It is at committee where those suggestions are made and brought back.

That said, the whole bill is about creating jobs. The whole bill is about building business. The whole bill is about making the lives of families and business people better in this country.

I have to say that I look forward to the member for Winnipeg North sitting on committee and bringing those suggestions forward for an extensive conversation.

Bill C-43—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 has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 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 consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

I might add that it is my intention to propose an additional three days to the second reading debate for a total of four days for that debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this budget implementation bill. This bill would put some of the measures contained within the 2014 federal budget into practice in Canada.

Before I address some of the specific measures in this bill, I would like to give an overview of what the international community is saying about Canada's economy and the success we have seen since the global recession in 2008.

Both the IMF and the OECD have stated that they expect Canada to be among the strongest-growing economies in the G7 over this year and the next. The New York Times conducted an analysis and concluded that after-tax middle-class incomes in Canada, which were substantially behind in the year 2000, now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Finally, with nearly 1.2 million jobs created since July 2009, the Canadian economy has had one of the strongest job-creation records in the G7 since the recession. As we move forward with this legislation, the international community can look forward to Canada continuing its role as a global leader with a successful economic record.

One of the reasons Canada has had such great economic success is that we recognize that the challenges we face in the global economy are not simple or straightforward. They are complex challenges that affect every sector in the Canadian economy. This is why I am pleased to see that this bill encompasses a broad approach to addressing the many problems we still face in the fragile global economy.

I know that the term “omnibus” does not sit well with some. However, we have to be realistic. Canada exists within a global economy, and because it is comprehensive, this bill would ensure that we address as many issues as possible to maintain our outstanding economic recovery and growth. Since Canada has had to move quickly to meet the challenges of the economic recession, Canadians have experienced that these bills have in fact been working very well for our economy. Furthermore, historically, it has been common practice to include various measures across many sectors in a budget and then in the budget implementation bills to follow. Ultimately, it reflects the central role a budget plays in addressing the wide range of issues Canadians need addressed.

Now I would like to highlight some of the measures contained within this bill that will be important to the residents in my riding of Vancouver South, and indeed to all Canadians.

The first measure I feel would greatly benefit the people of my riding, and particularly small-business owners in my riding, is the small-business job credit. Over the next two years, this credit would lower the payroll taxes of small businesses by 15%. It is estimated that this would result in savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over these two years. As a previous small-business owner myself, I fully understand the importance small businesses play in driving the local economy. I know that this credit would go a long way in supporting the many small businesses in my riding and would promote job creation throughout Vancouver and Canada.

Another measure I was pleased to see in this implementation bill was the extension of the tax credit that currently exists for interest paid on government-sponsored student loans to include interest paid on Canada apprenticeship loans. As we know, apprenticeships are a vital link between high school and the workplace. Many students in my riding and across Canada take part in apprenticeship programs to gain the skills they need to be successful in the workforce. Furthermore, these apprenticeships can usually lead directly to full-time employment. I have met many constituents enrolled in apprenticeship programs who share how they thoroughly enjoyed learning their trades through hands-on experience and direct training from an employer. I am therefore very pleased to see that the government would extend the existing credit to loans students can take out to participate in apprenticeship programs. This would certainly encourage students to take part in these programs, which will contribute to a strong and skilled workforce.

Another tax credit I am pleased would be implemented as part of this bill is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. In 2006, the government introduced a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 annually for fees related to the registration of a child under the age of 16 in an eligible program of physical activity.

This bill would act on an announcement that the Prime Minister made this month that would double this tax credit as well as make it refundable.

I know that many people in my riding and across Canada widely support this credit as it would enable children to enrol in sports like hockey, baseball and soccer, when they otherwise might not be able to afford it. As a previous soccer mom of twins, and recognizing that many families, like mine, have more than one child, I know how quickly fees can add up.

That is why I am very pleased to see the doubling of this tax credit in this implementation bill as it would help Canadian families support sport and activity for their children. This measure would ensure that parents can take advantage of this credit when they file their taxes for the 2014 tax year.

Finally, I was pleased to see that this implementation bill would end pay-to-pay billing practices in the telecommunications sector. This would ensure that those who prefer to or must receive their bills in the mail are not forced to pay additional fees just because they receive their bills in the mail.

This commitment was made as part of the government's 2013 Speech from the Throne. I am very pleased to see that it would now be implemented. Many seniors in my riding, as well as those who do not have access to high speed or any type of Internet, have been frustrated with these unnecessary fees. I know that they will certainly be pleased to see this practice end.

In closing, I would like to share that when I am in my constituency in Vancouver, I consistently hear from my constituents about how happy they are with the work of the Minister of Finance and what he has been doing to ensure that we will return to a balanced budget by 2015. Hearing from my constituents about how pleased they are has certainly made this a priority for the government and a priority for all Canadians.

I therefore urge the opposition to support economic growth, lower taxes and the many positive measures in Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

She does not seem to realize that columnists, editorial writers and even journalists—whether they lean to the left, right or centre—all seem to agree. They are opposed to omnibus bills that distort the parliamentary process when they include measures that have nothing to do with the budget. I have a simple and clear question for the member, in the hopes of getting a clear answer.

The member is bragging about a measure to eliminate pay-to-pay billing practices in the telecommunications sector that require consumers to pay to get their bills. However, consumers will still have to pay to get a bank statement.

If she is so proud of this bill, why did she not insist that her government include this measure to fully protect consumers against this practice?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we noted earlier, this bill was tabled in February, so members have had more than eight months to review it and talk about it. It has been debated in the House for a long time, so I do not think that omnibus is the word for it. Comprehensive, broad and meeting the needs of diverse Canadians are other great words for it.

As I said earlier in my speech, and to reference my constituents, whenever I see them in my riding of Vancouver South they are really happy with the Conservative government, with its strong economic performance and with the fact that it is balancing the budget by 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to this omnibus budget bill and I thank the member for Vancouver South.

However, I do need to correct the record. Omnibus budget bills are not something of long-standing or habitual use in this place. Up until 2005, the longest omnibus budget bill was a little over 100 pages. I think that it was in 2009 that the current administration put forward an omnibus budget bill of 900 pages.

My first question in this place, when I was elected, was asking the Minister of Finance if an omnibus budget bill was planned for 2011 because I had become so alarmed by them. There was not one in 2011, but we have seen, ever since 2012 and 2013, a spring omnibus budget bill and a fall omnibus budget bill.

My hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, who preceded my friend from Vancouver South, told us that we had months to study this but, in fact, we had days and it is over 400 pages.

Omnibus budget bills are an affront to democracy in this place and should not be allowed unless they pertain to the same purpose and the same effort. These are all over the map. They do not aid our economy or our democracy.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member across the way is using the word omnibus because that is her word. It is certainly not my word.

Bill C-43 supports our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. I would like to note, if she is so inclined, that parts 1 to 3 are all tax-related, 281 pages are all tax-related. Part 4 contains the rest of the measures, 31 tax measures that we are giving to Canadian families, so that they will have this money in their pockets.

Some of the measures in part 4 are lengthy, such as the intellectual property changes that needed to be ratified, encompassing international treaties and such, so 35 pages.

Basically, the bill is related directly to a budget implementation bill, which is what is up for discussion here, and it is completely related to the budget.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on that point, this budget bill is 400 and some-odd pages, half in French, half in English.

The previous questioner has written a few books. They are likely over 200 pages. That member likely expects people to read her books, so I am expecting members of Parliament to read 200 pages.

The change to the child tax credit for physical fitness is becoming refundable. Since November is financial literacy month, there are only three other refundable tax credits. Refundable means that if individuals are not paying taxes, they still get their money back for that.

Why is that important to poor families who have kids in physical fitness programs in this country?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely good point. It is so necessary to put money back into Canadian families, so that they can afford to support their children in sports activities that are so important to Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, since my time is limited and I will have to continue my speech tomorrow, I will split it into two parts. The first part will deal with the history of the government's budget bills, which are massive, mammoth omnibus bills. That is very disappointing, because all opposition parties feel that these bills are contrary to the spirit of Parliament and to the spirit of democracy that we should embody.

We do not have a problem with the tax measures, which make up the first three parts of this bill. These tax provisions implement the measures that were announced in the budget. We may or may not like these measures, but it makes sense for them to be included in a budget bill.

The other measures are the ones we have a major problem with. For example, how can they justify including changes to the electoral process in the Northwest Territories? What is that doing in a budget bill? Why would a budget bill include a measure enabling provinces to establish a mandatory residency period for refugee claimants applying for welfare? There would be no change to federal transfers one way or the other. Nothing justifies putting these measures in a budget bill.

I am outraged and offended that government members who want to be part of the government are not saying a word and are refusing to ask the government to be accountable to its citizens. The government, the executive, is made up of cabinet. The backbenchers and the rest of the Conservative caucus are not part of government.

When they stand up and say that their government did such-and-such a thing, they are failing to fulfill their duty as parliamentarians and MPs to demand accountability from their government about deeply undemocratic measures. I am not the only one saying that. Yesterday's Globe and Mail editorial perfectly summarized the unfairness and irregularity of these omnibus bills.

I truly hope that this bill gives them a chance to search their conscience regarding their own duty in terms of government accountability and transparency, which are essential to the work we need to accomplish here.

Bill C-43 is the federal government's second budget implementation bill. When we were studying the last omnibus budget implementation bill, I talked about a trend that seemed to be emerging in these omnibus bills. Indeed, I have noticed eight basic criteria that the government routinely adheres to when drafting these bills, and this trend continues in this bill.

The first criterion the government seems to adhere to concerns the huge size of the bills. This one is 460 pages long in English and in French. The bills introduced before 2009 that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was talking about were 100 pages in both languages. The Conservatives need to stop comparing by using the pretext that it is in both languages. We are comparing apples to apples.

We are therefore being asked to hastily review for adoption 460 pages and 401 clauses at the Standing Committee on Finance. This leads to many mistakes that later have to be corrected. Sometimes they are corrected in subsequent bills. In fact, this bill includes changes and corrections for mistakes that were made in previous bills. Sometimes these changes or corrections are made through the Senate.

These are mistakes that we pointed out in committee. We told them they would regret heading in this direction. I am thinking specifically about the bill that amended the process for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. We warned the government a number of times that it was heading in the wrong direction with this measure, which it tried to make retroactive in order to cover for the massive blunder it made in appointing Justice Nadon. The Conservatives did not listen.

This is the fifth budget bill that I have had the honour of studying and contributing to at the Standing Committee on Finance. We have studied more than 2,000 pages to date. We have moved hundreds of amendments, which were often constructive, but only one was adopted by the committee. Even then, the Conservative members made an amendment to the amendment.

This approach does not make sense. With such mammoth bills, which is the first criterion I mentioned, we cannot give every clause and every element of the bill the attention it requires, although that is a fundamental principle of how our government works.

The government's second criterion when drafting bills such as this one is that the bill amends at least a dozen laws. In this case, there are about 40 laws that are being created, eliminated or amended.

The third criterion consists of dealing with many subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget process. This bill goes from the Judges Act to the Industrial Design Act to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and even amends the Criminal Code and the electoral process in the Northwest Territories, as I mentioned. That has nothing to do with the budget. These measures could have been introduced separately. Some of the measures are not being challenged at all and could very easily have been passed by the House and, subsequently, perhaps even by the Senate. However, the government has decided to bring together these bills, which adds to the confusion that can arise when studying other provisions that are more directly related to the budget process.

The fourth criterion is that a Conservative omnibus bill must create new laws that once again have nothing to do with the budget process. In this case, a law is being created to establish a high Arctic research station. Why did the government not make the effort to sit down and draft a proper bill to create this station? Furthermore, this bill corrects another Conservative government decision to close a similar station located even further north in the Arctic. We suspect that the station was closed for ideological reasons and in order to deny the scientific truth. The Conservative government did not seem to like that research station's findings, many of which had to do with climate change.

The fifth criterion is that a Conservative omnibus bill must include provisions that concentrate power in the hands of a minister. That has been the case in every omnibus bill passed, and it is also true of Bill C-43. In this case, the Aeronautics Act will give more power to cabinet. The provisions of the new Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act will also give more power to cabinet. Once again, it seems as though these bills must include provisions that give a great deal more discretionary power to cabinet ministers.

One of the last three criteria for a Conservative omnibus budget bill is that the bill needs at least one legislative amendment to restrict workers' rights. This bill has one such amendment. To qualify, the bill also needs measures to restrict the rights of unions and immigrants, and lastly it needs a law and order measure. This bill has them all. All of these criteria are met. The government has created a model that prevents us from doing the job our constituents elected us to do. Our job is to provide oversight and hold the government accountable through one of the most fundamental acts of our Parliament: approving the budget.

Once again, I do not understand how members of Parliament who are not members of cabinet but are on the Conservative side can allow this nonsense, which is condemned throughout Canada's political society. I hope that those members will think about this. I will stop there and resume my speech tomorrow.

The House resumed from October 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second reading

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 10 minutes to finish his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, my speech was split into two parts because of last night's votes. I will quickly come back to what I talked about yesterday to complete and conclude my remarks this morning. Yesterday, I mentioned that the Conservative government seems to use eight criteria when introducing a budget bill. We have seen these eight criteria in all of the budget bills that this Conservative government has introduced to date, at least since the last election, in this Parliament.

I would like to quickly list those eight criteria. First, the bill must be big. This one is 460 pages long. In fact, it is 78 pages longer than the last one, which was the first budget bill for 2014. The bill must amend at least a dozen laws. In this case, there are about 40 laws that are being created, eliminated or amended. The bill must deal with many subjects that have absolutely nothing to do with the budget, including some subjects that may appear to be related to the budget—such as the amendment to the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces—but that, in the end, have no impact on federal finances. The bill must create a number of non-budgetary laws that should be examined outside the Standing Committee on Finance as stand-alone bills.

A perfect example of that is the creation of a DNA data bank to facilitate the search for victims or missing persons. That has no place in the budget. It should be studied thoroughly, on its own. I will come back to that.

The fifth criterion is that this type of bill must concentrate powers in the hands of the ministers. We have seen that with every budget bill, and we are seeing it again, particularly in the changes being made to the Aeronautics Act and the provisions of the new Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act and the Canadian Payments Act. More discretionary power is being given to ministers when it should be here, in Parliament.

The final three criteria focus on including legislative amendments to restrict the rights of workers and immigrants, as well as a law and order measure. All of these measures, these eight criteria, can again be found in this bill.

I want to come back to the question of law and order because we are once again talking about a proposal, found in a division of part IV, that would create a DNA data bank. We are in favour of the measure from a philosophical point of view, and we proposed this same tool in the past.

However, creating this type of data bank raises some major ethical issues. That is why a committee such as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security or the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights should have the opportunity to closely examine the consequences of creating a data bank like this. Right now, it is buried in part IV, where there are 31 divisions and this one, with respect to creating a data bank, is only one of those 31 divisions. I am not even talking about all of the tax measures in the first three parts.

We are MPs in the House of Commons. We represent our constituents and all Canadians. Despite the fact that most of the parties in the House cannot oppose these things as a matter of principle, we could strongly oppose them if the consequences of including these things presented a major ethical problem regarding the privacy of Canadians and the security of their person. Why, then, include such a measure? I can already hear some Conservative members telling us it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. It will not be referred. The committee might discuss it quickly at one meeting, or two at the most, given that the time allocated to the minister in question already takes up much of the meeting. This usually comes back to us without amendment and without any opportunity for the members of the Standing Committee on Finance to really understand the nature of the committee's deliberations.

Contrary to what the member for Vancouver South said yesterday evening, these measures were not included innocently and without consequences; quite the contrary. This is not the usual practice. Before the Conservatives came to power, omnibus bills were about 100 pages in length, at most. Now we are routinely asked to study bills that are between 400 and 800 pages long and sometimes up to 950 pages.

It is impossible to govern or demonstrate good governance by taking an attitude like that and introducing bills that ultimately form the cornerstone of how the federal government operates. Debating such bills is something that not only the opposition, but also the Conservative Party members who are not cabinet ministers should be able to do; however, they refuse to engage in real debate. In the end, they simply repeat the talking points given to them and support the bill without even reading it. I can guarantee that out of the 160 or so Conservative Party members, only about 15 really understand the contents of this bill. They will not gain a better understanding through debates in this House, either, because they do not listen to the debates. Nor do they read the committee evidence to find out about the main issues discussed.

This government tends to view this side of the chamber as a non-essential part of House operations. It does not see the opposition as being able to assist in better governance. As the official opposition, quite often our role is to oppose, but we diligently fulfill another more fundamental role, and that is to point out to the government flaws in its regulatory or legislative proposals.

To the government, any proposal from the opposition is an obstacle, even if after multiple warnings, the details we submit to them or the flaws that we point out in the bills end up being authentic and valid.

In those cases, the government makes the necessary changes itself, or has them made by the other place, or uses subsequent budget bills to correct the mistakes that it made and we pointed out.

We see very little that is positive, despite what most Conservative MPs will say. Very little has anything to do with job creation. Very little has anything to do with economic growth. There certainly is not much that has anything to do with Canada's long-term prosperity. The only measure they can debate is the small business tax credit, and even then they are wrong about it, since it targets only those employers that pay less than $15,000 in employment insurance premiums. As government officials and the government itself have confirmed, this measure will cost at minimum more than half a billion dollars in lost revenue for the federal government.

What will we get in return for this lost revenue? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this measure will create 800 jobs, at a cost of $700,000 per job.

The government says that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very much in favour of this measure. Naturally it did a study and found that this measure will create 25,000 jobs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says it is more like 800 jobs. The government's only argument is the consent or approval of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which, at the end of the day, represents the people who are going to benefit from the half a billion dollars.

What we want, in the House, is an independent study to prove that this is an appropriate and effective job creation measure. The people in this chamber know very well that this measure will not achieve the objectives set by the government. Therefore, we are rejecting the only measure that even comes close to being a job creation measure or an economic measure.

We will have no choice but to oppose this budget bill at second reading. Given that the government has a majority, the bill will be passed and go to committee with the same shortcomings and the same mistakes.

We, the opposition, will continue to work diligently. We will point out the shortcomings and the main problems in this bill.

We hope that as the election approaches, MPs, especially the Conservatives who are not in the cabinet, will realize that this is not a good budget bill and that at least the shortcomings must be addressed.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague indicated that on this side of the House we have not taken time to look through the bill. I wonder if my colleague understands that Bill C-43 has a very technical amendment in it that would extend the capital gains exemption for farm property.

In my riding, my farmers are a part of the prosperity of my area; not only the primary producers but the food processing that goes on in Waterloo county is very important. This measure would make it easier for family farms to be passed on to the next generation. This is an important aspect of our food security in Canada.

It is too bad that the NDP in the past has not stood up for the protection of family farms. This time, NDP members have chance to stand up for the protection of family farms and to ensure the good produce that our farmers produce year to year by passing this measure in the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's argument is the perfect argument against omnibus bills.

There are some things that we could agree to in the 460 pages and 401 clauses. However, just because we support two, three or four measures does not mean that we could vote for a budget bill that we reject for the most part. How can we agree to spend more than half a billion dollars with no guarantee that even one job will be created?

Just like the member who asked the question, I represent an agricultural riding. I recognize that there is a problem with passing on family farms. I am quite willing to discuss the possibility of facilitating the transfer of family farms, but not if this measure is buried among 400 other items. We cannot support most of those items because they have nothing to do with the budget or with prosperity, growth and job creation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question, but prior to that, I have a point of order that I would like to raise.

I would ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion: that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Tuesday, September 30, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Does the member for Winnipeg North have unanimous consent to move his motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Seeing there is no unanimous consent, the member for Winnipeg North can proceed with his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that unanimous consent was denied by the New Democrats.

Having said that, my question is in relation—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order. The hon. member for St. John's East is rising on a point of order.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that his remarks are out of order. He was ruled out of order before when he raised this, but he insists on raising points of order and then when he is denied, he continues to want to talk about it.

My point of order is on how the member gets to have two speaking opportunities by having a point of order and then wanting to speak. That seems to me to be out of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All members have the right to rise on a point of order and to seek unanimous consent. That was certainly in order. Also, in terms of the rotation that we have for questions in the House, it was the third party's turn for a question. I assume the member for Winnipeg North has that responsibility for his party, so he may continue with his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling and comments.

Many aspects of this particular budget could be debated and discussed in parliamentary committees. The question I have for the member is on the benefits of having debates on a wide variety of issues in parliamentary committees.

Does the member believe that discussions of accountability and transparency can in fact take place in parliamentary committees? Would he not agree that there is a very important role for parliamentary committees in dealing with accountability and transparency, especially on issues such as the budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to be able to debate issues in committee. Moreover, we want most bills to be debated in different committees.

Take, for example, the amendments made to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They need to be studied. We would like this bill to be split so that the committee can do its job. This also applies to the provision to create a DNA database. The appropriate committee needs to conduct the study.

The Standing Committee on Finance has expertise in financial matters, and it uses this expertise wisely. However, it makes no sense for this committee to study and vote on a budget bill like this, which contains all kinds of other measures that have nothing to do with the budget itself.

We would like the government to start showing good governance by referring the budgetary and fiscal measures to this committee and making sure that all the other measures that have nothing to do with this bill are studied by other committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, this omnibus bill contains 401 clauses and is 478 pages long, and it amends various federal policies, from the DNA data bank to social services for refugees.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about how the Conservatives are attacking the least fortunate. Protecting these people is the responsibility of the government and part of our Canadian values.

Why is the government targeting people who have been persecuted and subjected to trauma and violence? Why is it eliminating what is sometimes their only source of income?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the measure set out in the amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is a fundamental issue. As I was saying, we are talking about an amendment that seems to be a budget measure. However, it does not in any way affect the transfers between Ottawa and the provinces. Ultimately, it allows the provinces to include a residency period in their austerity measures, which will prevent refugee claimants who are awaiting the determination of their claims—not those who have had their claims rejected—from collecting social assistance. The provinces did not ask for this.

In the technical briefing, we learned that only one province asked a question about this amendment and that the province in question was not very receptive to it.

It is not as though refugee claimants can work to support themselves. The system we had in place allowed us to fulfill our obligations as a host country while waiting for the process to be complete.

I was shocked to hear the answers given by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during question period. When he was asked the specific question, his answer was very far from the truth. It is obvious—and it has been confirmed by experts and government officials—that this measure is not limited to, but specifically affects, refugee claimants.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting, particularly with regard to two points.

The first deals with the approach the government is taking by introducing this huge 460-page omnibus bill. The bill contains many measures, some of which are good for our country's economy, but most of which are bad.

I would like to ask my colleague a specific question about employment insurance. We now know that most Canadian workers who have contributed to the employment insurance fund cannot use it. What is the point of this fund? It should be used to help workers who have lost their jobs.

How can the Conservatives justify using over $550 million from this fund, which does not belong to the government? The fund belongs to Canadian workers and employers. However, the government used this fund to create 800 jobs. It is unbelievable that the Conservatives would think of doing such a thing and that they are saying that this program will improve the economy and help Canadians. How can the government justify its abuse of this program?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Once again, it goes to the very heart of the only really relevant measure, a massive one, that talks about job creation.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government would be investing $550 million to create 800 jobs. Apparently, the finance minister conducted an internal assessment on this, but the government refuses to disclose the results. I am certain that if the assessment backed the government's arguments, the Minister of Finance would be the first to table it in the House in order to support what he is saying. However, that is not the case. We must therefore conclude that the job creation measures will not live up to what the Conservatives are promising.

The most frustrating aspect is that the projected employment insurance fund surplus would be obtained primarily by restricting workers' access to employment insurance. That is a real-life situation that is playing out in regions like mine in particular, where the economy still relies heavily on seasonal industries. Workers will continue to make their contributions while premiums for business owners will drop, yet there is no guarantee that jobs will be created. That is extremely frustrating for workers.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

I am privileged to rise today to speak to the second budget implementation act, 2014. I would like to share with the House some of the important measures contained in the legislation that stem from budget 2014 and other important actions of our government.

In the 2011 election campaign, our government made a number of promises to the Canadian people that we said we would bring in once the budget was balanced. We are well on our way to fulfilling our promises. One of the first promises we are fulfilling is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and making it refundable.

It is well known that regular exercise is essential to the successful development of children. It is a great way to get them started on a lifetime of healthy, active living. That is why our Conservative government introduced the children's fitness tax credit in the first place. This measure makes it affordable for Canadian families to register their kids in fitness activities. This tax credit currently benefits approximately 1.4 million Canadian families by providing them with much-needed tax relief.

With the doubling of this tax credit to $1,000 and making it refundable, it would become even more beneficial to low-income families. These enhancements to the children's fitness tax credit would help bring further tax relief to about 850,000 families that enrol their children in sports or other fitness activities. As a government, we have been strongly committed to making life more affordable for hard-working Canadian families, and doubling the children's fitness tax credit and making it refundable does exactly that.

Our government has also committed to supporting job creation and economic growth in Canada's economy. We recognize that the most important driver of Canada's economic growth and success is the private sector, small businesses and entrepreneurs. These companies and individuals are the ones driving our economy forward, putting in long hours, and hiring our friends and neighbours.

According to the Business Development Bank, small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.8% of all Canadian companies. It is because small businesses are so important that our government has introduced the small business job credit. The aim of this measure is to help small businesses save money and therefore have more resources to hire more workers. The small business job credit would apply to employment insurance premiums paid by small businesses in 2015-16.

The credit will be calculated as the difference between the premiums paid at the legislated rate of $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings in each of those years. Since employers pay 1.4 times the legislated rate, this reduction in the legislated rate is equivalent to a reduction of about 39¢ per $100 in insurable earnings. That is in EI premiums paid by small employers. The 39¢ premium reduction would apply in addition to the premium reduction related to the Québec Parental Insurance Plan. Any firm that pays employee EI premiums equal to or less than $15,000 in 2015 or 2016 will be eligible for the credit in those years.

As an example, a small business employing 14 employees each earning $40,000 would ordinarily pay about $14,740 in EI premiums in 2015. However, since the total EI premiums paid by the employer are less than $15,000, it would be eligible under the small business job credit for a refund of about $2,200. That is the difference between the employer premiums paid at the legislated rate versus the premiums calculated under the reduced small business rate.

Businesses will not have to apply. The small business job credit will be automatically administered by the Canada Revenue Agency, which will determine eligibility and calculate the amount of the credit. Once calculated, the credit will be applied against any outstanding debt and then the remaining amount, if any, will be refunded to the small business. We expect this measure to save small employers more than $550 million in 2015-16. This is just another way that our government is helping foster the conditions for private sector jobs and growth in the Canadian economy, which is the foundation of our long-term prosperity.

The budget implementation act would also take action to help amateur athletes and students, and I want to highlight those measures briefly as well.

First, for amateur athletes, the budget implementation act would permit income contributed to an amateur athlete trust to qualify as income earned for RRSP contribution limits. This is another important way we can help encourage and fund our young athletes on their journeys in their respective sports.

The budget implementation act would also extend the tax credit for interest paid on government-sponsored student loans to interest paid on a Canada apprentice loan. This is also vital in encouraging young Canadians to consider the trades as they prepare to enter the workforce or prepare for their post-secondary education. It is well known that there is a shortage of skilled tradespeople in the country and this is another important step in encouraging young Canadians to consider a career in that field.

I would like to turn to a subject that is close to my heart. Anyone who has spent time with me knows my passion for caring for men and women in uniform, and for continuing that care once these individuals are out of uniform and become part of Canada's veteran community.

With so many young veterans now, our care for them must change, it has changed, and it continues to change and improve.

One of the primary goals of the government and of the Department of Veterans Affairs is care for our veterans, helping them transition to a new career and establish a new life with as much independence as possible. This includes helping the seriously ill and injured veterans have their house renovated to accommodate diverse needs, such as wheelchair access and things like that, as well as providing up to $75,800 in career retraining funding for either the injured forces member or their spouse.

The aim of that fund is to get veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces working again in meaningful and gainful employment. We want them to use their trade, leadership and people management skills in the public or private sector where they can be put to good use.

For our part, our government is taking action to ensure that veterans are welcomed and hired into the public service in a way that recognizes the service they have already given to the country.

Each year, approximately 7,600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel leave the service, including about 1,000 individuals who leave for medical reasons beyond their control. Finding meaningful employment for them is a very important factor in them making the successful transition to civilian life.

In recognition of their service to Canada, budget 2013 promised to enhance employment opportunities in the federal public service for medically released Canadian Armed Forces personnel by creating a statutory hiring priority in the Public Service Employment Act for forces members who were medically released for service related reasons and by extending the duration of priority entitlements from two to five years for all medically released Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

Our government also proposed, in budget 2014, to amend the Public Service Employment Act to give preference to eligible veterans in external public service job competitions and to allow Canadian Armed Forces personnel with at least three years of military service to participate in internal public service job competitions.

To that end, our government has tabled Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. That bill would build upon our previous commitments and previous legislative, giving honourably released forces members better access to job openings in the federal public sector. This is all part of our efforts to ensure there are more opportunities for Canada's veterans to build meaningful second careers as they transition from military to civilian life.

As part of this effort, veterans and Canadian Armed Forces personnel with a minimum of three years service would be allowed to participate in advertized internal hiring processes for a period expiring five years after their release date.

This measure would be in addition to a previous announcement by our government that eligible veterans whose military service was cut short by a career-ending illness or injury suffered in the line of duty would be given statutory priority access to job opportunities in the federal public service.

The duration of priority access for all medically released personnel would also be extended from two years to five years.

These are clearly all initiatives designed to help our veterans achieve “re-establishment in civil life”. That short quote comes from the list of responsibilities that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and therefore the Government of Canada, is charged with in relation to Canada's veterans. These priority hiring measures are simply another way that our government is trying to help our veterans successfully re-establish themselves in civilian life.

This is the key concept in the overall philosophy of service to veterans by the Department of Veterans Affairs

The aim of veterans programs is not lifelong financial dependence, unless that is the only option. The aim of the programs is to give the veteran every support possible to help those who cannot or do not wish to continue to serve in the military the tools they need to succeed in carving out a good future on their own terms. It is a goal I know all members of the House and all Canadians share.

The measures from the budget implementation act that I have highlighted today are ones I believe are in the best interests of all Canadians, whether they be children, amateur athletes, working moms and dads or veterans.

Where government can help Canadians, we want it to help and be as effective as possible. Where it is simply in the way of ordinary Canadians achieving their best possible quality of life, we want government out of the way.

The bill would help us improve that balance. That is why I am pleased to speak to it and support it.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

Clearly, I do not agree with the bill before us, if for no other reason than the gag order that will limit debate.

He said that the government is taking a step back from its public role and that the bill before us will help with that. Meanwhile, the government is once again dipping into the employment insurance fund to subsidize companies that do not need the support. The government is going to create 800 jobs at nearly $500,000 each. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was clear about that.

I want to hear the member's comments on that because, frankly, if the Conservatives are unable to create jobs for less than $500,000 a piece, not only is the government not taking a step back, but it is also alienating Canadian employees and employers.

It is high time they were shown some respect.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. Of course, I do not expect him to agree with the budget bill, or it would not be this place.

However, when he is talking about money spent to create jobs and to help small businesses, I would remind him that 99.8% of companies in Canada are small businesses. The member might want to go and talk to some of the small-business owners to see what they think about this. The organization that represents a lot of those folks is the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It does not agree with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Not everybody agrees with the PBO on lots of things. I certainly do not agree on this and on a few other things as well.

Whether it is 800 jobs, according to the PBO, or 25,000 jobs, according to CFIB, probably the answer is somewhere between those numbers, and those are pretty widespread numbers. I would encourage the member to talk more to the people who are actually charged with creating jobs, and they are the small-business owners.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is nothing urgent, but as my colleague from Winnipeg North did previously, I would ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on Tuesday, September 30, 2014, be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech outlining many of the positive initiatives in this budget implementation bill. He drew attention to the one that relates to the doubling of the amount that parents could claim for the children's fitness tax credit. As the father of three children and the grandfather of nine grandchildren, I am very concerned that our next generation continue to stay active and involved in community sports and things like that.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that not only would this be doubled but we would also make it refundable. That is a point that is often lost on the part of Canadians.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He does make an important point, and I did mention that it would be refundable. That really takes it down to the lower-income families and allows them to get their children into sports activities. Right now, it benefits about 1.4 million Canadian families. This would bring it to about 850,000 more Canadian families, and many of those would be the folks who would rely on the refundable aspect of this to put their children into the activities, which we know are very healthy.

I have only two children and only two grandchildren, so I am a bit jealous, but I want to see them grow up healthy and active as well.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we have as much information as possible from my hon. colleague. The bill contains mistakes and does not deserve the support of this House, especially since we are under closure.

My colleague made some comments regarding the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is an expert in this area. He is neutral and will always give the best advice based on the best science. Therefore, if he says that this will create only 800 jobs at nearly $500,000 per job, we need to listen very carefully to him.

If this bill passes second reading and is sent to committee, this will likely come up many times. I plan to push very hard on this, because the government is raiding the employment insurance fund, which is completely unacceptable.

Does the member believe that raiding the EI fund is the way to go, or will the government finally be straight with Canadians and admit that it is raising taxes through the back door because it does not have the courage to do so through the front door?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bit rambling, but I have a couple of quick points. It is not closure; it is time allocation, and there is a difference.

On the other point about whether it is 800 jobs or 25,000 jobs, the PBO has a legitimate job to do and he legitimately provides advice. The government considers that along with other advice and input that we get. This is an important area of job creation, of giving small and medium-sized businesses as much help as we can. The simple fact is that we are not sacking the EI fund; that is a ridiculous statement. It is all about helping small businesses create jobs, keep jobs, and keep Canadians working.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in the House and speak in favour of Bill C-43, also known as budget implementation act number 2.

Since 2006, our Conservative government's budgets have consistently delivered for Canadians by always putting their priorities first. Canadians have told us that they want a strong, stable economy and access to good, well-paying jobs.

Each budget has done exactly that. Since 2006, Canada has one of the best economic performances among all G8 countries, particularly during the recession and current recovery. During this period we have created more than one million net new jobs, the overwhelming majority of which are full time. We have accomplished this without introducing new taxes, in direct contrast to the policies that the opposition parties advocate. In fact, Canadian families pay about 10% less in personal income tax. Adding all the various tax reductions we have introduced since 2006, the average family of four pays $3,400 less in taxes each and every year.

Our strong economic performance has come without increasing the deficit. In fact, we have progressively been reducing the deficit and the size and cost of government. We are now in a position to balance the budget in 2015, as well as deliver a surplus.

Our budgets have achieved these goals without sacrificing the quality of federal services or investments. Various federal services have been streamlined over the years to provide the same, if not better, services to Canadians for lower costs. As well, our Conservative government has been carrying out the most ambitious infrastructure investment plan in our nation's history. In 2007, we introduced $33 billion in flexible and predictable infrastructure spending. Recently we committed another $70 billion over the next decade to continue investing in world-class infrastructure. These funds have supported dozens of important projects in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, particularly municipal priority projects.

Therefore, consistent with the successes of our previous budgets, Canadians can be reassured that the 2014 budget will continue to be more of what they have come to expect from their government: responsible, targeted, accountable, and inclusive of the necessary changes to keep taxes low and our economy growing.

Although there are many components to the budget, I will focus on measures most relevant to the needs of my constituents in Nipissing—Timiskaming. One of the important measures is the small business job credit, which has recently been announced by our government. This credit would lower payroll taxes for small businesses by 15% over the next two years.

Overall, it is estimated that Canadian small businesses would save $550 million, thanks to this measure. For the many small businesses in my region, this would mean increased capacity to grow their business, as well as more money becoming available for investments, as opposed to paying employer payroll taxes.

Our government recognizes the fundamental importance of small businesses in fuelling the Canadian economy. ln my riding, small businesses employ thousands of people and are the backbone of our communities.

The introduction of this credit would further build upon our government's strong support of small businesses since 2006. We froze El premiums to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses. We have cut red tape by eliminating more than 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the CRA made every year by more than 50,000 small businesses. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%.

We also increased the small business limit to $500,000 in taxable income, which had the effect of expanding the number of businesses that could take advantage of these benefits and save costs, costs that could be reinvested in growth and job creation.

The results are clear. A typical small business is now seeing savings of approximately $28,000. Since we took office, small businesses have seen their taxes reduced by 34%.

While we are discussing measures in the budget that would help small businesses, here is another measure in the bill that I would like to highlight, as chair of the clean-tech caucus in Parliament.

Bill C-43 would expand the eligibility for accelerated capital cost allowances for clean energy generation and conservation equipment. Let me quickly outline what capital costs are.

Capital cost allowance is a mechanism by which businesses can lower their taxable income by claiming the cost of depreciation of their equipment. Accelerated capital cost allowances simply allow companies to claim more of their costs. This measure is important because it incentivizes businesses to use cleaner technology and equipment. The health of our environment is very important to my constituents, and I know they will appreciate these measures.

The next measure I would like to highlight concerns families, particularly children. Our government believes that fitness is an important part of a healthy lifestyle and a habit that should be encouraged, particularly in childhood. That is why we introduced the children's fitness credit in budget 2006, which provides non-refundable tax credits of up to $500 annually in fees for the registration of a child under the age of 16 in an eligible program of physical activity.

In October 2014, our Prime Minister announced that our government would double the children's fitness credit from $500 to $1,000 and make it refundable, which would increase benefits to low-income families claiming the credit.

The increase of this tax credit would greatly benefit families in Nipissing—Timiskaming, many of which have very active children. In our communities, it is commonplace for children to enrol in hockey, soccer, or baseball camps. The increase of this tax credit would make it affordable for families to get their children involved in all these physical activities. Ultimately, greater access to physical activity would improve the health of children in my riding, but also their social skills, as very often physical activities are team or group activities as well.

Since 2006, Canadian families have benefited from significant, broad-based tax cuts introduced by our government. For example, we have reduced the GST to 5% from 7%; increased the basic personal amount, the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax; reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16%; and introduced the tax-free savings account, which has helped thousands of families save money.

These and other actions have given individuals and families the flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. This is why, as I mentioned earlier, Canadian families pay on average $3,400 less in taxes every year.

Bill C-43 includes an important measure that would assist law enforcement in locating missing persons. Many constituents have expressed concern over various disappearances of Canadians, particularly first nations Canadians.

I know many of my constituents will appreciate Bill C-43's amendment of the DNA Identification Act to create new indices in the national DNA data bank. This would contain DNA profiles from missing persons, from their relatives, and from human remains to assist law enforcement agencies, coroners, and medical examiners to find missing persons and identify human remains.

The bill also includes various changes to the income tax and excise acts and various other statutes; however I will leave those changes for my honourable colleagues to address.

At the outset of my speech, I articulated the intent and record of our government's previous budgets, and I stated that from Bill C-43 Canadians could expect a continued focus on keeping taxes low and improving the economy. From the main measures I highlighted, it is clear that as a result of the budget implementation act, families would save more money through an increase in the children's fitness tax credit. Also, business would benefit from reduced costs through the changes in payroll tax and capital cost allowances. These changes would help businesses invest more of their money in expanding their businesses and, as a result, create more jobs for Canadians.

Whereas our honourable opponents continue to propose various tax hikes and increased intervention into the lives of Canadians and businesses by government, we on this side of the House continue to focus on jobs and the economy in a responsible, pragmatic, and non-intrusive manner. We firmly believe that Canadian families and businesses, not Ottawa, know what is best for them and their interests.

We are, and have been since 2006, able to help remove obstacles, regulations, and unnecessary and restrictive taxes on Canadians and businesses.

I encourage all members of the House to support the pragmatic and necessary measures in Bill C-43 so that we may continue to grow Canada's economy for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is with respect to the pay-to-pay fees the government has said it would like to get rid of. The government says it is unfair for broadcasting and telecommunication companies to charge Canadians a $2 fee to receive their bills to pay their bills.

Why does the government continue to allow banks to continue this unfair practice?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear in this budget that we are addressing regulatory impediments. We are reducing taxes, and we are making it easier for families and individuals to live their lives without government interference. We will continue to implement these measures. It is part of our DNA.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the benefits to children of the sports tax credit that has been implemented and that will now be doubled. This is a remarkable opportunity for parents.

I wonder if the member could speak about the businesses in his riding that are providing services to young people, such as coaching. Could he talk about how this will impact their opportunity to thrive in the member's community?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in northern Ontario. It has a host of sports and recreational activities, and businesses are involved in promoting those activities. The sports tax credit will improve that situation. It will make more activities available for children in families that do not have the income. As members know, hockey is our lifeblood in Canada, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for families to have their children involved in it. This measure will help that situation, along with all other sports.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it has taken a long time, but I am glad the government is now proposing some measures in the budget with respect to a refundable tax credit for children's sports activities. Liberals have long said that this was a failing of the government's earlier proposals in budgets. It will spread it a little further. For once, maybe the government has listened.

The member talked a fair bit about the DNA missing persons section in this particular bill. I strongly support that. It has been a long time coming. For those that have missing children, it will go a long way toward settling some of that tragedy and anxiety.

Could the member tell me why this would be part of what is basically a budget implementation bill? Why would it not be a separate bill, a bill in its own right, that could maybe go through the House more quickly? Although this is a good measure, why complicate the budget bill with other measures that have no relation to the budget?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, with regard to these particular measures, which he complimented, that the Liberals do have good ideas from time to time. We are not at all hesitant to adopt good ideas.

With respect to the DNA identification for missing persons, the answer is simpler. There is a cost. As a cost, it would have to be budgeted for, and therefore, it is in the budget implementation bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in the House and speak on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North.

Before I go on, I will be sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Where do I start? Let me start with this omnibus business. The Conservatives brought in this massive bill, which has, as we have heard before, more than 450 pages and more than 400 clauses. Everything is in there but the kitchen sink. The Conservatives are trying to make changes to many different laws in this omnibus bill.

I have heard Conservative members talk about the importance of moving some of this legislation. They have said that it is consistent with the norms of the House to bring in omnibus bills. The norm is just starting. It is actually the Conservatives who started this business of omnibus bills in which they combine 50 or 60 bills in one so-called budget bill. A number of the clauses in this bill, Bill C-43, have nothing to do with the bill itself.

On top of this, we have had time allocation, which was moved this morning. Time allocation basically shuts down the debate. The Conservatives do not want Canadians to know what is in this bill. We have had two days of debate on 400 pages of very technical language. I know that you know, Mr. Speaker, that these bills are very complex and that we have to dig deeper to find out exactly what is in them, because the government is not telling us.

As the opposition, we have an obligation to Canadians to ensure that whatever the government brings in, and it has tried to rush it through with time allocation, we rip it apart. We have to look at it in great detail so that Canadians know exactly what is going on.

I am fortunate enough to have time this morning to talk about some of the provisions in this bill, but other members in the House, whether they are Conservative members or members on this side of the House, would surely like to represent the people who elected them. Actually, the Conservatives may not want to talk about this bill. Unfortunately, because of time allocation, members on the opposition side are not going to have enough time to speak to the bill, especially about what their constituents are saying in their communities.

There are a number of concerns I can bring up in the short period of time I have. One is the small business job credit. Basically, it would provide small businesses with $550 million in tax credits. The Conservatives claim that this would create 25,000 jobs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is independent and is appointed by the Conservatives, said that at a maximum this would create 800 jobs. We would spend $550 million and create 800 jobs. That translates to roughly $700,000 per job. Any Canadian would understand that this is not an efficient way to invest in creating jobs in this country.

What the Conservatives could have done in this bill is look at youth unemployment and underemployment. There is nothing in this bill that would generate jobs or create jobs for our youth. That is where we need to make investments, yet the Conservatives are going to use $550 million and maybe come up with 800 jobs.

There are experts that have spoken up on this. I will quote Mike Moffatt, from the Ivey Business School at the University of Western Ontario. He said:

...the proposed “Small Business Job Credit” has...structural flaws that, in many cases, give firms an incentive to fire workers and cut salaries.

Not only would it create 800 jobs at a cost of $750,000 in taxpayers' money each, it may even cut some jobs. That is the kind of math the government works with.

There is also nothing in the bill on youth unemployment and youth underemployment. There is nothing to enhance opportunities for our young people to get into the workforce.

My second point is on the pay-to-pay issue. Lately we have seen the telecom companies, the banks, and other companies charging Canadians for sending them bills that they are expected to pay. The official opposition has advocated the elimination of this pay-to-pay billing practice. The Conservatives have listened a little bit. They would eliminate it for the telephone companies. What about the banks? Canadians will still have to pay the banks for the bills they will be receiving.

This morning I went to the bank machine, because I needed money. I deal with a credit union. I went to get some money out and was charged $2.00. Some ATMs charge $3.00 and $4.00. We have been asking the government to put a flat rate on ATM fees so that the banks are not gouging or nickle and diming people when they want access to their money. That happened to me this morning. Canadians and people in my community are asking about changes with respect to banks and telephone companies. These companies are nickle and diming our citizens.

The Conservatives say that they want to put money back into people's pockets. On the other hand, they are giving billions of dollars away to their friends in the oil industry. When will they eliminate the $1 billion in subsidies to the oil companies? They are saying that they want to give money back to families, yet they are giving billions of dollars away to their friends in the oil industry. We have been asking the government to eliminate tax subsidies for the oil companies.

Since the Conservatives have been in government, they have accumulated not only a deficit but also a debt that future Canadians will have to pay. They will have to pay that debt because of its incompetence in handling the finances of Canadians.

I could go on, but the limited amount of time I have will not allow me to even scratch the 460-odd pages of this omnibus bill. The Conservatives want to ram this through. They do not want to discuss the nitty-gritty of it, because they know that would expose what is not in there.

They could have borrowed the ideas we have. We have laid out a plan for a child care program for under $15. We would be more than happy to support them if they borrow our idea. Those are the kinds of changes and programs we need in the community.

Research has shown that for every dollar spent in child care, we get close to $2.00 back. We believe in the kind of math where if we make an investment, we get a return on every dollar and double our money. The Conservatives' math is to spend $550 million to create 800 jobs. That is $750,000 per job. That is the kind of math we do not need. That is incompetence in trying to manage our economy. Canadians expect better. They expect us to scrutinize these bills and everything that comes through.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are trying to ram this through without any solid discussion in the House. That is not acceptable to the official opposition and I can assure members, it is not acceptable to Canadians.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way give his ongoing commentary. There are measures in the budget bill that would be beneficial to the people who live in his riding. He has families who have children in sports of all kinds who would like to see that tax credit doubled so that they could make use of it for their income tax. There are small businesses in his riding that would benefit from the changes in EI.

Therefore, how does my colleague go back and tell those families that he voted against putting money back in their pockets?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are telling me exactly the opposite of what the member said. I talk to my constituents in my city. I have been a small business person myself. I talk to the small business people in my community. It is the merchandise fees that small businesses pay to the big credit card companies that are a big concern. That is taking away the livelihoods of many restaurants and small businesses in my community.

People in my community are worried about the $1 billion in tax subsidies the government is refusing to look at so it can give that money to its friends. That is the kind of thing families in my community are worried about. They want child care for their children so that women and men can go back to work and two parents can work. Unfortunately, none of that stuff is in the bill.

If the Conservatives were really concerned about some of these things, they would split the bill up. There are provisions in the bill that we would actually support. Therefore, let us get them separated, get our House leaders together, vote on them and get them to our families as soon as we can, rather than having this omnibus bill rammed through the House.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on the budget implementation bill.

He just replied to a Conservative colleague by talking about the number of things in this bill and the differences between each of them. As parliamentarians, we are forced to vote on all of these things together, rather than vote on each proposal individually.

I would like to take a moment to talk about the proposal regarding refugees. Would my colleague like to comment on the new provisions the government wants to bring in regarding refugees, who will find it harder to access social assistance programs in the provinces?

These people fled threatening situations in their own countries to settle in Canada, so it is unfortunate to see the government treating them so poorly.

What does my colleague think of that measure and of all the measures in the bill?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw the cuts to refugee health care that were implemented by the government. The Federal Court called it cruel and unusual. The member for Sherbrooke is absolutely right. Some of these refugees are coming from war-torn countries and they need assistance settling when they arrive here. Not only that, we charge them for the airfare when they come here. They do not have any money when they get here. To have these kinds of provisions in the budget implementation bill for these very vulnerable people who are supposed to be seeking refuge, I do not think that is aligned with our Canadian values.

There are a number of things the government could have done to help families or to help our young people get into the job market. With the underemployed and high unemployment of our young people, the government could have taken some steps to provide a pathway for these young people who are graduating, from universities even, to help them get into the job market. However, the government has allocated $550 billion for a small business tax credit that would create only 800 jobs. That is about $750,000 per job. That is the kind of math we do not believe in.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to speak to Bill C-43. First of all, I would like to sincerely thank my colleague from Surrey North who agreed to share his time with me so that I could rise in the House to speak to a bill as important as the budget implementation bill—or at least, that is what it is supposed to be.

At the same time, I am extremely frustrated, because not only will I not have enough time in these 10 minutes to say everything I have to say and speak on behalf of my constituents in the House on this measure, but many of my colleagues are also being muzzled and will simply not be allowed to speak—not to mention that this is the 80th time this has happened in this Parliament.

The democratic rights of all Canadians are being trampled here, not just those of the members who represent them in the House. It is frustrating. I hope the message is being heard and that in 2015, we will have a government that respects democracy under the leadership of the member for Outremont, who has proven himself in the past and who upholds the values that Canadians and Quebeckers want to see reflected in their democratic institutions.

The budget bill is without a doubt a fundamentally important tool that allows Parliament to debate the government's fiscal policies and its public policy decisions. However, the form of the bill has to be conducive to transparent debate and consistent with our democracy, as I was saying earlier.

Once again the government is introducing a mammoth piece of legislation with only one objective, namely to stifle debate and prevent us from truly discussing the scope of this bill. In this bill we find another series of features that are the hallmark of this government's bills, namely time allocation motions for the most important bills, which we should be discussing for much longer. We have spent more time in the House debating bills that are just a few pages long than this one, which is between 400 and 450 pages.

I am certainly not saying that a bill that is just a few pages long is less important, but it is easy to see how the math works. We should devote less time to studying five pages than 400 pages. It makes perfect sense. Anyone who knows basic math can figure that out.

There are also many laws that will be affected, amended or even created by this inappropriate bill that introduces new measures that were not announced in the budget. Furthermore, the bill concentrates powers in the hands of the minister and also includes some bills that, logically, should not be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, but by other House committees that carry out in-depth studies of important issues concerning the environment, transportation and other areas.

We will have one vote on the set of measures contained in this bill, and we will say yes or no. We no longer have any illusions, and everyone figured out years ago that the Conservatives' strategy is to stuff as much as possible into one bill, including bills and reasonable amendments that deserve to be supported as well as bitter pills that obviously are unacceptable.

The ultimate and purely political objective is not to put in place the best law with the best amendments, but to rise as often as possible in the House to say that the NDP voted against it. However, the solution is quite simple: we should split this bill and study the different measures on their own merits.

If we were to do that, Canadians would see two things: the NDP will support measures that make sense and can amend bills in order to improve them, and our democracy and our system can function properly. However, the government does not seem to want that.

As my party's employment insurance critic, I want to focus on one specific proposal in this mammoth bill.

In keeping with its firmly entrenched practice, the Conservative government, through this bill, is once again using the employment insurance fund for something other than its intended purpose. This time, the government is creating a tax credit for small businesses whose EI premiums are less than $15,000 a year. The Minister of Finance claims that this measure will create jobs.

This measure for small businesses is the same one that was brought in a few months or even years earlier to grant credits to big businesses. The former minister of finance urged big business to reinject that dead money into the economy. The government does not seem to learn from its mistakes; it is taking that measure for big business and applying it to small business, even though it will get the same poor results.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is neutral and capable, has flat out denied this claim. He said that just 800 jobs will be created at the expense of workers' contributions, and he provided figures to support this statement. Furthermore, each of these jobs would cost on average $555,000.

If I were given $550,000 to create jobs in a struggling region like mine, where the unemployment rate is high, I would not be creating one job—I would be creating 10, 12, 14 or 15 stable, permanent jobs.

However, it seems that, once again, that is not the path that the Conservatives chose to take. In other words, the Conservatives are attacking employment insurance on all sides. What is more, they froze employment insurance contribution rates. That may seem like a good idea, but in reality, 10,000 jobs will be lost in 2015 and 2016 because of the current employment insurance measures and the frozen contribution rates.

I am not the one saying this. I also took this information from a report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Conservatives have maintained artificially high employment insurance contribution rates, which means that the amount of money going into the fund will be much greater than what is necessary to cover the benefits that will be paid out under the Conservative reform.

Some might say that it is good that the fund is running a surplus. However, workers will be contributing more than necessary, which will weaken their purchasing power and decrease market opportunities for the products produced by these same companies.

I have a lot more to say, but since time is short I will just comment briefly on the measure pertaining to the Social Security Tribunal. Bill C-43 indicates that new money will be invested in hiring people to deal with the backlog of cases before the tribunal.

This seems like a good thing, and it seems as though the Conservatives have finally understood what is needed, but the problem is much more serious than that. The Social Security Tribunal has such complex measures that since it was created, many workers, who are unfortunately without jobs, have given up their right to benefits.

What is more, just this morning, a report published in Le Devoir by a research group at the Université du Québec à Montréal indicated that:

...the avenues for redress are less accessible and less effective, which is depriving even more people of their right to benefits and forcing them to accept whatever job they can get because they do not have any other source of income...

The government therefore has not fixed any problems in Bill C-43.

It is all well and good to hire a few extra people, but how long will it take to train them before they become effective? We saw how long it took to fill all the positions.

I will stop there, but there is still so much to say and there are so many criticisms I could make. Clearly, I am going to vote against this bill. I will now let some of my other colleagues speak. I hope that they will be given 10 minutes to express their views.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his excellent speech. As usual, he used the right words to explain to Canadians how completely ridiculous this bill is.

Something our Conservative colleagues do not often talk about is social housing. The NDP has repeatedly called on the Conservatives to adopt social housing programs. We are the only OECD country that does not have a national infrastructure plan.

Nonetheless, once again the Conservatives are introducing a budget in the House that makes absolutely no mention of the important role social housing plays in bringing homelessness to an end.

Would my colleague care to comment on the Conservatives' lack of vision?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her question.

If there is one word that sums up this budget, in terms of the measures that are lacking, that word is “pathetic”. I think that Bill C-43 is nothing but a pathetic proposal in a country as rich as Canada.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: the NDP. We will propose—as we have been doing for years—social democratic measures that we will have the opportunity to implement in 2015 with the support of all the people of this country. These measures will ensure that we can enhance wealth in this country and distribute it more equitably so that no one is left behind.

Just last week, some people who work in social housing in my riding came to my office. They painted a very sombre picture of both social and rental housing.

We could have taken time to talk about what is not included in this pathetic bill, Bill C-43.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the budget implementation bill takes into consideration the expenditure of literally billions of tax dollars. What is really important to all Canadians is that there is accountability and transparency when it comes to spending tax dollars. One of the ways we assure Canadians that sense of accountability, at least for the most part, is through parliamentary committees.

Could the member comment on the important role parliamentary committees, as part of our institution, play in holding government accountable?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

I am not sure how to answer that question. Should I talk about how important our committees should be to parliamentary debates or about how important the government seems to think they are since it has had its majority? To be sure, committee work was supposed to be less partisan. Of course, the opposition does not control the legislative agenda because that belongs to the government.

However, once these bills are sent to committee, it is up to all of the members around the table to improve them to make them accountable, if not acceptable. Once again, the opposition members' contribution is being completely ignored.

Considering the number of amendments that have been accepted for all of the bills, it is clear that the Conservatives think they have a monopoly on truth and knowledge.

This way of governing cannot go on. The 2015 deadline is fast approaching.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak to this budget implementation bill. Before I start, I will be sharing my time with the remarkable, hard-working, thoughtful member for Don Valley West.

I am here today to talk about the budget, but before I start I want to talk a bit about the amount of time the opposition members spend on complaining about not having enough time to talk about various pieces of legislation. If they added that up, it would be hundreds if not thousands of hours of House of Commons time, precious time that we need in the House to talk about important legislation. It is thousands of hours they spend complaining about not having enough time. Does that make sense?

It maybe does to the New Democrats and maybe to some Liberals, but it certainly does not to me. They could just talk about the issues at hand, about which they have several opportunities to speak in the House and when it goes to committee where they have all kinds of opportunity to propose amendments and to talk about the issues. Instead of that, they complain about not having enough time. I think the public has seen through that and people really will not buy into it anymore.

I will mention a few things about what past budgets leading up to this budget have really done for Canadians. Then I want to talk a bit about a couple of specific changes that apply to farmers and fishermen. These are not changes that may be important to hundreds of thousands of people, but they can be very important for family farms and for families involved in the fishery. However, I will talk about that at the end of my presentation.

As Canadians know, since taking office eight years ago, the Conservative government has been focused on jobs and the economy. We have focused on lowering taxes to families and to businesses, which are the job creators in our country. We have focused on making things better, allowing families to move ahead and to do better, have a little more money in their pockets and have more opportunity for them, their children and their grandchildren.

We have looked at protecting the incomes and opportunities for seniors as well, making the point that just because they are seniors does not mean they can no longer contribute to society. We have made several changes that make it a little easier for seniors to continue to contribute to society over the long term. That is important too.

We have focused on these things, and we have done it in a very organized fashion, one budget building on the next.

I take a lot of pride in what we have accomplished. However, it is not just me saying that. I can refer to several different think tanks and world-renowned agencies like the International Monetary Fund, for example, and the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the next couple of years. In fact, I do not remember the details and the year, but I remember a study predicting that Canada would be the number one economy in the world well in the future. The OECD is saying that what we are doing now is setting a foundation, not only to create jobs now, because our government has put in place the environment that has allowed business to create 1.2 million jobs since this recession was at its worst, and we should take a lot of pride in that. It is good for us and good for Canada.

The OECD and the International Monetary Fund think tanks recognize that we have set this foundation that makes things better for Canada than for most countries that went through the recent recession, In the decades ahead, Canada will stand in good stead.

The leader of the third party had focused for the longest time on the middle class in Canada, saying that it was not doing as well as it should be. If we want to have a look at that, here is what an analysis in The New York Times has said, “After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada”, substantially different from the way it was in 2000 when the Liberals were in government, “now appear to be higher than in the United States.”

The leader of the third party talks about middle-class incomes and wants things to be better, but he should realize that they are much better relative to our competitor nations than they were just a few years ago, when the Liberals were in office.

Those are some things for not only the opposition parties to think about, but for Canadians to think about as well.

I know I have taken a little long getting to the particular details that I want to talk about, but I want to mention a couple of issues to do with farming and fishing. These are issues that are not, as I say, important to a large number of Canadians, but they are certainly important to certain Canadian farm families.

Before I got into politics, I farmed, and I still have farms, but I also worked as a farm economist. I worked with farm families on how they could grow their farms and in some cases, unfortunately, how they could exit the farming business in the best possible way. In the eighties, in particular, it was a very difficult time for grain farming and for the livestock sector. Certain things were in place that clearly were there only because of technical reasons.

I want to mention a couple of those things.

The first has to do with the tax deferral or the rollover provision for capital gains. This was put in place a long time ago. It gave farmers and fishermen the ability to pass the capital property over to the next generation without being taxed on it at that time. In effect, the tax liability was passed to the next generation so the current generation, let us say the parents, could exit the industry and be paid off in some fashion, but in a way that would allow the farm to continue. That was extremely important.

However, there were certain quirks about that which did not make any sense. We have fixed those in this budget. For example, if people were both farming and fishing, which is the case certainly in Atlantic Canada, in a lot of cases in the west and even on the Prairies, where there are some various commercial fishing operations, the rules were set for either farming or fishing. They had to have a substantial part of their income, 90% or more, from either farming or fishing. However, if they were farming and fishing and they had income under that percentage, then they simply did not qualify.

We have changed that so they can put the two together and if they qualify with both the farming and the fishing components of their business, then they qualify for these rollover provisions. It is an extremely important change that would allow many farming and fishing families to pass this on to the next generation.

One final thing is that in many years, parts of our country are hit by drought, floods or by excessive moisture. There has been a provision in place that can be enacted by governments to allow farmers to, in severe cases, where they simply cannot keep their livestock anymore, to sell off their breeding stock and not have to pay tax on it that year. That tax would be paid the year after. If they sell off their cow herd, for example, they are not taxed on it that year and that allows them to buy back breeding stock the year after, if there is grass again because it has rained or the fields have dried. In effect, the purchase price of the replacement breeding stock is balanced off against the income from the breeding stock they sold a year earlier.

In 2014, our government has extended this tax deferral to bees and to all types of horses, which may not sound very important. We have a lot of horses in Alberta. It is very much a commercial business. Horse owners have been asking for this for some time.

Again, these things are very important to those particular farm families that are directly affected by this. Our government takes care of this kind of detail.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the budget bill. I very much look forward to questions from the members opposite.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget there are things that should be looked at in a positive light and there are certainly things that need to be looked at in a negative light, at least by the opposition side.

We have seen a lot of reasons why this bill should not be adopted at second reading. Of course, we are going to hear from more Conservative members who will give us their point of view as well.

Let us talk about farmers and agriculture. There has been a disaster out west with regard to shipping grain by rail. I do not see much in the budget that is going to address that problem. It is nice that there are going to be measures for farmers, but the major issue for farmers this year has been the fact that their grain cannot make it to port.

The rail industry right now is a shambles. A lot of capacity is being displaced, especially by the petrochemical industry. What is the government going to do to come to the aid of farmers so that the product they are so laudably trying to produce can actually be sold on the open market?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we probably will not see a lot in the budget about that issue because, quite frankly, it does not involve a lot of government spending. It involves commitment and it involves improvements, and money spent by the railways themselves will provide that.

What need is there for it to be a budget item? The railways, because of their monopoly positions, have a responsibility to move the commodity. Earlier we put in place measures that set requirements for the amount of grain that railways had to move. For the most part, they met those requirements. In fact, I think they have moved a record amount of grain over the past year in spite of the terrible months they experienced a little earlier.

Why is there a need for that to be a budget item? It is an important issue, and we are going to have to continue to watch it. Members can be assured that we will, because Conservatives represent most of the farming areas in this country.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments the member opposite made regarding a New York Times article and Canada's middle class. I would like to quote a few excerpts from that article.

Members of the middle class in Canada worry about whether they can afford college for their children and whether their children will find jobs afterward. Housing costs are a major concern, as are everyday costs for transportation and mobile-phone plans. Middle-class Canadians worry about inequality.

It goes on, and it does not describe a very happy middle class in this country, I might add. To get a sense of how those trends are affecting people, they talked to a number of them. One person, Deborrah Mustachi, said:

When you have a family to raise and you are middle class, you are on a treadmill. It’s very difficult to save when you have to live for today.

She means paycheque to paycheque.

The article goes on to add one last comment about the fact that Canadians credit labour unions for giving them a decent pay raise. Those are interesting comments.

If that is the information the member opposite wishes to cite as evidence that the government's plan is working, can he explain why The New York Times talks about so much anxiety, so much fear, so much stress, so much struggling, and why the budget addresses none of it?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have that question, because the answer is relatively simple.

The information that the member is quoting has come from a few individuals, and quite frankly there are a lot of families in this country that are having a difficult time making ends meet, in particular when they are trying to put kids through college and have all those commitments. Even when kids become more active in sports, it is expensive.

However, overall, the middle class has benefited from what our government has done over the past few years. An average-income family of four benefits by $3,400. That is how much better off they are than they were when that party was in government. That is an awful lot of difference. That helps to deal with their concerns to a great extent.

Furthermore, the article went on to say that in fact these concerns expressed by these people, while they are real for them, do not reflect what is happening with the middle class generally. The middle class in this country is doing better than before, and better than in most countries on the face of the earth.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and contribute to the debate on Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2.

I will be focusing my remarks today on three fundamental components of economic action plan 2014. It will have a true and lasting impact in Canada and in my riding of Don Valley West, namely by investing in skills and training, supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, and providing support for small businesses.

Since 2006, our government's top priority has been jobs and economic growth. While Canada has the best job growth record in the G7, too many Canadians are still looking for work or are underemployed. Indeed, an increasing number of jobs across Canada are going unfilled because of a lack of people with the right skills. That is why economic action plan 2014 introduces new measures to support skills training and to connect Canadians with available jobs.

This includes implementing the Canada job grant, which will connect Canadians looking for skills training and a job with employers looking for skilled workers. It also includes creating the Canada apprenticeship loan, which would provide apprentices in registered Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year.

Economic action plan 2014 would strengthen the apprenticeship system by introducing the flexibility and innovation in apprenticeship technical training pilot project to develop new approaches to expand training for apprentices. It would also ensure that Canadians are first in line for available jobs by launching an enhanced job-matching service to match job seekers and employers on the basis of skills, knowledge, and experience.

On this note, the government has a strong record of support for apprentices and for the employers who hire them. Through the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship completion grant, the tradesperson's tools deduction, and the apprenticeship job creation tax credit, our government has provided tangible support for apprentices and the employers who hire them.

That is not all. Our government has also extended the fees eligible for the tuition tax credit to include those for examinations required for certification as a tradesperson in Canada. We have made an effort to use apprentices in federal construction and maintenance contracts, and we have encouraged provinces, territories, and municipalities to support the use of apprentices in infrastructure projects that receive federal funding.

Our government is also supporting Canadians with disabilities who are looking for meaningful and fulfilling work. We are doing so by making key investments in the ready, willing, and able initiative. By the same token, our government will create vocational training programs for persons with autism spectrum disorders.

Further, in 2013-14 our government invested $2.7 billion to support skills and training programs. This includes $1.95 billion to provinces and territories through labour market development agreements, $500 million to provinces and territories through labour market agreements that were introduced in budget 2007, and $218 million to provinces through labour market agreements for persons with disabilities.

Since 2006, our government has provided support for skills training for youth through the youth employment strategy, with investments of over $330 million per year. We have also provided skills training for persons with disabilities through the opportunities fund, with annual investments of $40 million per year, and for older Canadians through the targeted initiative for older workers and the ThirdQuarter project. Economic action plan 2014 would build on these successes.

Our government recognizes that entrepreneurship and innovation are key to Canada's future prosperity. By supporting innovation, our businesses will become more productive and continue to fuel job creation and economic growth in Canada. That is why economic action plan 2014 introduces new measures to support entrepreneurship and innovation by making a landmark investment in post-secondary education.

Through the creation of the Canada first research excellence fund, $1.5 billion will be made available over the next decade to Canadian post-secondary institutions. This investment would secure Canada's international leadership in science and innovation.

Economic action plan 2014 also supports leading-edge research by investing $46 million a year, ongoing, to granting councils across Canada in support of advanced research and scientific discoveries. Further, our government will be fostering world-leading research by investing $222 million in the TRIUMF physics laboratory to support leading research and the launch of cutting-edge spinoff companies.

Our government will also support technological innovation by investing $15 million in support of the Institute of Quantum Computing for research and commercialization of quantum technologies and $3 million to support the creation of the open data institute.

These and other investments build on our government's strong record of supporting entrepreneurship and fostering innovation in Canada. Since 2006, our government has invested over $11 billion in new funding to support entrepreneurship and innovation, including more than $2.3 billion to support advanced research through the federal granting councils.

Our government has also provided funding to support cutting-edge post-secondary research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation and has provided funding to universities and colleges for repairs, maintenance, and construction through the knowledge infrastructure program.

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. Through economic action plan 2014, our government will invest $15 million for up to 1,000 post-secondary graduates to intern in small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. We will also maintain the freeze on employment insurance premiums in order to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses in the years ahead.

Our government is also working to cut the red tape burden. We are doing so by eliminating over 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to Canada Revenue Agency made every year by over 50,000 small businesses.

Economic action plan 2014 builds on our government's significant actions to support small businesses since 2006, which included reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, 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. This change was particularly beneficial to small business corporations, as the surtax represented a larger proportion of their overall payable tax.

All this is to say that a typical small business with $500,000 of taxable income now saves $28,600 as a direct result of our Conservative government's low-tax plan. Economic action plan 2014 is great news for my constituents in Don Valley West and to all the small and medium-sized businesses that sustain our growing economy.

I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting jobs, growth, and long-term economic prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all know and as many of us have said, this bill is huge and affects many different sectors. The member talked about some of those elements. I would like him to comment now because I am sure he has read this bill.

Can he tell us about the changes to electoral provisions for the Northwest Territories, which are in Part 4 of this bill? I would like to know if he can explain the logic behind the changes the government is making in Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that my colleague was listening to my speech. Clearly I spoke on three areas that were extremely important to me and to the business community, especially in Canada: investing in skills and training, supporting entrepreneurship and innovation, and supporting small business.

Clearly our government has been focused on job growth, economic growth, and prosperity for all Canadians. This budget, economic action plan 2014, continues to deliver on that premise, and I would encourage the opposition to get on board and support this budget as a means of supporting Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start my question, I would like to congratulate the member opposite. His daughter has been elected to Toronto City Council, an elected body that I am well familiar with.

I guess it also gives me an interesting point on which to start a question. The member opposite endorsed the winning candidate in the mayor's race, who made a pointed campaign platform that included a set of requests to the federal government, in particular around transit funding and housing funding. He talked about the problems of the city that he represents, and the city that the member opposite recommended that he be elected to represent. He made a particular point that the federal government had to get back into the transit and housing game if Toronto was going to succeed.

The member endorsed this mayoral candidate and this budget, yet there is no money for transit and no money for housing. None of the issues that his daughter will have to deal with at Toronto City Council are addressed by the current policies in front of us today. How does he square that circle?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend opposite for his kind remarks. It is truly a challenge for anybody going into city council in Toronto these days, as he well knows. I appreciate his comments.

I did endorse the newly elected mayor of Toronto, because I believe that he is the person who can best, as the member said, square the circle and can bring a new level of dignity and respect to the city of Toronto.

One of the elements of this government, particularly with regard to transit, is that we have been very clear with Canadians that we will wait for the discretion and judgment of each city and regional council to determine what their needs are before they approach us. We are not going to go to the City of Toronto and say that we want to spend x millions of dollars on a particular project that might be a favourite of my colleagues opposite. We are going to wait for it to come to us with its request and then, through the appropriate channels, we will make the decisions that are right for Canadians, particularly those, in this case, in Toronto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague for an excellent speech. I would like to see if he could comment on the importance of returning to a balanced budget. We see in the House every day, for example, the opposition and the NDP, which has $56 billion worth of unfunded promises.

Let us put that into perspective first. With 17 million Canadians working, that comes out to about $3,300 more in taxes per person under the NDP that Canadians and businesses would have to pay for.

Going to my colleagues over here in the Liberal Party, we have seen in Ontario a horrible record of balancing budgets. It is so bad in Ontario that its deficit this year, if we add all of the deficits of everyone else in Canada together, including the federal government, its deficit is going to be even greater. The green energy policy, for example, is killing new business.

Could my colleague comment on the importance of returning to a balanced budget, and what it means to Ontario and to creating new jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great question because that is what the budget is all about. That is what we, as Canadians representing the government, should be focused on day in and day out.

As a businessperson, when I ran my business and was saddled with debt, it stopped me from being productive. It curtailed any creativity. It did not allow me to do the things that I would have liked to do with my business. Clearly, the same applies to the government from the perspective that the more debt, the more burden on Canadians, the less likely we are as a government to be able to be creative, create innovation and do all of the things that this budget so clearly outlines.

We committed to delivering a balanced budget and we are going to do just that this year. That is a commitment of the Conservative government, which is clearly getting the job done, creating jobs, creating growth and creating prosperity for future generations of Canadians.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

It is Halloween, and the monsters are back. This is a monster budget. I rise today to speak in this debate to oppose Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, as well as the undemocratic process being used by this government and the Prime Minister to amend 30 or so pieces of legislation.

As the member for LaSalle—Émard and the official opposition's critic for co-operatives, I would like to express my deep concern about this shocking process, which consists of forcing the approval of hundreds of changes without giving members of the House or the stakeholders involved time to study them.

I am especially concerned about the changes included in division 22 that will have an impact on credit unions. However, before I go into detail about division 22 of Bill C-43, I would like to remind members of the House, especially government members, of the important role our credit unions play in Canada.

Excluding Quebec, there are 317 credit unions in Canada with 1,740 branches and over 5 million members. They have assets worth over $165 billon and are present in every province of this country. The Mouvement Desjardins has 360 credit unions in Quebec with 6 million members and over $212 billion in total assets. It is the largest private sector employer in the province, supporting 40,000 direct jobs and 25,000 indirect jobs.

The numbers speak for themselves. Credit unions are a big part of our economy and financial landscape, and their contributions are extremely important. I can assure everyone that every member of the House has thousands of constituents who are members of a credit union and/or use their services.

Nonetheless, beyond the numbers, credit unions really matter to all our communities. They are in the municipalities or regions of Canada that the traditional banks have abandoned. They offer products and services that meet the needs of the people and they reinvest in their community.

What is more, credit unions are more resilient to economic uncertainties. With regard to the riding of LaSalle—Émard, I can attest to how the LaSalle caisse populaire contributes to the vitality of community organizations. It contributes a great deal to the vitality of our community organizations and our community.

Despite the major growth in credit unions and their significant financial performance, the Conservative government is introducing another bill that does not take into account their needs or the differences between them and the banks.

I have said before that the Conservative government is incapable of taking into account the unique characteristics of credit unions or recognizing the benefits of that uniqueness. The same goes for SMEs. When drafting bills, the government is incapable of taking into account the inherent differences between large companies and small and medium-sized businesses. The same goes for the co-operative movement.

This proves it. Division 22 of Bill C-43 seeks to makes changes to the regulations on credit unions. More specifically, it amends the Bank of Canada Act by eliminating the central bank's role as lender of last resort for credit unions, forcing them to rely on provincial guarantees in order to get a loan.

It also amends the Bank Act and the Co-operative Credit Associations Act in order to facilitate the entry of provincial cooperative credit societies into the federal credit union system and to discontinue supervision of provincial central co-operative credit societies by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Instead of addressing the reality and the needs of credit unions— especially their request for the creation of a new tax credit enabling them to access other sources of capitalization—these amendments seek to make our financial system homogeneous by trying to subject credit unions to the same conditions and rules that apply to major banks.

Do members acknowledge that we can have a multi-faceted economy and financial system? That is what the regions, credit unions and big cities are asking for. We have to recognize that credit unions meet community needs and that chartered banks and credit unions can co-exist.

The proposed measures are once again in keeping with the Conservatives' philosophy of opposing, for ideological reasons, the expansion of the Canadian co-operative movement. The 2013 budget measures unfairly increased taxes on credit unions. The proposals in this mammoth budget bill represent an effort by the government to subject credit unions to the same rules as banks.

In other words, and I have said this before, the Conservatives are not taking into account how credit unions are inherently different. In Canada, chartered banks have their way of operating and they are favoured by the government. Meanwhile, the government does not stop creating obstacles for credit unions thereby preventing them from growing and meeting the needs of regions and communities that are not served by large financial institutions.

I am wondering whether the government would dare demand that banks rely on the same type of guarantee from the province where their head office is located in order to access Bank of Canada loans. I am also wondering whether this government consulted the provinces before proposing the risk transfer resulting from the amendment and whether it assessed what impact this measure would have on their finances.

I am concerned that the government seems to want to encourage provincial credit unions to transition to the federal system without taking into account their unique characteristics and the challenges they would face in making such a transition.

Finally, we must remind the government of the importance of working with the credit unions to find solutions that will help them to grow. This government cannot continue to ignore the demands of a sector that plays such an important role in our economy.

This government did not even include in these 460 pages provisions that would help promote the capitalization of credit unions and give them the means to assist families and small and medium-sized businesses, namely through a capital growth tax credit.

The government did not consider modifying the legal framework, which would have allowed credit unions to compete with the big banks without losing their status as a co-operative and while maintaining their commitment to serving their members.

Once again, these 460 pages do not take into account credit unions, which contribute to a sustainable, democratic and 100% Canadian economy.

I bitterly regret it, but I must oppose this monstrous bill that does not in any way take into account the interests of Canadians, co-operatives or credit unions.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her very good speech.

She spoke a lot about credit unions and co-operatives. Last week, the manager of the Caisse populaire de Verner, which is in my riding, visited my Ottawa office. He was very concerned about the government's plans to tie the hands of credit unions. Could my colleague tell us more about how the government is preventing credit unions from doing what credit unions do?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nickel Belt for bringing this up, because he gave a perfect example of how credit unions help keep regions and communities—especially francophone communities across Canada—strong. He also shared the concerns of credit unions.

Credit unions and caisses populaires have unique structures, which is why they are so valuable. This is what makes our economy democratic. Under this government, they also have to face increasing amounts of regulation, and they comply, in order to keep up. These regulations put a considerable administrative burden on credit unions, and this government does not seem to care. As a result, they are not able to keep up with all of these regulations and the accompanying administrative burden.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her excellent speech on this omnibus bill—or mammoth bill, as we say. I think that is what it is.

I have a question for the government about this policy and credit unions. They are very different from banks. A number of Conservative members think that credit unions and banks are exactly the same. The new changes are harmful to credit unions, which use a lot of their money to help small and medium-sized businesses in Canada to create the jobs we need.

My question very specifically is this. Conservative MPs in particular who have said, in committee and other places, that they do not see any difference between a chartered bank and a credit union expose a grave concern for me, because last year the government inadvertently—maybe by accident, we do not know—heaped millions of dollars of extra taxes on top of credit unions through one change. Now they are coming in with something else that will deny credit unions access to funds.

It should be noted that credit unions, much more so than chartered banks, move money to small and medium businesses, particularly in smaller communities, many of which have lost their chartered bank representatives entirely.

If an economy like Canada's right now has not created virtually any new jobs in the private sector industry, and small businesses create upwards of 80% of all jobs in Canada, why would the government not take the initiative to help out groups like the credit unions, which do great good for our communities and help move money, loans, guarantees, and what not to the small businesses, the true job creators in Canada?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, our finance critic, for his comments and for his question.

I think he recognized, as I do and as should a lot of members on the Conservative side, how a simple capital growth tax credit would have a multiplier effect on the regional economy, on regional revitalization, which would have an effect of boosting small and medium-sized businesses, contributing to their growth and success, contributing in creating jobs, which we all want here.

Why not have something like a capital growth tax credit for credit unions, to make sure that these contributors, the credit unions, which are great contributors to our economy, can again do their job?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the events of last week. I am proud of how the House conducted itself in the wake of such terror, such atrocities, such shocking tragedy. It was good for Canada that we resumed sitting the very next morning, that we stood strong, that our leaders addressed Canadians, and that our leaders embraced. It was good for the nation to embrace.

It has been three years, and last week was the first time as a member of Parliament that I felt partisan lines dissolve, momentarily at least. I felt somewhat that way after Jack Layton died and after the passing of Jim Flaherty, but not to the degree I felt it here a week ago today. The House came together as one.

It is not every day that I stand up and applaud the Conservative Prime Minister. It is not every day that the Prime Minister stands up and applauds the leader of Her Majesty's opposition, the New Democratic Party of Canada, or the third party Liberals. It is not every day I personally compliment the Prime Minister. In fact, it never happened until last week.

The Prime Minister made a statement in the House last Thursday that I have since repeated a number of times, because it struck a chord, and I agreed with the statement. The Prime Minister said, “In our system, in our country, we are opponents, but we are never enemies.”

We are united in the House by the desire to better our country. As opponents, we disagree on how to get there, but we all strive for a better Canada, for this country to be the best country it can be. We are opponents, but we are never enemies. That is why it is so infuriating to see the government introduce, yet again, an absolutely massive anti-democratic omnibus bill. It is a bill that amounts to an affront to the principles and spirit that this precious institution was built on.

The Prime Minister said we are opponents but we are never enemies. I say we are Canadians but we are never fools. We are members of Parliament, but we are never puppets, at least we should never be puppets. We are elected to serve, to stand on guard for the Canadian way, for democracy, for our communities and our constituents. However, omnibus bills such as this are an attack on Parliament. Omnibus bills undermine Parliament.

In the words of former auditor general Sheila Fraser, “Parliament has become so undermined it is almost unable to do the job that people expect of it.”

Bill C-43 is a budget bill, but it is so much more than that. It is an omnibus bill, meaning it is a proposed law that covers a number of diverse or unrelated topics. In this case the number is a truckload. It could fill a boat to the gunwales. The bill is 400 pages long. It has more than 400 clauses. It amends dozens of acts. The bill contains a host of measures that were not even mentioned in the original budget. This is the Conservatives' sixth straight omnibus bill. It is too much for one bill.

There are some things in it that we like, such as ending pay to pay billing so Canadians are not forced to pay for a paper copy of their bills. We like that, although even that does not go far enough. The bill only bans pay to pay billing for telecom and broadcast companies. What about banks? Why should banks still be allowed to gouge Canadians? That is what they are doing. By charging Canadians for their paper bills, they are gouging Canadians, and the Conservatives are letting them get away with it.

There are also some things that we outright disagree with in this omnibus bill, like denying access to social assistance for refugee claimants. What else do they live on if not social assistance, in so many cases? This attack on the most vulnerable comes on the heels of Conservative cuts to refugee health care, a move that the Federal Court called “cruel and unusual”.

Denying access to social assistance for refugee claimants was a backbench private member's bill that was rammed into this omnibus bill after the media and anti-poverty and labour groups tore it apart.

There are parts of this omnibus bills we like; there are more parts of this omnibus bill that we do not like; and there are more parts of this bill that I will not even get to. It is not possible. In the end, there is no way that I, as the member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, can critique this omnibus bill, let alone analyze details of more than 400 clauses, given such limited debate and limited time, with so much stacked and rammed into one bill.

Here is how one parliamentarian described the use of omnibus bills. This is from a column by Russell Wangersky in today's The Telegram, the daily newspaper in east coast Newfoundland. This parliamentarian stated:

In the interest of democracy I ask: how can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and such concerns? … I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.

Who was the parliamentarian who was so outraged about the Liberal blockbuster omnibus bill? It was none other than the Prime Minister of Canada himself, when he was in opposition in 1994.

When the Conservative government and the Liberal governments before it ram so much legislation into omnibus bills it leads to mistakes. Who pays for those mistakes? Canadians pay for them. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay for those mistakes.

The Conservative government used a 2012 omnibus bill to create the new Social Security Tribunal, which hears appeals related to the Canada pension plan, disability benefits, employment insurance, and old age security. My constituency office has officially been told that the backlog of cases is one year. Unofficially the backlog is three years. That 2012 omnibus bill capped the size of the tribunal at 74 full-time staff. It also removed limits on the number of hours part-time staff can work—thus, the backlog.

Now the Conservative government is using this latest budget bill to expand the Social Security Tribunal. The government has said that the change would allow it to add employees to respond to a backlog of nearly 11,000 cases across the country related to CPP and OAS. That mistake would likely not have happened if that piece of legislation had not been lost in an omnibus bill and if members of Parliament had been given an opportunity to better scrutinize the bill. However, we were not given that opportunity, and Canadians have paid the price.

The journalist Michael Harris, who is well known in Newfoundland and Labrador for his work with the Sunday Express newspaper and for books such as Unholy Orders and Lament for an Ocean, has a new book called Party of One, reflections on a prime minister.

He quotes Peter Milliken, former speaker of the House of Commons, who stated:

Parliament can hardly be weakened any more than it already is. [The Prime Minister] can't go much further without making the institution dysfunctional....

Michael Harris also quotes the late Farley Mowat, who stated that the Prime Minister is “The most dangerous human being ever elevated to power in Canada.”

We are opponents; we are never enemies. The Prime Minister is right. We are opponents, and the Prime Minister has to stop treating us with contempt. The Prime Minister has to stop treating us like fools.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is just a comment rather than a question.

I have been listening to the debate this morning, and the opposition members keep talking about this mammoth number of 400 or 450 pages. There is only half a page here. It is in column print and there are two columns on every page, so they cannot be counting that as a full page because it is a half page. Therefore, if there are 400 pages, that is about 200 pages.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It is small print.

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

That is a good one. It is in eight font.

[Robert Chisholm]

Do not let him get away with that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Tell him he needs a magnifying glass to see it.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, whether they like it or lump it, that is just the way it is. If they take a look at the page, they will see it.

It was just a comment, Mr. Speaker.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Half a page--half a wit. What I would say to that, Mr. Speaker, is that we are talking about 400 clauses, we are talking about amendments to dozens of acts and we are talking about a host of measures that were not even mentioned in the original budget. There are hundreds of clauses and amendments to dozens of acts.

Do not let that Conservative member fool you, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador for his speech, but I just wanted to let him know that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs just did a unanimous report with recommendations for the government in order to improve the new veterans charter. The Conservatives said we have to study it more, which means more delays. Now they bring forward an omnibus bill that includes everything but the kitchen sink.

I would ask the hon. member if he has read through the entire thing, or realized the word “veteran” is not anywhere in that bill whatsoever. How can the government cram everything into that legislation and completely ignore our veteran community in Canada?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only veterans that are not mentioned in this omnibus bill; housing is not mentioned at all. Housing is a problem from coast to coast to coast, from one end of this country to the other.

I am glad the fantastic critic for Veterans Affairs will be visiting my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl next month. There is a quote that resonates with the people in my riding and it is that if you can't look after veterans, don't send your people to war.

We are not looking after our veterans. The current Conservative government is not looking after our veterans, and we are going to war.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is nominally and allegedly something to do with the budget. As has been described by my friend from Newfoundland, in these 460 pages are dozens of laws changed and hundreds of clauses, with so little to do with the economy.

However, the one piece that the government is hanging on to is to take more than half a billion dollars from the EI scheme, which the Conservatives even admit is money that does not belong to the government but belongs to the people who paid into it, the employers and the employees, and create, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 800 jobs. This is the great solution the Conservatives have to the fragile and flat economy that exists in Canada right now.

There were almost zero private-sector jobs created in the last 18 months, and the Conservatives' answer to this—

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

Not true.

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

This is according to StatsCan, by the way. The Conservatives can yell out “not true” as much as they want, but the truth is that what Canadians are also experiencing is that the private sector is not growing. Their one so-called solution is to rip off the EI fund for more than half a billion dollars to create 800 jobs, which the PBO said would cost about $550,000 per job.

Therefore, with just a little over one-third of Canadians even being able to get employment insurance when they need it, is this a proper use of something such as that fund, to create 800 jobs at a cost of more than half a million dollars per job?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has been lauded in the media in some quarters for what it has done with the economy, for leading us through some turbulent economic times better than other countries around the world. However, the Conservative math is absolutely out of whack; it is absolutely out to lunch.

As the hon. member just mentioned, $500 million would be stolen from the EI fund to create 800 jobs. That is a joke.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to economic action plan 2014 act number 2. Before I commence, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Economic action plan 2014 act number 2 and, more specifically, division 3, which contains the proposed Canadian high Arctic research station act, is something on which I would like to focus. As the member of Parliament for the Yukon, I am very proud of the unprecedented support that our Conservative government has given to Canada's north.

In 2007, our government made the bold move to launch a comprehensive northern strategy that would allow Canada's north to realize its true potential as a healthy, prosperous, and secure region within a strong and sovereign Canada. This strategy was built on four pillars: strengthening Canada's sovereignty, advancing economic and social development, promoting environmental sustainability, and improving and devolving northern governance.

To achieve these desired outcomes, we believe that Canada needs to be a world leader in Arctic science and technology. This would allow us to make sound policy decisions based on strong and science-based knowledge. This is why the Prime Minister announced the creation of a new, world-class science and technology research facility in the 2007 Speech from the Throne. The Canadian high Arctic research station, or CHARS, was endorsed by the Prime Minister as a station that would be built by Canadians in Canada's Arctic and would be there to serve the world.

More specifically, CHARS will lead and support Arctic science and technology to develop and diversify the economy in Canada's Arctic; support the effective stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters and resources; create a hub for scientific activity in Canada's vast and diverse Arctic; promote self-sufficient, vibrant, and healthy northern communities; inspire and build capacity through training, education, and outreach; and enhance Canada's visible presence in the Arctic and strengthen Canada's leadership on Arctic issues. As a fulfilment of that promise, we are here today debating legislation that would bring Canada one step closer to the establishment of the long anticipated world-class research facility by Canada's 150th anniversary.

This legislation would establish the governing structure for the research station, which would see the Canadian Polar Commission join with the Canadian high Arctic research station to create one larger, stronger research hub for scientific research in Canada's north. CHARS would build on the Canadian Polar Commission's existing mandate and its efforts to bring together industry, academia, aboriginal and northern governments, and international stakeholders and leverage their expertise, experience, and resources.

Like the Canadian Polar Commission, the Canadian high Arctic research station act also proposes to establish CHARS as a departmental corporation. This means that joining these organizations would not change the current operating framework of the commission, and it would serve to enforce its scientific independence and credibility. As a separate employer, CHARS would also have greater flexibility to attract top notch researchers and scientists from home and around the globe in a competitive research industry by offering competitive compensation and benefits packages.

Finally, it would build on the Canadian Polar Commission's existing capacity and scope through a significantly larger investment in infrastructure programming and funding. In August 2012, our government announced an investment of $142.4 million for the construction, equipment, and fit-up of the Canadian high Arctic research station in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. An additional $26.5 million annually will be set aside as of 2018-19 for the ongoing science and technology program and operation of that station.

I was privileged this fall to be in Cambridge Bay with the Prime Minister on his ninth annual northern tour to witness the groundbreaking ceremony that launched the construction phase of this facility, which is expected to take three years. The station will include research labs, centres for technology development, a knowledge sharing centre, and facilities for teaching, training, and community engagement.

The steel structure for one of the first buildings in the CHARS campus has already been erected. Work will continue in Cambridge Bay throughout the winter.

Scientific work is also already under way at the station location right in Cambridge Bay. An interim office has been set up and resident chief scientist Dr. Martin Raillard has been appointed to facilitate operational management and to interface with the community.

I know the community of Cambridge Bay is excited to host this world-class research facility and is embracing this opportunity. CHARS will be stronger, more effective, and more sustainable thanks to the input from elders and community leaders. Nunavut government agencies and other stakeholders have also participated.

CHARS will not only promote Canadian sovereignty and stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters, and resources, but it will also support the local economy by generating employment and service contracts in the region. Through its research, capacity building, and outreach activities, CHARS will provide northerners with the skills and job experience they need to better participate in the labour force. In a show of support, following the Prime Minister's August 2014 northern tour, ITK stated:

ITK is pleased to see investments in Arctic research and we are hopeful about the opportunities that research partnerships...at CHARS can provide to Inuit.

Northerners believe deeply in this project because they are increasingly experiencing the benefits of investments in scientific research and technological development. Already there are centres for northern science in every territory, pursuing research that benefits northerners. CHARS will complement and anchor the existing network of smaller regional facilities across the north by establishing a year-round hub for a strong scientific research centre in the Arctic. It will be a destination for international scientists who are eager to participate in Canada's commitment to research excellence in the Arctic.

In my own riding, the Yukon Research Centre at Yukon College undertakes valuable research with respect to climate change, environmental science, technology, innovation, and cold climate innovation. Our government is proud to support the work at Yukon College through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC. During his August 2013 visit to Whitehorse, the Prime Minister announced the substantial investment in the Yukon College Centre for Northern Innovation in Mining to help the centre expand quickly to meet the growing need for labour. Through the $85 million Arctic research infrastructure fund, announced in economic action plan 2012, the college was granted $2.5 million to renovate and enhance its research infrastructure, including areas that will contain research to advance cold climate innovations. Additional work at the Yukon Research Centre and other venues is exploring clean water, land use, the impact of permafrost on infrastructure, and indoor air quality, just to name a few.

Targeted science and technology investments like this speak directly to the practical needs of northerners, northern businesses, and northern families. Communities need the infrastructure, technologies, and skills to build prosperity. True prosperity, of course, means ensuring sustainable, low-impact development of the north, while increasing the quality of life for northerners. For example, research into heat recovery ventilators, a current collaboration between CHARS and the Yukon Research Centre, makes homes more comfortable and heating costs more affordable. Research into agriculture and access to healthy foods is also advancing.

CHARS will build on the scientific and technological progress already taking place in the north. It will add to our knowledge about the north and will allow us to prosper from the opportunities that develop. World-leading science and technology research will help provide Canadians with the knowledge and tools they need to transform current challenges into opportunities. The creation of CHARS is an important step in fulfilling this vision.

I encourage all members of the House to join us in supporting the economic action plan 2014 act number 2 and to realize in particular the benefits of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in the act that is contained within the budget implementation act to ensure that this important venue goes forward not just for northerners but for all Canadians.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from my colleague, the member for Yukon. He is a member who I think is engaged on a fairly regular basis in different ways with his constituents, talks to them about what is going on here, listens to what they have to say, and takes those issues quite seriously.

Does the member not think it is a bit odd—maybe not to his constituents but to a lot of other constituents who are represented by members of this House who will not have an opportunity to talk about the budget implementation act, which is associated with a budget of over $200 billion, is over 460 pages, and deals with dozens of different pieces of legislation—that we are being asked to not speak to it for four days but for a maximum of 12 hours. Does he not think that is undemocratic and unfair to my constituents, let alone his?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those comments and, ultimately, a question on process. Of course, I prefer to focus on the content of the budget and did that in my speech.

In regard to his question, I can only speak for what happens on this side of the House. When I have an opportunity to speak about legislation, bills, or policies that come before this place, I speak to my colleagues in my government about the opportunity and the need to express my concerns and those of my constituents. I am always given a fair opportunity to speak in the House. That has never been any different, and I am not quite certain it would be any different on that side. If members on his side of the House would like to speak to the bill, then it is something he needs to deal with procedurally by asking the people who make those decisions on his side.

It is a big country. We have a lot to get accomplished. We are doing a lot, and 460 pages in a budget bill, in my opinion, is rather a thick document when we are talking about all the programs and services and all the financial obligations and commitments that we on this side of the House make to Canadians. It is a lot of great work in a very small document, in fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about a specific detail in the bill. The previous act, the Canadian Polar Commission Act, allowed the commission to initiate activities. The proposed Canadian high Arctic research act does not say anything about initiating activities. Therefore, it seems to me that, with this new act, the government would be taking away some of the autonomy that used to be present.

It seems the government is trying to have more control over what researchers do, take away control and centralize it in the Prime Minister's Office and the minister's office. To me, it is just another example of how controlling the government is. I am wondering why the government is afraid of just keeping the same language as before and allowing researchers in the north to have some autonomy.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, with changing times, necessarily, comes changing language around the deployment of the services we are hoping to provide.

I thank my hon. colleague for raising that question because it gives me another opportunity to talk about exactly how this system would unfold. The Canadian Polar Commission would join with the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. Essentially, it would create a larger and stronger research hub. Building on the existing mandate of the Canadian Polar Commission, CHARS would be able to bring together academic, first nations, northern governance, and international stakeholders to combine and congeal their expertise. The language in the legislation is only set forward to facilitate a stronger and better organization of Canadian northern high Arctic research.

This is great news for Canadians. I hope my hon. colleague will look at exactly what CHARS would be able to do with this mandate and what it would be able to do with its partners, including community partners in the north. I hope he is willing to find a way to support it.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to talk about economic action plan 2014.

I will cover a few things today. As a small-business owner, I am going to talk about small business support and what this budget offers. I will talk about community and families. I will talk about jobs and growth being our priority as a government and in this budget, and I will certainly talk, and perhaps brag a little, about returning to balance and going forward.

First, I will talk a little about Elgin—Middlesex—London, how this bill pertains, and why I think economic action plan 2014 is the right way to go.

Elgin—Middlesex—London is a very diverse riding in southern Ontario. As the member for London West, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, would say, it is the 10th-largest city in Canada, and it has an urban centre that comes with it. However, the rest of the riding is very diverse from an agricultural point of view, and it includes about 80 miles of the Lake Erie shoreline, where we even find commercial fishing. It is very diverse, with heavy manufacturing in one part of the riding, a pretty good urban base, a wide-open economic part for agriculture, and some great recreation.

I lead off with that so that I can talk about why small business growth is so important to me. I am a small-business person still. We have to move forward by expanding our small-business base in this country.

Small businesses create so much employment in our country. So much of what happens, certainly in small rural communities, happens because of small business, and I do not just mean the jobs those small business people create, because that is a given. Business people want to be successful and hire people.

We should stop to think of the goods and services purchased by small businesses in each of our small communities and the really unique things that happen in small communities, such as the small-business owner not only being the sponsor of the local hockey team but probably the coach too, or the small business being the place where we go to get our local news. When we can make a decision in a budget that makes small businesses stronger and gives them the ability to hire more employees, it is something that can really have an impact.

The small business job credit that is part of economic action plan 2014 would allow small businesses to not contribute some of the EI portion for their staff.

If there is anyone else in the House who is a small-business person, I can certainly share with them my own business habits and those of other small-business people I know. If money is saved by a small-business person, not very often is it profit or money that goes back into our pockets. It is spent on expansion, on hiring, or on other things. The small business job credit truly would do exactly that. As small businesses find that they are saving, they will certainly turn that into hiring new employees or buying new products or whatever else it might be.

The other piece in economic action plan 2014 that will affect small businesses in a great way is the continued reduction by this government of red tape for small businesses.

I love to go to work. I know that many small-business people love to go to work, but not one of them has said that they like to go to work and sit in the back room and fill out government paperwork. That is one thing I have never heard at a Chamber of Commerce meeting or a Canadian Federation of Independent Business meeting. It is just not what people look forward to.

I think we can certainly suggest that those couple of things in this budget, from a small business and community point of view, are very important.

I said I would also talk about communities and families. I crossed over to that when I was talking about small businesses, because in many communities, small businesses are a great part of the community and the families that go with it. If small businesses cannot succeed in rural communities, we start to lose our families. The families in rural communities are, of course, what makes them work.

Also included in economic action plan 2014 is a children's fitness tax credit, which helps keep our communities more active. Members can laugh, but one of the exciting things we do in small communities is head down to the local arena or the local ball diamond to watch our kids being physically active. Something like the children's fitness tax credit being expanded in economic action plan 2014 adds to the fabric of rural communities in a way that maybe would not be noticed in a large urban centre.

The recreational facilities and the community piece is a sidebar. They are something that happens because we are doing something right with the child fitness tax credit.

There are a couple of other pieces in economic action plan 2014 that affect communities, and certainly rural communities, in a great way. One has to do with competition in the telecommunications sector and ensuring that people in rural Canada have what our urban counterparts have. It is certainly to have an increase in the ability to have broadband for our kids' use, from an educational point of view.

I already mentioned that vibrant small businesses help rural communities be vibrant. Access to good broadband Internet service for those small businesses is a huge thing and needs to happen in our rural communities.

We also talk in economic action plan 2014 about an end to pay-to-pay billing for consumers. Whether it is in rural or urban communities, not having to pay for having a bill delivered to our house is important for communities and families.

I said I would also talk about how jobs and growth continue to be what we must think of as priority one, job one. In our heavy manufacturing centre in southern Ontario, we saw a great loss with the closure of some very large car plants and the like during the recession. We trade almost everything we make in Elgin—Middlesex—London with the United States. It is a huge proportion of trade where we live, because north-south trade has always been the easiest thing to do.

With the great recession in the United States, we had to find other customers, and now as the United States is recovering, we are finding that not only can we keep our other customers, with some of the great deals this government has been able to put together around the world, but we can also go back to our trading partners in the United States and start selling them goods. Do not tell them, because it will work a lot better if they do not know that they are buying from Canada. Jobs and prosperity are very important.

I want to finish with what I think is truly the best thing that has happened under this government and in economic action plan 2014, and that is finishing the balancing of the budget to take us back to a balanced situation. A number of things will happen because of that. Certainly there will be the ability for us to lower the tax burden for Canadian families and Canadian businesses, because we will be back into balance.

There is also the psychological piece that happens in every household. There may be times when we have to put a little bit on the credit card. There may be times when we have to take out a little loan to renovate, but there is always that bit of celebration when we pay off the balance. When the mortgage is paid off, it is incredible. To compare the country of Canada with the rural family in Elgin—Middlesex—London, it is a joyous time when we can celebrate returning to balance and being able to make good financial decisions, including allowing Canadians to keep a little bit more money in their pockets.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member's speech betrayed to me was a complete lack of understanding of cities in this country, as though his rural community is the only community that has ballparks and hockey rinks and all the rest of it. It was as if those of us who live in cities do not spend time in our local arenas. I spend about two hours every weekend, when events allow, at my local arena watching my son play hockey and, from time to time, the team I sponsor. We have two baseball leagues in my riding.

What the member misses in talking about this sports tax credit is that there is also, in our cities, an enormous portion of people who cannot afford to put their kids in organized sports.

It is not just about the 400,000 manufacturing jobs we have lost. It is about 50% of the jobs in our cities, in the cities of Toronto and Hamilton, being precarious work. It is about huge, growing informal economies, where people are making less than minimum wage just to survive. They call them survival jobs in my riding.

What does this budget do for cities? Nothing.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member if he thought I was downplaying cities. I represent part of the 10th-largest one in Canada. I was trying to draw a comparison between some of the rural lifestyle and the urban lifestyle. I may not have gotten it absolutely right.

We certainly travel to rinks in the city of London and watch our teams beat those teams. We are happy to do it.

The child fitness tax credit does exactly what the member asked: What about the kids who cannot afford it? That is what this is for. That is who it helps.

I recognize that there are great community groups that we all have to be part of that also help with that and make our communities stronger.

I tried to talk about how the country is diverse. We have a great big country with a lot of different things in it: some great big cities and some very small rural ones. They are all happy to move forward when the kids are doing well, when families are doing well, and when small businesses are doing well. Economic action plan 2014 would make that happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about employment insurance.

The Liberal Party came up with a bold, creative idea that would see EI premium exemptions for every new hire for small businesses. It was something that would have created literally tens of thousands of jobs all across Canada.

We can contrast that to what the Conservatives are proposing, which is miniscule in terms of job creation. Some have even suggested that it would be a job disincentive.

Does the government not have an obligation to contrast ideas, and where there is a better idea, maybe adopt it, even if it comes from the opposition benches?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I tried to talk about my role as a small-business person for most of my life and what it takes to make money in a small business and what we do with it when we make money.

I am sorry, but I have to challenge the member a little on his math. First, a Liberal Party that emptied the EI fund of every cent in it that then asks if we would be taking too much out of it to help small businesses grow and prosper is a bit on the rich side.

Second, I have been in the House long enough to hear recommendations from each of the parties opposite on a 45-day work year for EI, which would do nothing but absolutely drain the EI fund.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I come from a background of being on city council. I referenced that earlier today in my remarks. When councillors are confronted with bills or motions that do multiple things, they are usually ruled out of order. One has to introduce items that are specific to a line of thought and amendments and motions have to line up in a logical order. One cannot solve a problem in the fire department, while talking about transit, with a focus on a bill named after a daycare program. It confuses the public, but it also puts legislators in a position where, with a single vote, they have to contradict positions, or policies or promises made to constituents and residents. Members find themselves in exactly that situation today.

There is a procedural process on many city councils and in legislatures across the country where a motion can be split so one can accurately record one's position item by item. It is a shame the government has chosen to proceed the way it has and stack 100-plus different intents all together under one umbrella, pretending it is a budget bill when in fact it is sort of a cross-section of promises and announcements that have been made across the country. Sometimes in Parliament, they land on our desks and we have to make a decision yes or no on all of them all at once, and I do not think that is a fair process. It does not allows us to accurately register or represent our positions, and that is a concern.

I will try to address some of the issues that are specific and important to the folks who I represent.

First is the child fitness tax credit. We all understand that the goal is to get kids physically active, but a lot of kids cannot be physically active due to disabilities and, as a result, this is not a tax break that would be applied equally to all children. As well, many other children choose to exercise their minds and many families put their kids into cultural programs. There is no corresponding tax cut for that. This seems to be an oversight and is something that should be addressed. It is a concern because in cities it is not as singular an approach to child rearing. Parents do not stick their kids on a hockey rink if the kids want to do something else, such as dance, which is also a physical activity, but does not get covered under this program because it is an art and not a sport. It is a big problem.

There has been reference by some New Democrats that there is no initiative around housing. There are actually two initiatives around housing. The government is doing something spectacular in the middle of a national housing crisis, which is to look for ways to increase the cost of housing. If a condominium is renovated and the renovation is significant, people end up paying more for housing. How is making housing more expensive a strategy that anybody in our country has embraced? In fact, making housing more expensive, particularly in the condominium market, is the housing bubble about the government is so concerned. It once again shows, and this was the comment at the end of my member's statement earlier today, that the government does not seem to understand that the “C” in front of CMHC stands for Canada.

Canada has always had a national housing program in one way or another. The difference is that in the last 10 years the Conservative government is walking away from that responsibility. In this set of motions, beyond clearing up a past legislative error, the only real initiative under way by the government is to actually make housing more expensive, particularly in urban areas. That is so short-sighted, so ill-conceived and such a wrong move, I do not know how to describe it. What it really shows is that when given half a chance, Tories do raise taxes; they just do it on the vulnerable.

The other issues of concern are items that have been slipped in. The one that concerns me the most, coming from a city with a very small port that somehow keeps having privileges granted to it, is the changes under the federal ports act and the Canada Marine Act with regard to how federal ports can acquire new property.

For municipalities, the federal port system and the Canada Marine Act grant powers to land use zoning patterns that are not regulated by local city halls. Therefore, when the power is given to a port to acquire new land, it actually acquires land in very important, very sensitive parts of cities, sometimes environmentally, sometimes economically, and the government has stripped the local authority away from that land and has given it to federal agencies that are appointed largely through order in council. This is not good local planning, this is not good economic development, and this is not reasonable insofar as there has not been consultation with a single city, let alone a province, on this fundamental power that the government would extend to federal ports. That is a problem.

Finally, there is the issue of trying to pretend that a private member's bill is now something that was announced in the budget. This refers to the move to suspend the requirement that all provinces support refugees with social assistance.

Not a single province beyond Ontario was consulted. When we talked to Ontario, it was not consulted and it wrote the Conservatives to say not to do it. Therefore, the only province who speaks to the government on this issue is saying not to do it.

I do not know how to describe it. An anti-democratic move is one way to look at it, because there is nobody asking for this. Nobody is asking for this change, yet the change shows up mysteriously in a bill that is sold to Canadians as a budget bill. It is actually simply a mask or diversion tactic to slip in a private member's bill that the Conservatives are too embarrassed to have voted on individually because they know how bad the legislation is.

This is not good government. It is not good process. It is really a basket of flawed policies. When we total up the flaws, the correction of 10 mistakes that the Conservatives made in drafting legislation too swiftly before, and some initiatives which are worthwhile but they do not stand up in contrast to the damages, problems and inadequacies of the other legislation, parties like ours are left with no choice but to cast one vote, because that is the only opportunity we have been given, and the only vote we could cast in good conscience is a “no”.

If we have to pass this legislation based on its weakest piece of legislation, we have to vote no. It does not mean that we would pass it because we like a couple initiatives and let the other bad stuff slide by. That is not responsible government. It is not responsible legislative law drafting.

We have in front of us a collection of initiatives, some of which are not serious in terms of having to worry our time debating. They are housekeeping bills that simply clarify legislation. However, the bulk of them is an attempt to slip in poor legislation and trumpet the stuff that the government likes. That is not a fair way to present legislation. It is not an appropriate way for this body to deal with the complex issues in front of it. I would urge all members on this side of the House to certainly vote against it.

The backbenchers on the opposite side ought to think about what they are being told to do, and what they are being led into. If this process becomes common practice in this place, it will have them voting against their core principles one day and they will be just as upset as we are.

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

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have been consistently opposed to the Conservative omnibus budget bills, just like we were opposed to the Paul Martin Liberal omnibus budget bill in the 1990s.

The bill is about 450 pages. It touches 400 clauses and amends dozens of laws. Most of the changes in this huge budget bill have no connection whatsoever to the government's 2014-15 budget from last spring.

There have been a lot of demands out there. We know there is a surplus now, but on whose back? It is on the backs of first nations, on the backs of the most vulnerable, on the backs of seniors, on the backs of municipalities and on the backs of businesses as well.

I met with the CFIB this week. It is certainly in favour of the NDP's proposal to ensure that we deal with the high credit card fees. It is also in favour of a national child care program.

Could my colleague speak to the fact of how desperately we need a national child care program and maybe why his government never actually implemented it with the many promises it made?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being a journalist here when some of those budgets were passed in the 1990s and 2000s. I recall the NDP voting several times with the Liberals to promote some good budget measures. The one that did not get passed was a national daycare program negotiated with the provinces, an issue the member will soon be confronting if her motion around daycare ever comes to fruition or if the NDP ever forms government. We all know we cannot negotiate with the provinces quickly.

The issue is this. When we have opportunities to agree, we should agree and we should work together to get stuff done on some issues. The last Liberal budget in 2005 had $2.4 billion for housing. If that budget had gone through, it would have taken with it the Kelowna accord, which would have had an extraordinary impact on aboriginal first nations communities. We would also have had a national child care policy from coast to coast to coast. Unfortunately, that budget did not survive. Co-operation on that one, which was not an omnibus bill, would have been really good for cities, municipalities, provinces and communities, but, most important, Canadians right across the country.

We need to start thinking about these issues in a more concise way. I share the NDP concern that the other side has done one thing and one thing only in this budget, and that is to make housing more expensive, while ignoring all of the other demands for housing.

On the issue of refugees looking for social assistance, the government has listened to nobody because nobody has asked for action. The Conservatives have slipped in a private member's bill in a way that can only be described as trying to hide their true motives. On that one, I share the NDP's distaste for the way in which the government has moved on this legislation

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the hon. member's theme about all of the things that are hidden in this little gem of a budget.

I presented to the House Bill C-474, a transparency bill for the extractive sector. Lo and behold, the government in its wisdom defeated the bill, and now it has slipped that bill back into this omnibus legislation. I suppose I should be flattered. I could count that as maybe a half win. Nevertheless, the irony is quite resplendent. That bill demanded of the extractive sector accountability and transparency and was put in an omnibus bill of 586 pages, which has no accountability and no transparency.

Would the member care to comment on all of these little “gems” that are hidden in this legislation, which make it difficult for members to vote reasonably?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we might see consensus emerging on some of these items if they were presented one at a time in front of us as members of Parliament. The trouble is that quite clearly a game is being played. We can almost see the campaign being written by members across the way. We voted against X, Y and Z. What they do not tell the public is that we have to vote A, B and C to get there. That is the problem. It sets up a deceitful way of making members of the House express and represent their constituents views, and that is just fundamentally wrong. It also leads to the bad lawmaking that requires 10 corrections.

There is great consensus in the House on things like an urban agenda, and yet we see nothing.

The one thing the Tories have done is raise taxes on condominiums and made housing more expensive. That does not help anybody in the country except for the folks who draft bills like this.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate Bill C-43 to implement certain provisions of the 2014 budget. I am pleased to be able to speak on this subject.

First, I believe that it is logical to oppose bills like this one that are too big. This bill addresses too many subjects that have nothing to do with the budget. As a result, we do not have enough time to analyze and thoroughly debate the bill. By way of evidence, this bill corrects a number of previous bills that contained disparate elements.

We have come to expect omnibus bills from this government, and that is something that I find unacceptable in a country like Canada. Today, we are not only debating the implementation of the budget, but also amendments to the Criminal Code, patents, aeronautics and telecommunications, employment insurance and social assistance, which the government wants to take away from part of the population. I am not the only one to point out the Conservatives' lack of respect for democracy.

To come back to the bill before us today, I believe that it contains initiatives and measures that are not in line with the pressing needs of the middle class. The bill offers tax credits here and there, but we can already predict that they will be useless, outdated and impractical.

I find it disappointing that the government ignores what the public wants when drafting a document as important as a budget. We need a much more ambitious plan in order to offer middle-class families better opportunities, while doing everything we can to foster sustainable economic growth.

One of the measures in the bill that I would like to speak about today is the increase in the child fitness tax credit from $76 to $150. This increase is one of the new income tax measures. As the sport critic, I am pleased to speak about this initiative.

During the 2011 election, the Conservatives' platform indicated that this measure would cost approximately $130 million a year. The government now expects it to cost only $35 million a year, even though this tax credit will be refundable every year. The fact that the government lowered the estimated cost of this initiative shows that it already knows that this increased tax credit will not increase our children's physical activity.

Of course, no one is against costs that are lower than planned, and no one is against additional tax credits. However, I strongly believe that if the measure already in place did not achieve the goal of making young people more active, then the proposal to increase the tax credit will not really encourage more people to use it to improve their children's health.

The participation rate in organized sports is going down, not up. The only year when there was an increase in the past 10 or 15 years was in 2003. We know what happened: in 2002, during the Winter Olympics, the men's and women's hockey teams won gold medals. We expect to see increased participation in organized sports this year because Canada won medals in hockey and curling. There will be just a slight increase in participation. We do not expect this increase in the tax credit to increase the number of children registered for sports such as hockey in the long term.

This shows that the government is not listening. This initiative is not the help that Canadian families need to motivate young people to be physically active. I know the benefits of physical activity, and I think we need to assess certain policies and improve them or even replace them when they are not working.

It has been proven that being active plays a very important part in reducing the long-term risk of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer.

According to a document produced by the Conference Board of Canada, inactivity is a serious problem for everyone. The document says that “sitting is being called the 'new smoking'”.

This is a problem that affects both adults and children, who are becoming increasingly focused on and influenced by technology. This is a social crisis that affects us all. Computers and televisions are creating a generation of young people who remain seated and who do not move enough.

Unfortunately, I see the child fitness tax credit as a relatively ineffective and impractical tax measure.

A real initiative to encourage young Canadians to get into shape would involve resources on many different levels. Various Canadian sports organizations wanted the federal government to invest a significant amount of money in infrastructure for various sports.

I have to wonder how much the government has set aside to refurbish or build sports infrastructure over the next few years. Has the government set aside any money, and could this government commit to doing more and doing a better job at getting our young people moving? I think it is the government's responsibility to look at the programs it develops and eliminate them when they do not achieve their objectives.

I enjoy sports and this topic is important to me, so I am aware of the urgent needs in the sports world. The most common concern is the lack of infrastructure and resources. We are lacking resources to better train our coaches and enable elite athletes to continue to train in the future.

Massive, direct investments in sports infrastructure could play a big part in getting Canadians back in shape. I urge the government to act now for the well-being of all young Canadians.

Another important aspect of the bill that I would like to debate is the amendment to the Employment Insurance Act. This new employment credit is for small businesses that pay less than $15,000 in EI premiums annually. According to government estimates, this credit will cost $550 million over the next two years. Again according to government estimates, this initiative could create approximately 800 jobs over the next two years.

However, this is another useless and ill-conceived measure by this government. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, each one of the jobs created will cost about $700,000. Some experts even believe that this credit will eliminate jobs, which goes against its main objective. This is not really the help that the Canadian middle class is looking for.

The Liberal Party proposed a two-year premium exemption for every new job created by small businesses. We believe that companies that create new jobs should be compensated and that we should not run the risk of losing jobs or driving down salaries because of a bad tax credit.

The Liberal Party believes that we must focus on job creation for the middle class and on economic growth. We can only build a strong and growing economy by addressing Canadians' concerns and listening to what they want. The government is completely out of touch with Canadians and is not offering any major, practical solutions to spur economic growth.

In closing, I believe that Bill C-43 does not meet Canadians' expectations. The government must do better when it comes to investing in infrastructure, investing in education by working with the provinces to promote accessibility, and developing real initiatives to create jobs in Canada. Furthermore, I believe that the government should sit down with the provinces and consider the different problems they are facing.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about how the Conservative government does not listen to experts, as we have said.

The Conservatives have paid more attention to lobbyists by proposing a plan that will siphon $500 million out of the employment insurance fund to create a mere 800 jobs.

In my riding, the community of White River needs about 60 employees and is having a hard time hiring people to train them. This kind of thing is happening across the province.

Does my colleague think that the $500 million would be better invested in a training program so that people can be hired in places like White River?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

If the government will not listen to the NDP and the Liberal Party, maybe it will listen to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who came up with the estimates.

I might have gone a little too fast, so I can redo the math, but it is just like my colleague said. The government's new employment insurance reform will cost $500 million and will create just 800 jobs. If you divide $550 million by 800 jobs, that means each job will cost $700,000. That makes no sense.

That $500 million could be invested in ridings like the one represented by my colleague from Sudbury, or the Island of Montreal, where unemployment rates are a little too high. That way, we could train our young people so that they can find sustainable jobs for the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has it right. I truly appreciate the comments he has put on the record in regard to the government's budget.

I have a simple question for the member. When he talks about the needs of the community and makes reference to Montreal and others, but specifically in regard to Montreal, could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is for the government to invest in infrastructure today as an important economic tool into the future?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's very good question does not only relate to Montreal. Urban centres all face the challenge, but we saw in the last budget implementation bill that the government committed to having tolls put on the Champlain Bridge. Just south of Montreal we have three other bridges. If we put tolls on just the Champlain Bridge, we are going to have backlogs in traffic all the way to the east end and the Champlain Bridge is located on the west end. I met with some east end business groups and they said we will not solve the problem by setting tolls. The problem will be solved by investing more in infrastructure.

There is a chronic problem in this country in getting goods from east to west and west to east through the provinces, but we have a huge problem on the island of Montreal getting goods from the east end to the west end because of tonnes of problems with infrastructure. Putting tolls on the Champlain Bridge will be one of the many problems that we will have if the government does not get its act together and put more money into infrastructure.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have an opportunity to participate with my parliamentary colleagues in the debate on Bill C-43. I will be splitting my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

Throughout the past number of months, especially during the summer break, I spent a lot of time going door to door in the neighbourhoods of the riding I represent. Often residents were surprised to see me at the door during a non-election period but appreciated the opportunity to be served by their member. I appreciated the opportunity to listen to the concerns and questions of my constituents and to see if there was something my office could assist them with.

There were some common themes that I heard from my constituents. People are concerned about their families, friends, and neighbours. They want to ensure that they all have a job to go to each day. They want to know if they will be able to afford to feed their families and provide them with a safe home. They want to ensure that the portion of their hard-earned income that goes to taxes is being used efficiently and wisely.

Our government continues to work hard to create jobs, keep taxes low, and help make our streets and communities safer.

With respect to jobs, I would like to mention that we have the best record in the G7, as has been mentioned often but deserves repeating. We have recovered every job we lost during the recession. Better yet, 1.1 million new jobs have been created in Canada since the depths of the recession, over 80% of which are full time. That is progress because every single one of those jobs means something important to someone, fathers or mothers, young people who are starting their career, or new Canadians who are committed to doing their part in their new country of Canada.

We are working hard to help students and apprentices. I recently had an opportunity to visit the Electrical College of Canada in my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville. The college prepares its students with the hands-on, practical application of electrical theory and safety knowledge to get students started toward achieving an electrician licence. During this meeting I heard from the instructors and leaders about the demand for skilled trades, as well as the need for opportunities for young people to apply their practical hands-on skills. There were a number of young men and woman who were learning a trade, which they were excited about, and they were excited about where it would take them. Economic action plan 2014 would help our skilled trades. Apprentices registered in eligible trades would be eligible for loans that would be interest free until their training ends.

We recently recognized our small-business owners and employees during Small Business Week, those who work hard and take risks in order to create jobs and move our economy. I want to thank the hard-working people in our community who run small businesses. Despite the economic challenges, these business owners are committed to providing jobs and spur our economy. With that in mind, our government recently announced the small business job credit to lower payroll taxes on small business by 15%. The hard-working people of the riding I represent, Mississauga East—Cooksville, can be assured that we will continue to work on the mission of creating the conditions for new and better jobs across all sectors of our economy.

Earlier I mentioned the comments I heard from my constituents who are concerned about their taxes being used wisely, and the costs of living and raising a family.

The cost of raising a family adds up quickly. Our Conservative government understands these challenges. That is why we have worked to lower taxes, cutting the GST to 5% and cutting personal income taxes, and thousands and thousands of Canadians are taking advantage of the tax-free savings account that our government brought forward. Let us not forget the universal child care benefit, the children's art tax credit, and the children's fitness tax credit.

There is an old expression that goes something like this: active children are healthy children. Canada's Minister of State for Sport recently visited my riding for a tour of the Mississauga Valley Community Centre. He had a very good discussion with some of the sports and recreation representatives in the community about the importance of activity to young people. I certainly believe that to be true, and so does our government. Regular exercise is essential to children's development and to get them started on a lifetime of healthy and active living.

With that in mind, our Conservative government introduced the children's fitness tax credit, which provides nearly 1.5 million Canadian families with tax relief, an incentive to keep their children active. Further to this, I am very proud of our government's recent announcement of the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit amount to $1,000.

With all these tax cuts, credits, and supports by our Conservative government, the average family of four now saves nearly $3,400 a year.

Families also want to know that they are safe in our communities. Of course, we must first thank our police and peace officers for all they do. Our government is doing its part to make sure the system puts the interests of law-abiding Canadians and the victims of crime first. We are toughening laws and supporting programs in this regard.

I want to recognize the Minister of Status of Women, who visited my riding in September and joined with Ms. Ashley Lyons, executive director of Safe City Mississauga, for a special announcement.

The minister announced more than $166,000 in funding support to help prevent and eliminate cyberviolence against women and girls in Mississauga and the Region of Peel. This is one example among many of our government continuing to take concrete actions to protect Canadians from all forms of violence.

Locally in Mississauga, we are seeing job growth and infrastructure investment in our community, thanks to our government's focus on reducing red tape while increasing investment in skills training.

The City of Mississauga has received nearly $126 million of federal funding through the gas tax fund since 2006. I will add to this that the Region of Peel gas tax fund is at nearly $213 million since 2006. This is a long-term, predictable, and environmentally stable source of funding that has helped with major projects, including Mississauga's accessible transit fleet and the transit campus.

I want to quickly share an email that I received recently from the City of Mississauga for the opening of the Mississauga Transitway:

As an important partner in the Transitway Project, I would like to personally invite you to...the official opening ceremony. It’s our way of saying thank you for your commitment to the Mississauga Transitway Project.

I am looking forward to joining with my Mississauga and Region of Peel colleagues for this special event. Indeed, this is a government that is investing in our communities, our people, and our future.

Canadians can be pleased that this budget contains no new taxes on families and businesses, while also continuing to ensure government spending is efficient and as effective as possible.

We will always put consumers first, expanding choice and reducing costs and keeping taxes low. We are helping and supporting families. We will always put Canada first, celebrating and defending our country and working to keep Canadians safe in their communities.

These are the priorities of the hard-working people whose doorsteps I visited throughout the summer and fall, and these are also the proud commitments of our government. I would ask all members of this House to vote in support of Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I have been knocking on the doors of many of my constituents in Parkdale—High Park, and like the member's opposite, many of our constituents are certainly concerned about how the dollars they send to Ottawa are being spent and how the money that goes into the employment insurance fund, for example, is spent.

One of the highlights of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report is looking into the Conservatives' small-business hiring credit. We in the NDP are big promoters of small business, and we certainly want to do whatever we can to encourage them to hire. We have put forward a number of proposals to assist small businesses, including reducing credit card transaction fees. However, what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said was that the credit that the federal government is proposing would cost $0.5 billion and only create 800 jobs. That means it would cost $550,000 for each job created.

My question for the member opposite is this. Does he think that is good value for Canadian tax dollars?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my speech, there is always a concern of my constituents and those of other members, people across Canada, about how efficiently the tax dollars that they contribute are spent. Of course, as I mentioned in my speech, we are working very hard so that the tax dollars are spent wisely, and also that we give our businesses opportunities to grow, that we do not burden them with different taxes and rising taxes, and that we give them a competitive edge on every front.

Of course there is room for improvement, and that is why we will be working every day on improving the way businesses can work and compete on the world market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow on the last question, because it seems to me that the current Conservative government has rejected what would be a very good improvement, and that is to replace its plan for EI tax credits with a plan that would actually give an incentive to businesses to create jobs.

It is one thing to give businesses money, which they may or may not invest. It is another thing to say that, if they create a new job, they will get a credit. They would get this incentive.

Economic choices are made at the margins. This is basic economics. I really would like the member to answer the question that was previously posed, and also to tell the Canadian people why we do not give businesses an incentive to create new jobs instead of just a simple transfer of cash.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what he is talking about regarding the government giving cash to businesses instead of incentives. Maybe he forgot, but one of the great incentives is the hiring tax credit. That is given to businesses to hire new people. That is an incentive. This is an incentive for the businesses to grow. Therefore, we do not have a policy to throw money at businesses. Yes, our policy is to give all kinds of incentives for businesses, to help them grow, not to burden them with higher taxes.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, the Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to speak on behalf of my constituents in Newmarket—Aurora on the second implementation bill of economic action plan 2014.

This is a tremendous piece of legislation that would benefit residents in Newmarket—Aurora and indeed all Canadians. It responds to the priorities of my constituents by putting tax dollars back into their pockets, increasing transparency in government, supporting Canadian families, and helping to create jobs and opportunity.

Newmarket—Aurora is home to thousands of families, residents who work hard to raise their children and contribute to their community. Every day in my riding, thousands of children and youth participate in a myriad of sports and fitness sessions that include soccer, hockey, dance, baseball, gymnastics, swimming, and martial arts, just to name a few.

The benefits of fitness activity in children are well known. In addition to the physical health benefits, participation in sports can help build self-esteem and confidence, motivate children to excel academically, and build valuable social skills. That is why, in order to help parents afford the cost of enrolling their children in organized sports activities, economic action plan 2014 proposes to double the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000. This credit would also become refundable, increasing its benefit to low-income families claiming the credit.

I remind Canadians that since 2006, our Conservative government has reduced federal taxes to the average Canadian family of four by over $3,400 each and every year. Indeed, the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in 50 years.

How did we do this? We reduced the GST by nearly 30%, a measure that benefits all Canadians whether or not they pay taxes. We also increased the basic personal amount, the amount that all Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. We reduced the lowest personal income tax rate and we introduced the tax-free savings account. Doubling the children's fitness tax credit and making it refundable is just one more way that our government is putting more money back into the pockets of families.

Canada is ranked as one of the world's most attractive countries for business. Bloomberg rankings recently saw Canada leap into second place, behind only Hong Kong. This did not happen by itself; it is a direct result of our government's strong, continued focus on jobs and economic growth.

Economic action plan 2014 continues this focus through the introduction of the new small business job credit. The small business job credit will cut EI payroll taxes by 15%, saving small businesses more than $550 million over the next two years, money that can be reinvested into hiring or into upgrading equipment and increasing productivity.

This is yet another action by our government to grow the economy and help create jobs. Indeed, through this government's focus on jobs and economic growth, over 1.1 million net new jobs have been created, 82% of them full-time jobs, with 78% in the private sector and 67% in high-wage industries. Almost 90% of businesses in Canada, about 780,000 in total, will directly benefit from the credit.

We know that small businesses like those in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora are the backbone of the economy and the economic engines of our communities. In Canada, they employ approximately 70% of the total labour force in the private sector.

This credit builds upon our government's strong support of small business since 2006, which has included measures to cut red tape, freeze EI premiums, and reduce the small business tax rate.

Economic action plan 2014 and, more specifically, this second budget implementation bill continue to empower Canadian consumers. For example, it would improve competition in the telecommunications market and end pay-to-pay billing practices by telecommunications service providers whereby subscribers are charged to receive bills in paper form.

Bill C-43 also proposes to reduce the administrative burden on charities by allowing them to use modern electronic tools to raise funds and for other purposes. This is great news for the many charities in Newmarket and Aurora. Currently, registered charities must file annual information returns with the Canada Revenue Agency. Unlike other groups, however, charities do not have the option of filing their information returns electronically. This poses a significant administrative burden for volunteers and staff of some 86,000 registered charities across Canada. To address this concern and to reduce the administrative burden on charities, funding will be provided to the Canada Revenue Agency to modernize its information technology, thereby enabling charities to apply for registration and file their annual information returns electronically for the first time.

To encourage Canadians to donate to registered charities, the Government of Canada provides individuals and businesses with tax incentives that have been described as among the most generous in the world. In fact, federal tax assistance for the charitable sector amounts to approximately $3 billion annually. This new measure would further assist charities to focus more on raising funds to support the great work that they do and less on administration.

My constituents are also pleased that Bill C-43 would end pay-to-pay billing practices by telecommunications service providers whereby subscribers are charged to receive bills in paper form. The practice of broadcasting companies charging subscribers for providing them with a paper bill is an irritating and costly one. I have had numerous complaints from my constituents regarding this practice.

We do not believe that Canadians should pay more to receive a paper copy of their telephone or wireless bill. That is why, as we set out in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, we are committed to ending this unfair practice once and for all. Bill C-43 sets out the legislation to do so.

I can assure my constituents and all Canadians that our government will continue to promote policies that support Canadian consumers and put more money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families.

I have spoken in the House and in committee in the past about our government's concrete action to address the tragic issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Economic action plan 2014 contains significant actions to further address this issue. Some $25 million would be allocated over five years to continue our efforts in directly addressing the issue, and over $8 million would be used to support a national DNA-based missing persons index. These two initiatives, together with other federal support for shelters, family violence prevention, and increased economic and leadership opportunities for aboriginal women, will result in a total investment by the Government of Canada of nearly $200 million over five years.

This investment builds on previous actions that include the passing of historic legislation that gave aboriginal women living on first nations reserves the same matrimonial rights as all Canadians, including access to emergency protection orders in violent situations. We have also passed over 30 justice and public safety measures, including tougher sentencing for murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping.

I will go back to some of the things that the economic action plan would do. It would make key investments to ensure that today's youth have the skills that they need to get the jobs of tomorrow. We want to see all young people have the opportunity.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to support the bill's speedy passage so that we can begin to see the results and the benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the speech she gave.

Clearly, the speech was filled with the same bravado we are used to hearing from the Conservative benches. It is rather disappointing. I find it unfortunate that my colleague brought up the question of support for small businesses, yet she ignored the fact that the Conservatives' plans have so far been quite ineffective for small business.

In reality, when we look at the past 20 years, big business has benefited from major tax cuts—their taxes have been practically cut in half—while small businesses have had their tax rates cut by only one percentage point, from 12% to 11%.

The NDP believes in restoring the corporate fiscal balance by lowering small business tax rates to 9% and cancelling certain cuts that were granted to big business.

I would like to ask my colleague why she did not encourage her government to move in that direction, which would have been far more productive than tax credits that will create almost no jobs in the long run.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner and as someone who has worked in that space for quite a number of years, I have, except for four years, created my own paycheque all my adult life. I know that any time we give a tax break to a small business, it will look at reinvesting it into the business, create more services, and create more job opportunities. Any time a small business gets any sort of tax break, that money goes back into the economy. It generates more opportunities in the community.

I attended, over the Thanksgiving break week, the business awards dinner that was held by our Chamber of Commerce. Person after person from small businesses came up to me to compliment us on the proposals for EI and to tell me that they are going to create more jobs in Newmarket, meaning great opportunities for young people in my community.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the first item that my hon. colleague addressed, which is the children's fitness tax credit.

The question is about whether the changes to the tax credit measure are really about children's fitness. The way to decide that is to ask the government, I believe, if it has any intention of measuring what the change in children's fitness or fitness activity is as a result of the tax credit.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked in the area of wellness promotion. I have been involved for many years. In fact, when I was running for the nomination in 2004, I put on record that I would introduce a private member's bill to create a tax credit for people who had gym memberships.

I am absolutely delighted that the Conservative government is going to put in place a tax credit for children's fitness. Not only would it help families that are trying to give their young ones the opportunity to learn sports and to benefit from the social recreation and leadership skills that sports develops, but it would also create a new generation of healthy young people who would have less need to call upon our health care system.

I see the tax credit as an incredible asset to young families. Doubling it would mean more money in their pockets.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just started to explain the benefits of the increased tax credit for children, but I would like her to briefly highlight the aspect of not only doubling it but making it refundable. That is a key point for low-income Canadians.

I wonder if she would expand on that aspect for 30 seconds.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, indeed this measure would be of real benefit to low-income families, families that may not have been able to access any of the benefits of the tax credit. This would directly put money back into their pockets and give low-income families the opportunity to see their children participate in some of those recreational programs that perhaps they have not had the opportunity to participate in.

What is most important is that we would be creating a new generation of healthy young people, young people who are going to focus for the long term on their own activity and their own fitness levels and be encouraged to participate for the long run in what wellness can provide to them and in a healthy lifestyle.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to stand for a few moments to talk about Bill C-43.

I indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I have to say that I speak to the bill with a feeling of frustration and disappointment in this process. We have a bill that implements a budget to fund an organization that spends over $200 billion a year. It is a budget implementation act that consists of 460 pages. It affects dozens of pieces of legislation, things such as, for example, a scheme that the government has come up with to use workers' and employers' money, though mainly workers' money, to fund a supposed job creation plan that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said is going to cost over $500,000 per job. It has those kinds of provisions in it, yet members are being provided four days to debate the bill.

Four days sounds like a paltry amount, but let us take a look at how many hours that is. One of those days is Friday, when we will have two hours in which to debate Bill C-43. Because of the fact there will be a joint session to hear from the President of France, Monday will be considered a Wednesday, so we will have another two hours. If we stretch it out, we might get a total of 12 hours to discuss the bill.

Some of the Conservatives often say I am wasting my time. It is my time and I will use it the best way I know how. I am talking about the concerns of my constituents. Not only is the process a sham, but how could anyone possibly analyze a document of this size and this complexity in 12 hours?

Let us look for a second at what the government actually does with its budget. I talked about the fact that the budget of this country is over $200 billion. We found out just yesterday that more than $18 billion in spending that had been budgeted for programs, infrastructure and capital spending lapsed. In other words, it was not spent on what it was intended for. For example, close to $1 billion that had been budgeted for the Department of National Defence was not spent.

What does that mean? That means that the men and women who protect our country, who go on training and operations here and around the world, do not have the equipment they need in order to conduct their activities. It means that bases such as Shearwater in Nova Scotia have to shut down their arenas, pools and chapels because they do not have the money to repair the infrastructure. That is what it means when we say money lapsed that had been budgeted to be spent in areas and operations that were deemed required by someone in order to make sure those particular services were appropriate. Bridges and roads have gone without the funds necessary to properly operate.

Here we are talking about legislation to implement a budget that is frankly fanciful to begin with to a large extent. The government does not have a clue what it is doing. It does not have a clue. Member after member on the government side stands and says that they are a small business person so they know how to run things and manage money.

If small business owners managed their businesses in this fashion, they would not be doing it very long because they would not have a roof over their business, they would not have stock because they would not be able to transport stock, and they would not have employees because they would not be able to ensure employees in the workplace were safe. What I am talking about is the responsible management of the resources of the people of this country.

The Prime Minister is out this afternoon making announcements. How can we believe those? It is like the plan that was announced in 2007 to build between six and eight Arctic offshore patrol vessels. In fact, they were going to cut steel and the first one was going to be started in 2013. That was last year. That is what the government promised. Conservatives went through at least two elections with the big promotions behind that, but it has become increasingly clear that the money is not going to be there. They are not going to be able to build six to eight Arctic offshore patrol vessels. They will be able to build maybe four and if they keep delaying things they way they have been, it is going to be three.

Why is that important? It is important because we went through a process that we supported and one of the places that was awarded to build those ships was in Nova Scotia. There are hundreds and thousands of men and women around that region who are depending on those jobs. They are now travelling out west to find work. They are counting on that investment that was promised to them by the government, by the Prime Minister, and as every single day goes by it becomes increasingly apparent it is not going to come to fruition.

We will not know about it probably until after the next election, because somewhere, somehow, the Conservatives will get a welder and a blow torch and cut some steel somewhere and say, “this is what you are going to get if you elect us”, when in fact they know that the money is not there. The Minister of Public Works knows. It is just like the F-35s. It is just like the replacement helicopters for the Sea Kings. Conservatives just cannot seem to get it right. They cannot get the equipment into the hands of the men and women who serve this country and that is shameful.

That is what we are here to talk about. We should be talking under Bill C-43 about whether or not we can believe anything that is in this document of 460 pages that talks about implementing the budget, a budget that frankly proves time after time to be fanciful. That is the concern that my constituents have, that the government is not able to produce the goods.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am. I would like to advise my friend that I am trying to be attentive to what he says and he says that he is talking about something, but really he is yelling about it. I wonder if you could advise him that his microphone is working and he does not have to scream.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I do not think that is a point of order, but we will allow the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour to continue. He has a little under a minute left in his remarks.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to apologize for being passionate about what the Conservative government is doing to constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. I will never be quiet when the Conservatives are making decisions that are having such an impact on people in my constituency and people across this country. If that offends the sensibilities of the member opposite, then he can go somewhere else, because this is my time.

My time has been chewed up by an irrelevant question but nonetheless I want to take this opportunity to say that this process is shameful. It does not serve the interests of Canadians and it certainly does not serve the interests of the people of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and that is how I plan to vote on Bill C-43.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of housing, which my colleague from Toronto made reference to and which members have talked about to a certain degree in this budget debate. There is a desperate need for stronger leadership from Ottawa to deal with the housing issue in virtually every region of the country. There is a genuine need for low-cost housing, low-income housing in particular, but also within the middle class, people are finding it challenging to own a home nowadays.

The government has not included anything in this budget that would make it easier for people to own homes or to even look at retrofit programs that would be better for the environment. The whole housing file seems to be completely missing from the budget.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of having a more proactive approach in dealing with housing, non-profit housing in particular.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Winnipeg North because what has been happening with the cost of housing, particularly the cost of affordable housing in this country, is serious. That began to happen back in the late nineties when the Liberal government pulled out in a big way from supporting affordable housing strategies across this country. It was a shameful process to watch and it has continued under the Conservative government to the point now where it is estimated that there are 250,000 homeless families in this country. We simply have to do better.

The federal government has a responsibility to partner with the provinces to make sure that we not only fix the stock from the seventies and eighties that is falling apart but that we find other ways to provide new stock in our communities to make sure that affordable housing is available to Canadians.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that for more than a day we have heard the NDP talking about the size of the omnibus budget bill, that it is an overly large bill, but rather than talk about what is in the budget bill that member has been talking about things that are not in it. He talked about the national shipping strategy and Arctic offshore patrol ships. Apparently there is not enough content in the budget bill for those members to criticize so they have to go fishing for other topics to talk about.

It is because of our strong fiscal position that we are able to invest in our armed forces and in military equipment, and invest in the Coast Guard.

If the member wants to talk about that topic, even though it is not specifically addressed in this budget bill, why do we not talk about our fiscal capacity and the fact that it is because of the strong fiscal measures that we have taken that we have the room to invest in our military and get it back on track?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a few veterans and a few members of the Canadian Forces live in Dartmouth who would love to have a little chat with my friend opposite about what his government is doing to support the women and men who serve this country through the Canadian Forces. It is despicable in far too many cases.

I talked to a constituent the other day whose brother committed suicide after having served within the armed forces for 23 years. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The government did not heed his cry for help and he ended up taking his life. That is what happens when, for example, $1 billion is left unspent in the Department of National Defence. Members opposite have to understand what this is about. This is real. This is not funny. These are not games. Real people, real families are being affected, and that is who I am talking about here today in my remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for sharing his precious speaking time with me. Given that this is a mammoth, monstrous bill, 10 minutes is nowhere near enough time to comment on certain aspects. I want to sincerely thank him for sharing his time so that I can speak to certain aspects of the budget that are of particular interest to the people of Beauport—Limoilou.

Before I begin, I cannot help but pick up on the parliamentary secretary's comments. I would like to ask him where the replacement fighter jets are. Where are the ships that are supposed to maintain the operational capabilities of our armed forces and the coast guard? While we are at it, I could even ask where, at the bottom of the river, the paintbrush for repainting the Quebec Bridge has wound up. I could do as my Conservative colleagues have done and list all of this government's failures, but it would take too long and I would not be able to address the sensitive issues that are of particular concern to the people of Beauport—Limoilou.

We have amply highlighted the omnibus nature of this bill, which is more than 450 pages long and contains more than 400 clauses. It is terrible and completely disrespectful of Canadians. That is not to mention the time allocation motion, which severely limits our debates, in addition to the farce we can expect in the committee hearings. This budget implementation bill is meant to go to the Standing Committee on Finance. However, the Conservatives will continue to show contempt toward all Canadians in studying the bill by making it impossible to amend various parts, including, no doubt, at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, of which I am very proud to be a member.

Let us move on from the Conservatives' shameful behaviour and focus instead on the part in division 16 of the bill on the amendments to the Canada Marine Act. Hon. members are aware of the issue affecting the people of my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, namely the high level of contamination by a mix of dust, including nickel dust, from the Port of Québec, due to the operations of the Quebec Stevedoring company.

Obviously, like everyone else, I took up reading this immense bill under unspeakable conditions. After looking at the summary, I decided to focus on this division. There are a number of changes that open the door quite wide. It makes us wonder about the government's intentions and deeper motives. When it changes aspects and sections of our statutes, it does not just make minor changes, without intending to have these sections apply more broadly. Once the door is open it is impossible to close it again without a very strong will. I will raise a number of questions related to that.

I will start with clause 228:

228. Section 46 of the Canada Marine Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.1):

(2.11) A port authority may acquire federal real property or federal immovables, if supplementary letters patent have been issued.

That property will become “real property or immovables other than federal real property or federal immovables”.

That will already have serious consequences. Hon. members likely know that a Canadian port authority cannot transfer, dispose of, or borrow against federal real property or federal immovables.

Clearly, once the door is open we can imagine what will happen. Furthermore, the government is taking a piecemeal approach because, depending on the port authority, it will issue letters patent tailored to certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. It is our understanding that these amendments were intended to resolve a particular case in one part of Canada, or that they represented a concession in that particular case. Nevertheless, this could have many negative, even dangerous, repercussions for the people living near a port or a major Canadian port authority.

I would like to mention that all major Canadian cities have a port authority. Thus, very large populations could be affected by these changes. Potentially, these changes could ultimately result in complete or piece-by-piece privatization. We have absolutely no idea where this will stop, so why not?

I will now talk about clause 231 of the same bill. This clause adds quite a number of elements to section 64 of the Canada Marine Act. How this is done is quite surprising. This affects undertakings situated in a port, and the Governor in Council will have the authority to:

...make regulations respecting any undertaking...that is situated or proposed to be situated in a port, including regulations respecting the development, use and environmental protection of the port as it relates to the undertaking or class of undertakings.

When we look at all the details, we realize that once again, the government, in an underhanded and secretive way, can, through regulation, introduce individual rules tailored to the needs or even the whims of businesses working in our major Canadian ports.

Since the contaminated dust issue blew up two years ago—the government is still valiantly trying to keep that out of the spotlight—Quebec Stevedoring has always tried to shirk its responsibility and take advantage of a system that lets the company get away with it. Unfortunately, if I understand the logic of these new provisions, that system might be obligingly provided by a government that received nearly $20,000 in donations from the company's senior executives, including the founding president of Quebec Stevedoring.

It is scary to see the door wide open like that and the red carpet rolled out for a select group of friends, so of course we have legitimate questions. Unfortunately, we are looking at this as part of a huge omnibus bill. We will have no choice but to exercise our right to vote on the bill as a whole. Obviously, we are going to vote against the bill because it contains too many unacceptable measures.

Then government representatives will be able to drone on, squawk and get all offended about how we voted for this or that measure, and they will generally behave in a way not befitting adults. I will not call it childish, because that would be disrespectful to children. As it turns out, children behave better than many adults.

I will end there, because I could go on for another 10 minutes, but I cannot fault my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for wanting 10 minutes to stand up for his constituents.

If it ever passes, section 64.93, which is part of clause 231, indicates that:

No civil proceeding may be brought, no order may be made and no fine or monetary penalty may be imposed against Her Majesty in right of Canada or a port authority, in relation to an undertaking that is situated in a port, under regulations made under subsection 64.1(1), based on any right or interest held by Her Majesty or the port authority in that port.

We will have to see what the scope will be, but this clause raises a lot of questions and does not answer the concerns we might have.

In conclusion, what is really disappointing and what we need to strongly condemn is the fact that the government will try send this division to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for review.

Unfortunately, though, we will not be able to examine it in depth or propose any amendments. Nothing will be done right, and the Conservatives will likely take the opportunity to do some nice things for their friends.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I do not know if the House noticed that my colleague did not mention the budget. He did not. Was he out of order? Not at all. That is what is so ridiculous about these mammoth bills. He kept his comments perfectly relevant to the bill, and he did not even mention the budget.

How is that possible? Everything he talked about deserved to be in a separate bill. Moreover, there are dozens more examples like that.

One thing that worried me in my colleague's speech was the regulatory process that seems to be emerging. The government appears to be creating a framework, but no one knows how it will work. All we know is that it will be through a regulatory process. One day we will find out; we do not know when. Maybe we will find out when there is some kind of abuse.

Could my colleague speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louis-Hébert for his question and his comments, which are particularly pertinent. This brings me to something else that I did not have time to address in my speech.

When we talk about the regulatory process, this unfortunately leads to behaviour that can have serious consequences. I would draw my colleague's attention to the fact that under clause 231, subsection 64.4 will be added to the Canada Marine Act. It reads as follows:

64.4 Regulations made under subsection 64.1(1) prevail over any by-laws, practices and procedures or other similar instruments, and land-use plans, made by a port authority....

Mechanisms already exist that could allow a community to take into account or assess the actions of a port authority. However, the government could go about things in an entirely underhanded way, completely in secret, and present the public with a done deal. Canadians would then be hostage to decisions made in backrooms in Ottawa, and it would be very hard to keep an eye on things and, more importantly, gauge the consequences once those decisions take effect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not really talk about the budget but rather about the content of the budget implementation bill.

There is another way of looking at it. There are many things that could have or should have been incorporated into the budget implementation bill. I will take the specific example of what I believe is one of the most important everyday issues Canadians are genuinely concerned about, which is, of course, our health care system.

In 2014, the health care accord expired. It is something the provinces and the federal government signed off on at the time to guarantee funding for 10 consecutive years. That has expired, yet within the budget document we have before us today, there is not a word about the importance of that ongoing financial support through another health care accord.

The member might want to comment on how important it is to work with provinces to achieve a future health care accord.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North for the question.

This allows me to point out that while the opposition is doing most of the debating here, we see our Conservative colleagues just sitting there, even though we have a monster bill with over 400 clauses that need to be examined and studied. It is absolutely unbelievable.

Clearly, as my colleague pointed out, the Conservative government imposed a transfer framework on the provinces in a positively shameful way. In fact, it was appalling that the federal government would impose its will on the provincial governments. It is unconscionable.

I would like to remind the member that the initial framework for the health transfers, which dates back some 50 years, stipulated that the federal government was to pay half the costs. Unfortunately, successive Liberal governments, under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, successfully negotiated a much more inequitable cost-sharing scheme, and this put additional pressure on the provinces. It is really appalling.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we carry on with resuming debate, just a notice to hon. members that we have crossed that point in the debate where we are five hours past the first round of speeches on the question. Therefore, from this point onward all of the interventions are limited to a 10-minute speech and 5 minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill C-43, the budget implementation act, no. 2. This is a budget that we introduced in February. We have been talking about this budget for almost nine months and it is time to get it passed. It is a good idea to get budgets passed in the year they are introduced and then we can think about the next budget in 2015. I know sometimes the opposition would like to extend the debate on this for several more months, but it is time for us to get acting on this, with some very important measures for the fiscal health of the country.

First I want to talk about the benefits of balanced budgets. This is the framework we are working within when we talk about this budget. There are obviously tax measures here, but also spending measures. Combined with the good measures we have taken over the last few years, they brought us us to a point where we are looking at balanced budgets again in 2015. That is very important.

I also want to talk about small businesses because they are so important. Many jobs are created in our country because of small business. Some small businesses become very successful and become larger businesses, but they are engines of growth and for employment. There are some very important measures in the BIA, the budget implementation act, to support small business.

I also want to talk about support for students, and getting young people their first jobs. Youth employment is always a challenge in every country in the world, and Canada has done a better job than most countries when it comes to youth employment, so I want to talk about that.

The last item that has given a real framework within the BIA, no. 2, is the DNA missing persons index. I want to talk about that. We have not spent enough time talking about it in the debate. I noted that some of my colleagues opposite wanted to deviate from the actual content of Bill C-43 and wanted to talk about things that were outside the budget, but I want to focus my comments on the budget.

When it comes to the benefits of balanced budgets, on this side of the House we understand how important it is. We are the only G7 country that has a rock solid AAA credit rating. That is important because it keeps our interest rates low. When we have lower interest rates, it means we pay less in interest costs. It means we have more fiscal capacity to do other things. It frees up taxpayer dollars that are otherwise spent on interest payments. We can spend money on programs instead. The major credit rating agencies, Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch, all gave us that AAA rating. It is something a lot of other countries, including G7 countries, do not have. We are very proud of that, and it is because we have made sound fiscal decisions in the last few years to give us that AAA credit rating.

The other benefit of that strong credit rating is it gives us an environment where business has confidence to invest and create jobs. It also gives consumers confidence when it comes to buying homes, to buying other real property and making investments that stimulate activity in the economy.

It also strengthens our ability to respond to emergencies. Because we have some fiscal capacity, we can adapt to global shocks.

We can also prepare for an aging population. The reality is we are going to have some challenges in the coming years and because of the wise decisions we have been making since 2006, and especially since we have had a majority government since 2011, we have really wrestled with the issue of balancing the books.

It is also a fairness inequity when it comes to generations. It is a responsibility for us, as parliamentarians and legislators, to not leave our children's generation and our grandchildren with a debt that we accumulate. It is very important that those people who are not old enough to vote today should not be burdened with a debt that our generation creates.

I will just mention a couple of relevant statistics.

In 2014, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio was less than 40%, which is the lowest among G7 countries, by quite far in fact. Germany is the second lowest at only 52.2% and the G7 average is about 87%. That is a measure of our fiscal strength, the fact that our debt compared to the economy's ability to sustain is really an important metric.

Overall since 2010, we have taken many actions on the spending side of things. We have reduced spending since 2010 by over $19 billion a year. Those kinds of things do not happen by accident. Budgets do not balance themselves. This is because of the very strong measures we have taken to control spending in the federal government, and that is what has given us this room and has also given us this balanced budget.

This is unlike the previous Liberal government. The Liberals had a majority government for 13 years and they had all kinds of ability to do things with their budgets, but they chose to drastically reduce transfers to the provinces: the Canada health transfer, the Canada social transfer, all kinds of transfers to the provinces. They also they reduced transfers to individuals.

We are not doing that in our budget. We have not done it in any of our budgets. In fact, we have increased transfers to the provinces to almost $65 billion in 2014-15, which is a 50% increase since 2006.

We are balancing the budget, but unlike the Liberals, we are not doing it on the backs of the provinces. That is a very important thing to state.

The previous debater from the NDP talked about the reductions in the Canada health transfer. That is completely untrue. I will give the example of Ontario, where the Canada health transfer has been increasing by 6% per year, but Ontario has only been increasing its health spending by 2% a year. In other words, it has been using the annual increases in the Canada health transfer, pocketing the 4% difference and using it for other programs.

We have made an adjustment to the funding formula based on input from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which showed that there would be declines in health care spending in all provinces because of better health management within the provinces and because of technology. There are significant administrative costs going down because of technology, but also because the cost of diagnostic equipment is going down. This is resulting in a different way to transfer money to the provinces for health care.

I am going to talk about small business. I know I do not have that much time, but it is a very important topic.

We reduced the small business tax rate some time ago, from 12% to 11%, so all small businesses have benefited from that.

However, the thing that small businesses talk about more than anything is payroll costs. They talk a lot about utility costs in Ontario, but payroll costs are a big challenge for them. We froze EI premiums, and small businesses were very thankful for that. We then took a step further for smaller businesses that pay less than $15,000 a year. We reduced that by a further 15%, and they are very thankful for that. When this was announced, the CFIB said:

This announcement is fantastic news for Canada’s entrepreneurs and their employees, and as such, can only be a positive for the Canadian economy.

It is interesting. When they get that extra cash, what do small businesses want to do? They want to grow their business. Sometimes that means adding hours. Sometimes it means hiring new people. Sometimes it means investing in new technology to increase productivity. It could also mean training employees. Ultimately, it is up to each small business to decide what it wants to do with those benefits.

This is on top of all of the other things we have done to help small business. The lifetime capital gains exemption is a big deal, and we raised that significantly in the last few years. In this budget, we would increase that to $800,000 for a lifetime. This is very important for small businesses who want to transfer their businesses, typically within their own family, but to other individuals as well. This is the exemption they can have, the reward they have for growing their business.

The other things that we are doing, which are detailed in the budget, include cutting red tape for small business. This is one of the things that is really a drag on small business. The number that has been given, and has been verified, is over 800,000 payroll remittances by 50,000 small and medium-sized businesses will be eliminated. It is a real step up for small business when we can remove that red tape.

Overall, we are significantly reducing their taxes.

I would like to talk about support for students, because there are significant measures.

We have launched the Canada job grant, but the important category of students is the apprentices. There are significant measures there. When we look at the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship completion grant and the tradesperson tools deduction, there are all kinds of things that really get people into the trades where they can get those jobs.

If we look at other measures that have been extended in this budget, the youth employment strategy would go up from $300 million to $330 million a year. That is very significant.

In the time I have remaining, I would like to talk about the DNA-based missing persons index, because it is such an important measure. This budget implementation act gives the framework for that, with $8.1 million to create a DNA-based missing persons index. This would be a very valuable tool for investigators, for coroners and for law enforcement agencies to find missing people and to investigate crimes. We have created these indices now, through this BIA, which would give the structure for the DNA profiles, ensuring it is used effectively and has the budget behind it, and the rules for how to use that index. It is a very important measure, and I am proud of our government.

It is a terrific budget, it is the right budget for Canada and I hope all members will support it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my colleague credit for a very thoughtful speech. He gave some very specific examples as to why he thought the budget implementation bill was a good one, from his perspective.

There are things that trouble us, and it is not just the process. He will be glad that I will not talk about the omnibus aspect of the bill. It has been well stated and people will understand why we are against it. However, there are a couple of things that trouble us on the revenue side. It came up in question period today. The government has been unable to invest its own appropriations. People should note this because it is very important.

The government goes to Parliament every year to ask for money to appropriate. It has not been able to invest the money that has been appropriated to it. From where I come from, the son of a public servant, that means it has failed to fulfill its mandate. Therefore, I am questioning the validity of the budget, based on the government's performance to invest the moneys that have been appropriated to government. Does he have a comment about that? Does he actually understand and is he concerned about the money?

My colleague from Nova Scotia said it well. We have so many people in desperate need, particularly veterans. By the way, the word “veterans” does not appear in the document, on my read of it anyway. Is he not concerned about that? Where is he in terms of what government's role is to invest the money that is being appropriated? After all, that is what a budget is about. It is about what government wants and needs to do its work.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to talk about the business of supply, because that really was what the question was about. We get appropriations. This goes back centuries. That is the way our system works. The crown has to ask Parliament to spend money. The crown then gets that appropriation. Certain things happen. For example, money does not get spent when there is a delay in the approval of a construction project. That means the appropriations get carried over to the next year. However, the crown has to ask once again through the estimates process to appropriate the funds.

That happens across department to department where for various reasons the money does not get spent. It does not mean the government is not doing its job. There are just certain realities when it comes to project based spending in particular, where a gate is not achieved so the money does not get spent. It does not mean there is no intention to spend it. It just has to do with the timing of that spending.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too thought the member made a thoughtful speech.

Usually, when a government is looking at a surplus, there is an allocation among debt, tax reductions and program spending. It is usually set out as some sort of percentage for each. We certainly heard lately how the government intended to reduce taxes through its income splitting concept. However, we have not heard anything about whether the government intends to pay any of the $160 billion to $170 billion that it has borrowed over the last six to eight years toward debt reduction.

We certainly have not heard about any program spending. To pick up on the hon. member's comments about lapsing, the military has effectively had its budget cut by $3 billion or $4 billion, much of which has been lapsing year over year over year. It has taken lapsing almost to an art form.

Would the hon. member comment on whether the government is prepared to commit to percentages between debt reduction, tax cuts and program spending?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is talking about this year's budget or next year's budget, but if he is talking about spending the surplus that would be next year.

We are going through a consultation process. I know the Minister of Finance is consulting with stakeholders across the country. The finance committee is doing those consultations also. I am actually doing some of those consultations with stakeholders in my community and getting their thoughts.

Predicting what next year's budget would look like in terms of a percentage allocation is a bit of a mug's game. However, there will certainly be some mix of debt reduction, debt relief and some new programs.

In this year's budget there is such a long host of new spending programs in all different areas. When we went through the recession of 2008-09, we had to really trim some spending, so the last few budgets have really introduced some new spending in some very important areas. One I will just mention specifically is the infrastructure program. It is very important for Toronto, for Scarborough—Guildwood as well as for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. We are working with communities to make significant investments in infrastructure now.

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

Mr. Speaker, before us today is Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014.

This is yet another mammoth bill. It is 450 pages long and contains 400 clauses that affect more than a dozen laws. Clearly, the opposition is not deluded about the future of this bill. As with the bills before it, the debate on this bill is already subject to a time allocation motion. This is the 80th time the government has used this tactic, and in the end this bill will pass very quickly, just as the others did.

When Bill C-38 was introduced, we moved 500 amendments because the 600-page bill contained dozens of laws. I remember quite well that the government did not accept any of those amendments. We know what is going to happen with the bill before us.

To set the stage, I would like to quote from a National Post editorial about a previous omnibus bill.

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention, shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable [in the House]...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...a sort of compulsory buffet.

The government was trying to get us to pass its legislative agenda in one fell swoop, and that is the case again today.

Among the measures included in this bill is the proposal to deny social assistance to refugee claimants, an idea that was brought forward by a backbencher on the other side of the House. The bill also includes hiring credits for small businesses.

I could list all of the laws affected by this bill, but I will stop at those two. We cannot look at this bill without looking at the overall context of the Conservative administration.

Is the economy doing better since the Conservatives came to power? Every week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance throws some figures at us: 1 million jobs here; 400,000 jobs there; 300,000 unemployed workers here; 200,000 unemployed workers there. People no longer know which figures are true and which have been manipulated.

I looked into whether the economy was doing better in my riding and whether families were better off and people were less poor. On October 17, I participated in the Nuit des sans-abri. I do not know whether my colleagues opposite participate in this event. It involves spending one night with the homeless and talking to them about their lives for 24 hours. I have been doing this for 10 years. I spent the night with them again this year, and I did not notice that there were fewer homeless people. On the contrary, there were more.

However, I did notice that the organizations that work with the homeless suffered budget cuts this year, including an organization that focuses on getting homeless youth into the job market and back to school. This organization lost $400,000 in funding from the skills link program, a federal program that is supposed to support social integration.

Just today, the CBC mentioned a report by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness stating that the $2 billion currently being invested in social and affordable housing in Canada is not enough to meet the needs of the 35,000 people who sleep on the streets every day or the 235,000 who sleep on the streets every year.

According to the think tank, the government needs to invest $1.7 billion more in affordable housing per year to eliminate homelessness in Canada. It would cost each Canadian $0.88 a week to ensure that people are not sleeping in the streets and to make ours a society where a degree of social justice reigns. At the same time, for every $10 invested in social and affordable housing, we save $21 in health care costs because people who end up in the streets eventually end up in hospital with serious health needs. That is a huge cost for society.

When I took part in homelessness awareness night, I did not see fewer homeless people. I saw people who were having a hard time and needed organizations. I also saw organizations that had just had their funding cut. To me, that is just as important an economic indicator as the GDP.

I also want to talk about the number of people who use food banks. In my riding, many people do. Again, is the economy doing well? There are more and more people using food banks. If the economy were doing so well and the mammoth budget implementation bills that keep getting introduced provided something practical for ordinary Canadians, that number would go down.

On the contrary, the number increased by 25% between 2008 and 2013. That means that there are 25% more people in my riding using food banks. Often these people work part time for minimum wage. They are forced to use food banks to feed their children. That is what the economy looks like under the Conservatives, and I would dare say under the Liberals as well.

Currently, every month, 80,000 new people use food banks in Canada. In the measures proposed today and for some time now, I have not seen anything that would improve this economic indicator. Indeed, that is what it is.

I also want to talk about unemployment. Good jobs are rare, and not just since 2009. Since the crisis, we have lost a number of industry jobs, which have been replaced with part-time jobs.

I read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's response regarding employment insurance funding and the recent related measures. I am not sure whether my colleagues across the way read it, but I doubt it, because this document takes a hard look at the employment insurance situation and how the EI-funded hiring credit will cost us jobs. The EI premium freeze cost us jobs, and every job created will cost us $500,000.

I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I know that the Conservatives were not very fond of Mr. Page because he pointed out that purchasing the F-35s was foolish. Nor did they like the subsequent report on the sustainability of old age security, which actually is sustainable. They will surely not like this report.

The Prime Minister probably thought it was a good idea to replace the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I believe that he made a good decision when he appointed Mr. Fréchette, who is doing a great job. I encourage all parliamentarians to read this report. It is a fantastic document that shows that the Conservatives are poor public administrators and that they will have to be replaced sooner or later.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on the point about terrible management. I think it is highlighted by the small business job credit program. This is something the Conservative government has come up with and has flagged it as a strong, healthy policy for small businesses in Canada.

The government was presented with an alternative that would be more effective. It would generate literally tens of thousands of additional jobs and would be far more cost efficient. It is not just the Liberal Party that is saying this. Other stakeholders are saying this. What I am referring to is the EI premium exemption, whereby employers from all across Canada that hired a new employee would be entitled to a tax break on their EI.

Would the member not agree that the government should be more open to other parties' ideas, and where those ideas make sense, should actually act on them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Liberal member giving the Liberal vision for the use of the employment insurance fund.

Unfortunately for him and fortunately for the NDP, we believe that this money belongs to the unemployed. I invite him to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's response. He even suggested other ways to use the EI surplus, but only to help the unemployed.

With the $3 billion surplus, we could have expanded the program to 130,000 additional workers, which would have increased the percentage of workers with access to employment insurance from 39.5% to 51%. At present, only 39% of workers have access to employment insurance.

We could also have reduced the number of hours required to be eligible for benefits. That would have been a good move. We could have increased workers' benefits. Instead of paying them 55% of their salary, we would have had the means to pay them 68% of their salary. However, the government prefers to pay other bills with this money.

Unemployed workers' money belongs to them.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague. He raised some important points about wealth indicators in Canada.

For example, in my riding, Sherbrooke is one of the big cities with the highest quality of life in Canada. Even so, there are food banks that can no longer meet the demand. There are homeless people and single-parent families looking for affordable housing.

That means we also have to consider the social fabric of a big country like ours. We have to come up with economic measures that will enable everyone to participate in Canada's economic growth. However, in this budget, the Conservative government seems to have forgotten about a large segment of the Canadian population.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the surplus in the employment insurance fund. Premiums were frozen at $1.88 per $100 even though they should be $1.65 per $100. That has a negative impact and will eliminate 2,000 jobs.

The Conservatives froze premiums and are bringing in a credit that will create 200 jobs at a cost of $500,000 each.

Do they realize how little sense that approach makes? Can they see that the people pushing for these measures have no clue and no managerial competence?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I rose earlier this year to speak to the budget, I began by thanking our friend Jim Flaherty for his work, on behalf of the people of Kitchener—Conestoga whom I remain privileged to represent. He managed one of the toughest portfolios in government through some of the worst challenging times in recent history. Looking back, I am very glad that I took that opportunity to pay tribute to Jim. Canadians are, indeed, indebted to him for his prudent fiscal leadership.

Looking forward, Bill C-43, the second budget implementation bill, would continue to move Canada forward along the road to balance, creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians. I am grateful to our new Minister of Finance, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, for his commitment to Canada's ongoing prosperity.

Contrary to a belief held by the third party in the House, budgets do not simply balance themselves. The previous Liberal government had to slash transfer payments to the provinces—much-needed funds for health care, post-secondary education, and social assistance—in order to balance the books. The current Liberal leader seems to feel the previous Liberal government cut support for health care just for fun, if he really believes that budgets will balance themselves. This government would bring the budget back into balance without taking such draconian measures. I think most Canadians would agree it is a commendable objective.

However, we are accomplishing so much more than just a balanced budget. We are building the foundation for Canada's long-term prosperity. My home of Waterloo region has seen world-class post-secondary facilities like Sir Wilfrid Laurier University, the University of Waterloo, and Conestoga College all greatly increase their capacity for both teaching and research, all thanks to our federal government.

Our government has fostered entrepreneurship by supporting programs like the University of Waterloo's velocity program, which provides an entrepreneurial education. We invested in the Communitech Hub, a hotbed of high-tech entrepreneurial activity. We made it easier for business to access the expertise of Conestoga College to improve internal processes and designs. Both parties opposite refused to support any of these worthwhile activities.

Our drinking water is safer, our air is cleaner, our communities are more livable, our greenhouse gas emissions have dropped, and our competitive position in the global economy is now improved thanks to federal investments proposed in budgets that were opposed by the Liberals and the NDP. However, I am not here to review our past successes as a country, community, or government. I am here to highlight some of the measures in this bill of which I am particularly proud.

I was born on a farm just outside of Kitchener, Ontario. I have owned a farm most my adult life. Most importantly, though, agriculture remains one of the most important economic engines for Waterloo region. This bill would extend the lifetime capital gains exemption of farm property. That is a very technical amendment. Let me state it plainly. The family farmers of Waterloo region and elsewhere in Canada would find it easier to pass their farms on to the next generation, thanks to this government. On this side of the House, we stand in support of those families who provide the best quality food in the world. I invite the opposition to join us.

When our government created the agricultural flexibility fund to improve our agricultural sector's competitiveness, the Liberals and NDP refused to support our farmers. When we offered support to hog farmers to restructure their debt, the Liberals and NDP refused to support our farmers. When we allowed grain farmers to enjoy market freedom, the Liberals and NDP refused to support our farmers. With this bill, the opposition finally has the opportunity to turn the page, to look Canada's family farmers in the eye and say, “We support you; we want you to be able to keep your farms in your families.” Canada's family farmers would welcome their support, for once, just once.

This bill would also protect consumers. On this side of the House, we think it is wrong for big banks and credit card companies to charge pensioners and single parents for the so-called privilege of receiving a bill, and we are taking action to prevent it. Once again, I invite members opposite to take this opportunity to join us in standing with consumers just this once. Please support our measures to ban pay to pay policies on credit card statements.

Too often I have heard the NDP members accuse us of favouring the big banks. They like to present banks as the enemy of everyday Canadians. This is their opportunity to match their voice to their rhetoric or to demonstrate that their rhetoric is nothing more than empty words without commitment. I believe many of my colleagues in the NDP are very honourable people. I hope they will not let partisanship prevent them from voting on their principles.

Moving on, I am particularly pleased that the bill would enable charitable fundraising to enter the computer age. While we want as few Canadians as possible to depend on charities, we also want charities to thrive. I cannot believe we actually need to do this, but the bill would make it legal for charities to use computers to track their sales in certain fundraising activities. Right now it all needs to be done manually, which just makes no sense.

On this side of the House, we want as much as possible of every dollar donated to charity to be used for its intended goal and as little as possible lost to administrivia. I do not see any reason why members opposite could possibly be against this. Once again, I invite them to join us in support of Canada's charitable sector. This is only the latest action our government has taken to support charities in Canada.

We have already provided an exemption from capital gains when publicly listed securities or ecologically sensitive lands are donated to charities. Again, the Liberals and NDP opposed this. We reduced the administrative burden on charities allowing them to focus on charitable activities. It makes sense to the people I speak to across Waterloo region. The Liberals and NDP, again, are opposed to this as well.

We have encouraged Canadians to begin donating to charities by creating the first-time donor super credit on donations to charity. I must credit my friend, the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo, for bringing this common-sense idea to the table, another common-sense idea that the NDP and Liberals opposed.

The bill would also double the amount that parents can claim for the children's fitness tax credit. More importantly, it would make this tax credit refundable, making it a much stronger benefit for low-income Canadian families. As a parent of three children and grandparent to nine beautiful grandchildren, I understand how important it is for children to establish healthy lifestyles. Sedentary children grow up to become sedentary adults. Encouraging a healthy lifestyle in today's children will pay dividends in reduced health costs for years to come. I am especially pleased to see that this credit would now be refundable. We are making life more affordable for low-income Canadians. I hope the opposition will find it in their hearts to stand with us in supporting low-income Canadians.

Our Conservative government remains focused on what matters most to Canadians: jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. We weathered the global recession better than our peers, and even through the recovery, we continued to chart one of the world's best economic performances. In fact, since we took office, we focused on five priorities to ensure Canada's continuing prosperity: a tax advantage, reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G7; the fiscal advantage, eliminating our net government debt within a generation; an entrepreneurial advantage, reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape, and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace; a knowledge advantage, creating the best-educated and most skilled and flexible workforce in the world; and an infrastructure advantage, building the modern infrastructure we need to compete abroad and enjoy liveable communities at home.

Economic action plan 2014 continues this focus on positive initiatives to support job creation and economic growth. It continues to connect Canadians with available jobs. It continues to improve support for families and communities, and it continues our difficult road to balancing our budget. It provides good news to the families of Waterloo region as well as farmers and small businesses.

I ask the members opposite to put aside their partisan interests and look at the bill for what it truly represents, modest steps forward on the priorities of Canadians. I invite them to join me in supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener—Conestoga for his speech on the budget implementation bill. There are many aspects of his speech that I could engage him with and debate him on, but there was one specific comment he made that caught my ears.

The New Democrats, especially our members for Sudbury and Davenport, have been campaigning for some time to end the practice of charging people for getting a paper bill. That extra charge, which is often a couple of dollars, really penalizes people who have lower incomes, do not have a computer, or who are seniors. It is a practice we have called pay to pay, meaning they have to pay money to pay their bill. We have campaigned long and hard on that. In this budget there was a promise of ending the pay to pay fees, but only for telecom companies. My friend across the way said that it also includes banks. I do not believe that is correct. I would like him to clarify his comments.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that it does include banks. However, I would have to double-check that.

However, I would like to highlight what I said during the moments I had for my speech.

We have to focus on the real issues that are part of this bill, especially for my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, which is a rural-urban riding, and the farmers there. Allowing farmers to increase the tax exemption on capital gains is important to us as we try to help farmers maintain their farms within the family context. We know that, if farms are in the family context, some of these farmers produce the best quality food in the world. I am certainly committed to continuing that process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the PMO would be very pleased with the member's speech. There are many aspects of it that I could address, but there are three that really stood out in my mind.

The first was that the government is dealing with the deficit. It is important to recognize that the government is the one that created the deficit, and even created it prior to the recession, so what it is fixing is something it put in place.

The member made reference to the pork industry. If he were to take a tour of the Brandon facility, he would find there are needs that the government is not meeting, which is limiting the amount of production coming out of the Brandon pork assembly line.

The member mentioned wheat. The government is the one that killed the Canadian Wheat Board without even going to the farmers. Even though the law required a plebiscite, it did not allow for that because it knew it would have lost.

Therefore, my question for the member is this. When he reflects on those three points, how does he justify making those types of comments when in reality the Conservatives are part of the problem that was created? They created the deficit, they caused more problems for the pork industry, and they killed the Wheat Board, even though a majority of the farmers said that they wanted to keep—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of key points.

As relates to the agriculture sector, in my almost nine years of being an MP, I have never had a period of time when the farmers in my riding have been happier about the policies of this government. In my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga we have Conestoga Meat Packers, which is a hog farmer co-operative. It has never been doing better. As it relates to grain farmers, our grain farmers are happy.

However, when it comes to talking about the deficit and balancing the budget, I do not know how this member can stand and with a straight face talk about balancing the budget when his previous Liberal government balanced it on the backs of the provinces, with $25 billion taken out of health care and education and $52 billion out of the EI fund. Also, I wonder if my colleague can answer where the $40 million is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have just a couple of minutes before we end debate on the bill this afternoon and that it will be resuming tomorrow morning.

I am happy to begin my remarks this afternoon on the budget implementation act, Bill C-43, on behalf of my constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park, an urban riding that borders Lake Ontario in Canada's largest city, Toronto.

When I go door to door and speak with members of my community, I hear people concerned about the lack of decent jobs. We have far too many people who are falling through the cracks and are either underemployed or unemployed. People are falling into the cycle of temporary work or part-time precarious work.

Young families are paying sometimes $2,000 a month for child care and are strapped with massively high housing prices, whether in rent that rises constantly or with mortgages that are unbelievably high because of the dramatic increase in housing prices in our city. I also hear from seniors who are very concerned about rising costs and fixed incomes.

I speak to small businesses, where the owners are working long and hard. They are doing their best to provide goods and services in our community, but they are just getting by, in many cases.

Nevertheless, it is a wonderful community. What we hear from people in Parkdale—High Park is that they need to have government on their side. Sadly, the budget implementation bill fails the needs of the vast majority of my community members in Parkdale—High Park.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I regret to interrupt the member for Parkdale—High Park. She will have eight minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park had eight minutes remaining in her comments.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise once again on behalf of the riding of Parkdale—High Park and my constituents to speak to Bill C-43, which is the second budget implementation act introduced for the 2014 budget.

I would like to focus my remarks in my remaining time on three areas. First of all, I would like to focus on the nature of this omnibus bill that is before us and some of the problems I see within the bill. There are many, but I will focus on just a couple. Then I would like to look at some of the things that should be in this bill but are, in fact, missing. That is also extremely problematic.

Let us begin with the bill itself, Bill C-43, which is a rather large tome. Once again, it is 450-some pages. It is called the budget implementation act, but it actually contains a number of things that are not in the budget. It contains a number of items that ought to be separate bills and that have nothing at all to do with the budget.

My Conservative colleagues across the way will say that I am talking about process, that no one cares about process, and that I should be talking about substance. I will talk about the substance of the bill in just a moment, but let me say that what the Conservatives slough off as process is, in fact, the essence of our democracy. It is about the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of the people of Canada, to adequately scrutinize, debate--and horror of horrors--on Halloween, possibly even amend some of the provisions in a bill.

The reason the government puts everything in one big omnibus is the following. There are two reasons. The first is that there are some changes the Conservatives would make that even they are embarrassed about. They do not want to shine the light of day on those changes, so they put them in an omnibus budget bill that faces very little scrutiny and that has time allocation so that the people of Canada will not fully see what is in the bill. At least, the Conservatives think they do not see what is in it.

The other thing is that, of course, there are some positive things in this massive tome. Goodness gracious, the dart has to hit the dartboard sometimes, and the Conservatives do actually have a couple of good things in there. However, they will then take this back to their communities and say that the NDP voted against x, y, or z, which we ourselves advocated.

For example, our New Democrat members for Sudbury and Davenport have been campaigning on behalf of consumers specifically to end the practice of pay-to-pay billing, where people have to pay a couple of bucks just to pay their bills if they do not want to do it online. The Conservatives are bringing in a half-measure. They are eliminating it for telecoms and utilities, which we of course support, but they are not going all the way and doing it for the banks. A member opposite was mistaken about that yesterday. Even he thought that they were, because there is so much in this omnibus bill.

Fundamentally, it is anti-democratic to have these omnibus bills brought before the House again and again. On this side, we say that it is wrong and it is undemocratic, and we will not stand for it. We will keep protesting that.

Let me move, in the limited time I have, to some of the problems in the bill as it is presented. I would like to spend time on two of them.

The first one concerns refugee claimants. Canada has had a reputation in the past of being a compassionate country and one that cares about its role in the world. With so much conflict and so many natural disasters taking place, sadly, there are a growing number of refugees in the world, the majority of whom are women and children. The majority end up fleeing by foot or over land across the border, so they end up in a neighbouring country. Often these are countries that really do not have adequate resources to care for the number of refugees they have, but they are taking on the burden of the majority of refugees in the world.

Canada has to play a role in accepting refugees. I think even the Conservatives would agree that Canada has to play a role.

However, through the bill, the Conservatives would further crack down on refugees and their being able to survive here in Canada. In a past budget implementation act, the Conservatives removed the ability of some refugees to get health care, which the Federal Court called cruel and unusual. The medical community, human rights activists, and many others have been protesting against that. Now the government would impose residency requirements for people receiving basic social assistance.

I know what the Conservatives are doing. Someone asked me at a community meeting a week ago why it is that these refugees can come here and get money from the government, social assistance, when Canadians cannot. I told the person that it was because refugees cannot work, and if they do not get this money, they cannot live. The person said, “Oh, I didn't know that.” It is basic human decency and common sense that these people are able to get this help.

I also want to criticize and point out the small business job credit the Conservative government would implement, which has been condemned even by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would take $550 million out of the EI fund, which is money that workers and employers have put in to get EI benefits, but it would create only 850 jobs. This is rather outrageous for that amount of money. My goodness, I do not think even the Conservative and Liberal senators cost us quite that much. There are many more effective job measures the Conservatives could be bringing in without taking money from the EI fund.

What is missing from this? The Conservatives would not create one job, except for their $550-million jobs, which is a ridiculous program. They do not have a manufacturing strategy. We have lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs. They do not redress the cuts to EI; the vast majority of people who are unemployed do not get EI. They do not create one single child care space for Canadian parents. They do not address the housing crisis that forces too many people into poverty, especially in my community. There is nothing for the environment. They do not take away the more than $1 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector.

The budget implementation bill, like the Conservatives' budget, is a failure. It does not address the key issues facing Canadians today. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my community and denounce the omnibus budget bill, denounce the contents of it, and say very proudly that we will be voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of my colleague about the fact that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill.

One of the things in the bill that was not mentioned in the budget is the repeal of the Canadian Polar Commission Act and the incorporation of the Canadian Polar Commission into the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. The new act would also remove the wording in the act that gave the Canadian Polar Commission the ability to take initiative. The new act does not use the word “initiate” or “on its own initiative” or any of these things. It seems to me that it is another example of the Conservative government taking more control of researchers.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that this is another example of an abuse that is occurring in the omnibus bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for that question, and he is quite right. I did not have enough time to address all the problems in the bill, but certainly the collapsing of these two bodies dealing with the Arctic is problematic.

The Conservative government has a history of muzzling scientists and not allowing independent thought and independent action by government scientists. There is real concern, given the rapid environmental and development changes that are taking place in the Arctic.

Will there really be independence for scientists? Will we get the information we need to make proper decisions? Because of the centralization of power in the hands of ministers that the government is well known for, there are real concerns, which I think may well be justified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's framing of what is in the bill. She mentioned a few items that are supportable, like the DNA database for missing and murdered people and a couple of smaller items, such as cracking down on pay to pay, but not all pay to pay, because the banks are let off the hook yet again.

There are a number of things in the bill that are just outright bad ideas, such as the employment insurance scheme, which is going to cost more than half a billion dollars to create so few jobs. It is more than half a million dollars per job. This is an outrageous offence to those who pay into the employment insurance program, which is every working Canadian and employer.

My question for my colleague is on the third phase of things that were not in the budget, the opportunities missed. Manufacturing is of great concern to those living in Toronto and southwestern and southeastern Ontario, who have suffered such great damage over the last number of years. She mentioned 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs, almost 700,000 lost in a decade. This is a failed opportunity to bring forward some kind of comprehensive strategy.

People are looking for proposals. What kind of ideas do we need to see that would help those value-added jobs, good-paying jobs, that have helped Canadian families for so many generations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his pertinent question, because we see across the country far too many of what I would call precarious jobs: part-time jobs, temporary jobs, low-wage jobs, and jobs with no benefits. There is no hope associated with those jobs. I think of young people coming into the job market today who are sometimes carrying thousands of dollars of debt. They cannot afford to get a home or start a family, because they cannot get a decent job.

In most developed countries, governments prize their manufacturing sector. They defend it and fight for it. They work hard to make sure they have those jobs, because they are high tech jobs, value-added jobs. It is where they get the great spinoffs. For example, in the auto industry, there are seven jobs for every auto assembly job.

Under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government our country has fallen from one of the top four auto-producing countries to number 10. Australia lost its auto industry altogether.

We do not see any plan. There is no auto strategy. There is no manufacturing strategy. We do not see anything except giving more money back to companies and hoping they have a nice day.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget implementation act and to talk about our economic action plan 2014.

I am eager to support the budget implementation act today because it is an example of the commitment and focus we have had on the budget benchmarks and priorities that our government set earlier this year.

Those priorities include returning to a balanced budget in 2015, creating jobs, economic growth, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have more of their own dollars in their pockets. In fact, the government's commitment to tax relief meant savings of about $3,400 for a typical Canadian family of four in 2014.

We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. We introduced income splitting for seniors, tax-free savings accounts, and expanded on successful programs, such as the child fitness tax credit and the universal child care benefit.

However, what is most exciting about our government's economic action plan is that we are able to offer these critical programs that Canadians have said they want and support, but at the same time pay down our debt, balance our budget, and make unprecedented investment into infrastructure and small business.

We have been blessed as a result of the decisions that our government has made, and as a result Canada is the envy of the world. We have one of the strongest job growth rates of any G7 country, with nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession in 2009. In fact, Bloomberg ranked Canada as one of the best places to do business in the world, and both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the most dynamic growth of any country in the G7 over the years to come.

This success does not just happen. It takes hard work, leadership, sound financial planning, and, perhaps most importantly, decisive and timely decision-making.

We have shown good financial planning and we have shown good leadership. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and we lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%. We have expanded our global markets by reaching crucial free trade agreements with the European Union, as well as the Canada free trade agreement with Korea, which was just given third reading on Wednesday.

The budget implementation act will continue to build on the successes that our government has achieved through our economic action plan, and that is important. The global economy remains fragile. We are not immune to the economic challenges around the globe and outside of our borders. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to focus on building a strong, vibrant, and robust economy here in Canada.

A healthy economy starts at home. I am proud to stand in support of the bill today because I know it would benefit the families, the small businesses, and the communities in my southern Alberta riding of Macleod.

Alberta is built on dynamic entrepreneurs, farmers, ranchers, and business owners, who are willing to take risks to find success. We understand that we must support the economic engine that is driving our country right now. To do this, we must continue to support small business, the economic backbone of our country.

Our government is supporting small businesses through programs such as the recently introduced small business tax credit, which I believe is a vital piece of the legislation we are talking about today. The credit would lower small business payroll taxes by 15% over the next two years. That would be a savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over the span of that two years. This initiative has been called a big win for small business by groups across the country, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

The introduction of this tax credit will build upon our government's strong support of small businesses since 2006. For example, we froze EI premiums to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses. We have cut red tape by eliminating 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the CRA each year for more than 50,000 small businesses. The results are clear: a typical small business in Canada is seeing savings of about $28,000 a year. In total, since 2006, small businesses have seen their taxes reduced by 34%. That is substantial

Fittingly we celebrated small business week earlier this month, and, in speaking with business owners in my riding, their message was clear: we must continue to reduce their tax load and the red tape and bureaucracy that they face. It is important to do so because it shows our support for small business. The better off that our small businesses are, the better off the Canadian economy is as well.

A healthy economy is vital, but so too are healthy communities. Time and time again, studies have shown that being active improves focus in the classroom, reduces crime, and aids in the development of vital social skills for the children in our communities. Sports contribute to healthy communities, and I believe being active should be a habit that is encouraged for all of us here today, but particularly children.

Knowing this, our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit in budget 2006, which provided a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 for children under 16 years of age to register in sports and activities. I distinctly remember when this program was introduced and how important it was to my family. As a father of three, I know how expensive it is to pay for registration fees in hockey, volleyball, and dance, and to purchase equipment. I know how difficult it is on families to afford to keep their kids healthy and active. This tax credit provided a financial means to ensure that all of my children could participate in the activities they love. I want to ensure that other Canadian families share the same benefit that my wife and I enjoyed when our children were younger.

Therefore, I was pleased when the Prime Minister not only committed to continue this program, but announced that our government is doubling the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and making it refundable. That means it will increase the benefits for low-income families who want to access this tax credit. This will help children across Canada to lead healthy and active lifestyles, and teach them the life skills that will not only benefit them and their families, but will also be of long-term benefit to the communities in which they live.

My colleagues in the House today understand the devastation that my riding in southern Alberta went through in June 2013. Albertans are resilient. We will come back stronger than ever. However, it is critical that we protect these communities long term, to ensure that we never have to go through a disaster of that magnitude again. Therefore, I was extremely pleased to see that the economic action plan included $200 million over the next five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program, as well as $40 million over that five years for disaster mitigation in first nations communities. This was one of the worst disasters in Canadian history. There were hundreds of people who lost their homes, and key infrastructure was destroyed when the waters overwhelmed our communities in southern Alberta.

The $200-million natural disaster mitigation program will provide vital funding to help these communities prepare for national disasters, prepare emergency readiness plans, and invest in innovative technology and infrastructure to protect these communities. It will give the residents of southern Alberta a renewed confidence, and will certainly play a key role in the recovery process.

This program will not only help Albertans, as these dollars will also be available across the country. I know my colleagues from Manitoba and Quebec have faced similar flooding issues over the years and need our support as well. The mitigation funding is a critical investment from our federal government and will protect communities and infrastructure across Canada.

Macleod has a rich agricultural history, and the family farm continues to be a backbone in my riding as well as many others across Canada. The economic action plan includes a number of measures to support Canada's farmers, including an extension of the tax deferral program for livestock producers when they undergo drought or overland flooding. We have always offered farmers a tax deferral for up to 12 months if they have to liquidate their herds. However, rather than having to pay it off as income tax, they will have the cash on hand so they can purchase replacement stock, which is vital to the health of family farms.

In rural Alberta, access to high-speed Internet can be a challenge. If we want our small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to succeed, they must be able to market their goods and services worldwide and online. Therefore, the connecting Canadians program, which commits more than $300 million to expanding broadband Internet services in rural communities across Canada, is a vital infrastructure initiative. This will provide residents in southwest Alberta with the keys to the global marketplace and will re-energize these economies and innovative communities, which are eager to expand their horizons.

The initiatives that this government has implemented in this budget will ensure Canada's economy remains vibrant and robust at a time of global uncertainty. I encourage all members of this House to support the budget implementation act.

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

Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I appreciated my Conservative colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a very simple question, since he brought up the children's fitness tax credit. I encourage the idea of children participating in sports. I have children, and I am very happy that they can play sports. However, it needs to be made clear that this is a non-refundable tax credit. It will help only the families who already have the means to sign their children up for sports.

I would like to know what his party or the member himself is proposing for people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes and therefore do not have access to this non-refundable tax credit. It is available only to some Canadians. However, for all the other families that would like to see their children do sports—

[Pierre Poilievre]

It is refundable now.

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

Why, hello, sir.

Mr. Speaker, since it is a non-refundable tax credit, how will it help families? I would like to hear his thoughts.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but obviously he has not read the economic action plan or the budget implementation act that we are talking about today. The new children's fitness tax credit is refundable. It is $1,000, and low-income families are able to access that tax credit. It is refundable, and that is why I support this so passionately.

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

Mr. Speaker, because we are debating an omnibus bill in which there are things that are not related to the budget, I have to ask the following question.

Budget 2014 says there would be some legislation to implement certain treaties, and in particular there is a piece that amends the Industrial Design Act. There is a part of this legislation we are debating today that says with respect to the Industrial Design Act,“A design is registerable if ... the design is not contrary to public morality or order.”

My question for the member is, are we implementing a treaty here, or is the government trying to say something about public morality and order?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. I think he understands that this budget implementation act will focus on the economy, promote jobs, and be there to help young families and families across the country.

If he reads that, he will see that in there.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the sad fact that 20% of children in Canada live below the poverty line.

I looked closely, but I did not see anything in this budget that will change that. The government supposedly has billions of dollars to give and is handing it to the rich, so why did it not simply raise the tax-exempt threshold for low-income individuals?

It is a very simple solution. That is all the government had to do to drastically reduce the number of poor children. Why did it not do that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has an opportunity to look through the budget implementation act that we are talking about today, and the economic action plan, there are a number of programs and initiatives in there to help low-income families, to ensure they have the means and capabilities to pay their bills, and to ensure their children have the necessities of life, whether we are talking about increasing flexibility and access to employment insurance, providing more health care products and services, or expanding tax relief under the municipal expense tax credit.

There are a lot of opportunities and options in this budget, and I think it is worthwhile for my neighbour to stand up and support this bill. It will support Canadian families, and that is what we are here to do today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to share a few thoughts and express some concerns I have with regard to the general direction the Conservative government is taking Canada. I have a number of concerns.

First, when I listen to many Conservatives speak about the budget, I cannot help but notice that they talk a lot about the economic action plan. Whenever I hear the economic action plan being referred to, the first thing I think of are the hundred of millions of tax dollars being used to advertise the so-called action plan. If we look at the baseline numbers of the government's economic track record, nothing could be further from the truth of an economic action plan.

One thought I would like to share with members is the fact that the government spends a great deal of tax dollars trying to convince Canadians that it is doing a good job. I suggest that money could be far better utilized in supporting a wide spectrum of programs that are of critical importance.

I want to talk about the government's resistance to good ideas.

Back in September, the Conservatives came up with the small business job credit idea to try to get small businesses to hire more people. The government talked about the potential of how it might be able to generate 10,000-plus jobs at a significant cost. The leader of the Liberal Party made an announcement about the EI premium exemptions for new hires. This program would create tenfold the types of jobs the government's initiative hoped to create. In fact, the government initiative, in a bizarre way, would be a disincentive for small businesses to hire and might ultimately lead to some small businesses having to let employees go.

The Conservative plan was questionable at best, but that is not the case with regard to what the leader of Liberal Party was espousing, a plan that would have the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs all across our land. It would take advantage of the greatest potential for growth in Canada, and that is small business.

We have emphasized how important it is that government policy start focusing more on the middle class. The middle class has not done well under the Conservative government over the last half dozen years. We are trying to get the government to recognize that fact, to start making policy decisions that are going to allow the middle class to do better, to prosper and have more hope going into the future.

The Liberal Party is committed to acting on this. We believe in the middle class and if we want the Canadian economy to do well, we have to start to focus more attention on that. That is one of the reasons we shared ideas with the government and encouraged it to adopt the EI premium exemption for all new hires that small businesses and others would engage in. Ultimately, it would lead to a great deal more jobs being created.

The Liberal Party has talked a great deal about the importance of infrastructure. The government says that it is investing record amounts in infrastructure. When it says that, what it is really saying to Canadians is that it has a plan where it will spend billions of dollars in infrastructure, but what it does not to Canadians is that plan does not kick in until two or three years from now. The infrastructure is needed today, but that does not necessarily fit the political agenda.

Come springtime, the Prime Minister wants to say that the Conservatives will spend $100 million here, $50 million there on infrastructure. He want to make these commitments in the 2015-16 budget, as opposed to doing it when it is really necessary. It should have been brought into this budget.

We have municipal elections. Toronto has talked about the importance of infrastructure dollars and how badly it is needed. The successful mayoral candidate in Winnipeg, Mr. Bowman, has said that infrastructure is the number one issue. We need infrastructure dollars.

However, instead of trying to deal with the issue that Canadians need addressed, not only in this budget but even in the previous budgets, the Prime Minister 's objective is to put a hold on projects, not spend money and wait until the election year before committing to spend this money.

If we can learn anything by previous expenditure promises by the government, all we need is to reflect upon the current budget. We have passed budgets that have allowed the government to deliver on projects, but it does not spend the money, so the money lapses. On the one hand, the government gets to say that it will spend millions of dollars on this or that, but when it comes down to the actual reporting, we find out that it has not spent that money.

Infrastructure is important because it generates opportunities, such as opportunities for businesses to look at and expand upon exportation, which generates literally thousands of jobs. It contributes to valuable GDP increases, such as dealing with the real issues of potholes in the streets. These are the types of things which we believe are important, and the government has missed the mark by not investing in Canada today.

I talk a lot about health care. I know my constituents of Winnipeg North. I often canvas their opinions through petitions and questionnaires. They have emphasized how important health care is to our country. They want strong federal leadership.

We saw that when Jean Chrétien got rid of the tax point shift in the favour of direct cash, which saved indefinite financial contributions going from Ottawa to the provinces. The provinces need the cash to sustain their health care systems, but they want us to do more than that. They want to see a stronger leadership role coming from Ottawa. Paul Martin brought in the health accord 10 years ago. That accord expired this year.

Every time the Minister of Health and the government talk about record dollars going into health care, it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is 100% because of Paul Martin and the health care accord that was signed 10 years ago. The Minister of Health has done nothing to protect health care going forward. Canadians are concerned about that.

I challenge the Minister of Health. Where is the new health care accord? Where is the federal commitment going toward health care?

The government has been found wanting on the important issues, whether it is the infrastructure, or health care or the unemployed. We challenge the government to step up to the plate and start to address the needs of Canadians.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was interesting at the least. It is important to understand that infrastructure generates economic activity and that is exactly why, since forming government in 2006, this government has invested more money in infrastructure spending than any other government in the history of our country. We are proud of that, and we understand the value of investing in infrastructure. That is why we are committed to investing even more.

However, we will not invest this money on the Liberal schedule, because they have shown very clearly in the past that they do not have a schedule that makes sense. We will be investing it on our schedule because it does make sense and it is going to go directly to infrastructure that is badly needed in our country. We understand that, and we are going to do it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says the Conservatives are not going to invest it on the Liberal schedule. The Liberal schedule is the Canadian schedule, and that is when the need is there. The need is there today. That is not the Liberal schedule, that is the reality.

The government should have been investing in infrastructure today. The Conservatives actually cut back 90% in terms of expenditures going into infrastructure for this year. That is, as the member has pointed out, because they want to base their expenditures on the Conservative schedule. The Conservative schedule deals strictly with political re-election in 2015. That is their schedule. We are suggesting they have missed the mark.

When he talks about the economic activity, we talk about the freer trade agreements signed with Korea, the European Union and so forth. If we had a better, healthier infrastructure, we would even be able to do that much more in terms of exportation.

Why do we have to wait for the election year for that to take place? Cities are demanding and need the infrastructure dollars today. They do not have to wait until the next federal election. The Conservative Party has the wrong agenda. The Liberal Party is challenging the Conservatives to do what Canadians want, and they want the money now.

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

Mr. Speaker, in a way, I did appreciate the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, but I have to say that he was stepping a little out of line with his party.

He talked about the Liberal Party, its values and the importance of taking care of people and giving power and money to the provinces so that we can have effective health care services in this country. He also said a lot about former prime minister Paul Martin. I would just like to remind him that it was the Liberal government that slashed provincial health transfers.

The Liberals saved money at the expense of the people of this country by downloading their deficit onto the provinces. That is exactly what the Liberal Party did when it was in power.

I think that the member is in no position to talk because his own party did not do what he is talking about today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not necessarily true. I was in the Manitoba legislature when the issue came to the provinces. The issue in the 1990s, in good part, was that if Mr. Chrétien did not change the funding formula on health care, there would be zero contributions coming from Ottawa to the provinces by the time we reached to 2015. That is the reality.

Mr. Chrétien changed the formula that enabled guaranteed cash flow for health care transfers indefinitely from Ottawa to the provinces. If we have health care transfers today, it is because Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 1990s are the ones who put it into place, and guaranteed it. The member might not like that, but that is the reality.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak this morning in favour of Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act no. 2, and specifically division 3, which includes the proposed Canadian High Arctic Research Station act.

The establishment of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, more commonly referred to as CHARS, is yet another example of our government's record investments and our ongoing commitment to promoting the Canadian Arctic as a vital part of our national identity, our sovereignty, and our economic security, as outlined in our 2007 northern strategy.

I am thrilled for the people of Cambridge Bay, who will benefit from our government's investments for years to come. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, as someone who was born and raised in Canada's north, and as someone who still calls the north home, I know first-hand how this vision for a strong and sovereign Canada has benefited northerners in our day-to-day lives and continues to do so.

As the minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, I am particularly excited about the leadership role that this new world-class research facility located in the Arctic will play in the development and dissemination of Arctic research, both at home and abroad.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will serve as a year-round hub for scientists and scientific research and will anchor an existing network of smaller northern research facilities. This network, with CHARS at its centre, will allow Canada to exercise stewardship and sovereignty over our northern lands while strengthening Canada's role as a global leader on Arctic issues. It will also seek to establish partnerships and bring together industry, academics, aboriginal and northern governments, and international stakeholders to leverage their expertise, experience, and resources.

CHARS will not only promote Canadian sovereignty and stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters, and resources but will also support the local economy by generating employment and service contracts in the region.

It is estimated that the construction phase will introduce 150 jobs across the north and in various other specialized sectors throughout Canada. Of the 15 construction subcontracts tendered to date, over $18 million has been awarded to Inuit-owned companies or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated registered firms.

Once CHARS is in operation, the research, capacity-building, and outreach activities will provide northerners with the skills and experience to better participate in the labour force, from mining and energy through natural resources and wildlife management to health and life sciences. CHARS will also develop highly qualified personnel and leadership in the north and across Canada.

CHARS will also build upon the work of the existing Canadian Polar Commission. The commission works to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge in respect of the polar regions, which strongly complements the research and infrastructure aspects of the CHARS mandate and aligns with the goal of mobilizing Arctic science and technology.

The proposed act will combine the Canadian High Arctic Research Station with the existing Canadian Polar Commission under the name of CHARS to create one larger, stronger champion for polar knowledge and Arctic science and technology in Canada.

CHARS will function as a departmental corporation, just like the CPC. This is also in line with other organizations that perform world-renowned research in Canada, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This model will provide CHARS with the necessary flexibility to compete on a global scale with other science organizations, but also with the resource development sector operating in Canada's North.

In addition to allowing CHARS to become a viable destination for world-class scientists, our government will ensure CHARS is positioned to address any Inuit employment and training requirements, including those arising from the Nunavut land claims agreement.

I would like to briefly review the steps that our government has made and is making to move this project from its initial inception to the establishment of this world-class research centre.

In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister committed to build a world-class high Arctic research station that would strengthen Canada's sovereignty over the north and raise the profile of Canadian Arctic research both at home and abroad.

Since that time we have moved quickly. In 2008, consultations were held with partners and stakeholders, leading to a needs assessment. This brought together northerners, aboriginal organizations, research organizations, and territorial governments to share their ideas, their values, and their vision for this institution. It was at this stage, arising from discussions with stakeholders, aboriginal people, and northerners, that the vision for CHARS began to come to light.

In 2009, Canada's economic action plan provided $2 million for a CHARS feasibility study and $85 million for the Arctic research infrastructure fund. This infrastructure fund was a significant investment toward maintaining and upgrading key existing Arctic research facilities in order to improve the network of science and technology facilities that deliver benefits to northerners and all Canadians.

Following consultations and assessments in 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the CHARS facility would be built in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I was pleased to be in Cambridge Bay, joined by the Hon. John Duncan, Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs Development at that time, to make the announcement in the community—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would remind the minister that she cannot refer to her colleagues by their given names.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister made the same announcement from Churchill, Manitoba, due to unforeseen weather conditions.

Cambridge Bay is an ideal place for the construction of this new world-class facility. It is centrally located and provides easy access to all parts of the north. It is also located right on the Northwest Passage, an invaluable location for the purpose of demonstrating our Arctic sovereignty.

The community itself is also very excited about the station. They see CHARS as creating economic opportunities, strengthening community infrastructure, sharing knowledge, and opening the community of Cambridge Bay to the world.

I would like to quote a friend, Fiona Buchan-Corey, a Cambridge Bay resident, who works at the Nunavut Arctic College. She said:

This multimillion dollar project is going to have a huge economic impact on Cambridge Bay, and we have been very proactive as a community in terms of trying to maximize the benefits to it....

And we're excited about the employment opportunities, not only during the construction stage, but also afterwards....

During the construction of the CHARS facility, it is anticipated that 150 people will be employed locally across the north and in more specialized sectors across Canada, and there will be permanent jobs when the station begins operating.

More recently, on the Prime Minister's ninth annual northern tour this past August, I was privileged to be back in Cambridge Bay with the Prime Minister to witness the launch of the construction of CHARS with a groundbreaking ceremony.

Once built, the station, which incorporates Inuit-inspired design principles, will be one of the largest buildings in the territory. These buildings will showcase green building technologies and serve as a test bed for future research and technology testing for infrastructure and renewable energy approaches from the north.

The day when the CHARS facility will be completed is coming more quickly than many people believe. Already the steel structure for one of the first buildings of the CHARS campus has been erected. I was very excited to see this in person while attending the Kitikmeot Inuit Association annual general meeting just a few weeks ago.

Establishing the governance for this facility is the last key piece that needs to be put in place in creating this important new institution in order to have it fully operational by 2017.

I urge all members in the House to take another important step by passing this important legislation and supporting Canada's vision for a strong and sovereign Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was in a very interesting position when she was the former minister of health. Given the importance of health care to all Canadians, Paul Martin, back in 2004, signed a health agreement with the provinces that ultimately led to what we have today. Those were the highest health care transfers in the history of Canada, all because of Paul Martin working with the provinces and getting that agreement.

When the member was the minister of health, she had the responsibility of coming up with the next agreement, or an agreement that would provide assurances to the provinces that Canada would continue to support health care. Within this particular budget, there is no indication of it whatsoever, even though many Canadians, my constituents included, as shown through petitions and surveys, all want to see a higher priority.

Why does she believe, as the previous health minister, that the government just does not seem to understand the importance of health care?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive that question from the member and to clarify the record.

During the discussions related to the cuts made by the Liberal government to health care, education, and infrastructure, I do not know if the member is aware that I was the finance minister for Nunavut and dealt with the issues resulting from the cuts Liberals made to health, education, and transfers.

I am very pleased to report that our government took the opposite position and did not cut transfers to the territorial and provincial governments. Since our government has been in place, for my riding alone the transfer payments have increased by over $500 million. Second, the infrastructure investments, guaranteed for ten years, have increased from $50 million to $419 million.

Under the Liberals, we experienced cuts to transfers and education and no increase in infrastructure budgets. I was the finance minister for Nunavut. I was also the health minister for Nunavut who was dealing with the Liberal cuts. We have restored that funding so that the territorial governments and provinces can make the investments according to their own priorities within their respective jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for her speech relating to division 3 of part 4 of an omnibus bill.

I would like to ask her if the act for the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station is important. I believe it is important. It winds up, and it is confusing in relation to the role of what used to be the Canadian Polar Commission, so there appears to be some transition. There is no reference in it to research on the climate crisis or the loss of ice in our Arctic region.

This bill is sufficiently important to have been a stand-alone piece of legislation, not buried in an omnibus bill along with measures to get rid of paper bills and extra billing and dealing as well with revolving funds, the banning of jammers, money laundering, and extractive sector transparency. In other words, this omnibus bill is a dog's breakfast of over 450 pages.

I ask the hon. minister why she would not have preferred to have this Canadian high Arctic research station bill dealt with separately so that it could be properly studied.

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that people in Cambridge Bay are very excited about the creation of the Canadian high Arctic research station. I can also say that the people of the Arctic are very excited about having a stand-alone institution in the Arctic to conduct Arctic research, as opposed to research done down south, far from the people. This new institution will bring researchers to the north to conduct research in the Arctic with people in the Arctic.

In terms of why the two organizations have merged, as defined by the proposed legislation, the purpose of the new organization, CHARS, would be to advance knowledge of the Canadian Arctic in order to improve economic opportunities, environmental stewardship, and the quality of life of northerners and all other Canadians, and promote the development and dissemination of knowledge of the polar regions in the Arctic.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a topic as important as the act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

That said, I must stress that I think it is shameful that as we debate such a broad and complicated bill, we are under our 83rd gag order. The Conservatives have imposed this gag order, and the Liberals are complicating things even more by making irrelevant objections that prevent us from having real discussions.

As I mentioned, today we are debating a document that is around 460 pages long, includes 400 clauses and amends several dozen pieces of legislation. This document even includes measures that were not mentioned in the budget speech.

This bill is the kind of thing we have come to expect from the Conservative government. The government ignores middle-class families, workers and people in need. Instead, it manages to find a way to help out the banks.

The content of the bill is worrisome, and so is the way it is being presented to us. By refusing to split this omnibus bill, the government is once again demonstrating how little respect it has for our democratic institutions. On that note, I would like to quote Manon Cornellier, who writes a blog for the well-known magazine, L'actualité. This is what she had to say about the government's practice:

For the Conservatives, the omnibus bill process is too useful to step away from. It is the perfect way to succeed without having to be overly accountable. The fact that Parliament feels marginalized is the least of their worries.

How can the government ask MPs, who represent millions of Canadians, to make a decision on dozens of legislative measures with one single vote?

The Conservatives know all that. It was not that long ago, when they were in opposition, that they were the ones tearing their hair out over Liberal omnibus bills. In fact, the Prime Minister himself made a passionate argument against these types of bills. I would like to quote what he said in 1994, when the House was debating a 21-page bill, not a 400-page bill like the one we are looking at now.

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

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.

When I look at the 460 pages of this bill, I wonder whether, after 10 years in power, the student has managed to surpass the teacher in the art of holding this Parliament in contempt.

We must also talk about some of the measures that we support and that is what really does not make sense in this whole undertaking, in this entire exercise. We could easily work together to pass measures that both parties support.

Nevertheless, it is true that the Prime Minister's comments apply to the current situation. There are indeed some measures in this bill that meet the NDP's demands. For example, since 2007 we have been calling for the creation of a DNA data bank to help the authorities solve missing persons cases. I am pleased to see this measure in Bill C-43, even though we can question why it was included in a budget implementation bill.

The government has finally admitted that it was time to put an end to pay-to-pay fees, the fees charged to consumers who want to receive a paper rather than an electronic invoice. These fees are being abolished for broadcasting and telecommunications companies, but, and this is very odd, not for banks.

That is about it for the good things. This bill has dozens of problematic measures though. For example, the government is using this mammoth bill to sneak in its private member's bill to let the provinces restrict access to welfare for refugee claimants and people who are not permanent residents.

This measure is a direct attack on women, men and children of all ages who are already vulnerable. Over the past three years, I have met a number of refugees and asylum claimants at my riding office. These individuals have often gone through incredible ordeals, and when they get here, they have to keep being brave so they can integrate into our communities

Considering that it takes months or years to process asylum claims in Canada, it is not surprising that some claimants might need a little help from time to time while they wait. If the government wants to scrimp and save at someone's expense, maybe it should start by asking corporations and banks to do their fair share rather than go after the poorest people around.

I will give another example of worrisome measures included in this bill. The Conservatives decided to go forward with their plan to introduce a tax credit to create jobs in small businesses. Let us be clear. The NDP has been saying for a long time that the government needs to provide proper support for small and medium-sized businesses, which make an enormous contribution to our economy.

However, the Conservative Party is whistling in the wind with this measure. We already know that it will not be effective even though it has not even been implemented yet. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already warned the government that its plan will create at most 800 jobs in Canada.

The current government is certainly not behaving responsibly by spending $500 million to create 800 jobs. We have said this a number of times and we hope that the public will hear this message: spending $500 million to create 800 jobs is not at all effective. Why are the Conservatives insisting on moving forward with this bad idea?

I could go on and on listing examples of the negative measures set out in this bill. When it comes to a budget or a forecast for the coming years, it is really important for the parties to work together to find solutions to our economic problems, particularly with regard to stable jobs and lower-paying jobs. Unfortunately, we cannot do that because of the gag order and the attitude of the Conservative government.

I could also talk about what these 460 pages do not contain, namely initiatives to address youth employment, increase access to social housing, improve our health care system or protect our environment, for example.

This bill once again proves to Canadians that they cannot count on the Conservatives to stand up for their interests and respect our democracy. Canadians know that they deserve better than what we are currently seeing in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

In this huge, 460-page omnibus bill, the only measure that has to do with the economy or the budget is a program—perhaps that is not the best word—that takes $550 million out of the employment insurance fund, even though that is not the government's money. Who is it for and what is it for?

Is it fair that the government is using that much in contributions to create only 800 jobs? We have a problem with that number. This will hurt our economy. We need a government that believes in the role of Parliament and small business in Canada.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of the money being siphoned off the EI fund. The Liberals did it, and now the Conservatives are doing it, all at the expense of workers.

At the same time, EI services have been cut back. Workers have unstable and poorly paid jobs, and are often entitled to fewer weeks of EI benefits. It is very unfortunate, especially knowing that 800 jobs are going to cost $550 million.

It is unbelievable and unacceptable that the Conservatives are doing this and are governing a country this way. It is very unfortunate, particularly when we could be improving our legislation and regulations. That would help Canadians, and especially the manufacturing sector, which my colleague talked about this morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

Yesterday I listened to the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He wondered whether some of the members opposite actually knew what was in their omnibus bill, because they did not seem to have an answer to the more specific questions we were asking them.

I think that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley even said that not a single government member showed up to the technical briefing that was offered. Only opposition members did.

Does my colleague have the same concerns as I do regarding the government introducing an omnibus bill without seeming to grasp the seriousness of the situation?

For example, it was clear that some aspects of the last omnibus bill had nothing to do with a budget. Take, for example, the issue of appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. I heard a Conservative member say that the Conservatives had talked about it eight months ago. No, eight months ago was when the budget was tabled.

As my colleague just mentioned in her speech, there are some things in this bill that were not in the budget speech. Could she talk about these concerns?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observations on the current situation, on previous budgets presented here and on the fact that Conservative members are not responding to this.

I cannot believe that the members opposite are not getting any feedback or questions from their constituents. How can they explain to their constituents that the government is making cuts everywhere, preventing new jobs from being created and introducing unethical regulations or rules?

We cannot forget that the Conservative government was elected with just 39% of the vote. In other words, there are a lot of people who are opposed to this government's policies.

I am very concerned that the government is not showing any flexibility or any semblance of respecting democracy.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the big vision that millions of Canadians will be able to carry out in their own lives as a result of the tax relief that would permit them and empower them to make decisions about their own futures.

Let me set the context for the conversation about taxes and families from the outset. Before I can talk about the Prime Minister's family tax cut yesterday, or his increase in the annual child care payments that he announced less than 24 hours ago, it is important for me to discuss where he started off.

Prior to that announcement, this government had already cut taxes 160 times.One million Canadians had been removed from the tax rolls as a result of the government's decision to raise the amount of money that people can earn before federal taxes kick in at all.

The government increased the amount that families in the lowest personal income brackets could earn before paying taxes. As a result, 380,000 seniors no longer pay any taxes to the federal government. That is in addition to targeted tax breaks for bus passes, children's sports, and students' textbooks. It is in addition to the elimination of all taxation on scholarships for hard-working, high-achieving young people who are rewarded for their academic achievement.

That was the status of our tax changes prior to yesterday.

What were the results at the end of the line for the Canadian taxpayers? What did it mean for families? The median net worth of Canadian families had increased by 45%. For the first time, and this is according to The New York Times, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. As well, prior to yesterday, the average Canadian family paid $3,400 less in taxation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, often a critic of the government, acknowledged that this tax relief had actually been targeted at low- and middle-income families. He said, “Cumulative tax changes since 2005”—which is when this government took office—“have been progressive overall” and most greatly impacted low-middle income earners, meaning households earning between $12,000 and $23,000, effectively resulting in a 4% increase in their after-tax income.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said:

In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.

As a result, real after-tax disposable income has increased by 10% since 2006.

I will return to quoting The New York Times article on the very question:

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Often we ask ourselves how the lowest-income earners among us are faring in this society of ours. How are they doing, particularly during the aftermath of the global recession that struck so terribly all around the world not so long ago? We can ask UNICEF, which studied the matter and concluded that Canada's child poverty rate decreased during the recession, pulling 180,000 children out of poverty.

UNICEF's president said that the report attributes the decrease in Canada to initiatives by both the federal and provincial governments, such as Ottawa’s National Child Benefit supplement, which gives monthly payments and benefits to low-income families with children.

He said, “[These benefits] kept money in circulation. ... Money goes to poorer families, and that tends to be spent on children, and then it kept money circulating in the economy as well. That kind of investment in children is so important.”

In other words, when we brought in the universal child care benefit, the $1,200 a year we send to every family per child under six, the opposition said that it was only going to help the rich. UNICEF now says precisely the opposite. It says that people who were most in need benefited the most.

NDP members get very angry when our free enterprise policies lift people out of poverty, because it takes away their arguments to control people's lives with big, costly, bureaucratic government programs. They want more of the problem so that they can declare themselves to be the solution. We understand that Canadian families are the solution. We understand that the best social program is a strong family and the best anti-poverty program is a good job.

There is good news on that front as well. There are one million net new jobs in Canada since the depths of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any of the G7 countries.

What is it doing to our nation's books? Are we drowning in deficit and debt like the entire European continent and the states to the south of our border? Are we facing the kinds of downgrades that, for example, the Liberal government in Ontario faces? The answer is no. We are on track to balancing the budget in this coming year. In fact, according to all the experts, our budget is in even better shape than promised by our government originally.

To whom does that future surplus belong? It does not belong to the politicians who want to spend it on behalf of Canadians; it belongs to the hard-working men and women who pay the bills.

Luckily for them, our government will give it back. We will allow them to keep that money so that they can invest in their communities, raise their families, and help create local jobs.

That brings me to yesterday's announcement.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced three things. First, he would increase the universal child care benefit from $1,200 a year to just about $2,000 per year per child. Second, no longer would that benefit be restricted to families with kids under six. All children would qualify for the universal child care benefit, and every child six or over would be entitled to receive $720 per year.

Just as an example, the universal child care benefit for a middle-income family with a stay-at-home parent and two kids will be worth $4,000 per year. Those are important dollars that they can invest in raising their children, whether through a stay-at-home parent who works hard to keep the home strong and the kids healthy and active or through a daycare like the one I was raised in during my early years as a child in Calgary. The reality is that we are giving the choice to parents, which brings me to the next item in the proposal.

Families will be allowed to share their income. The spouse with the higher income will be allowed to give up to $50,000 to the one with the lower income to save up to $2,000 per year on taxes.

Finally, the amount of money that families can claim in child care expenses such as daycare will go up by $1,000. Whether a parent chooses daycare or a stay-at-home option or something in between, the money will go into the pockets of parents. There are millions of child care experts in this country, and their names are mom and dad.

Parents, not politicians, should decide how to raise children, and that is the fundamental debate in this country. I appreciate that the other side wants big, unionized, institutional, one-size-fits-all daycare, but on this side we trust parents, and our tax cuts allow them to make their own decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but not so much the particularly jingoistic, offensive ones in the last couple of statements.

He is suggesting that parents who choose a child care option are somehow, in his words, institutionalizing their children, that the two-thirds of Canadian families who choose to put their kids in either public or private child care are somehow not being, in a sense, good parents, which I do not think he was meaning to insinuate. This institutionalized aspect of child care I find offensive, as someone who has used child care services in the past and who seeks out, as many parents do, good child care options for their children. We are not bad parents. We believe in choice.

The member kept raising the prospect or the spectre of income splitting as one of the options for the government, a $2.5 billion program it overwhelming favours. However, in the budget bill of 460 pages, we find so many items that have nothing to do with the budget at all.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they hated omnibus bills. They said they were undemocratic and unfair. What changed? What happened to those Conservatives, like the Prime Minister and all his ministers, who said that it was a bad way to govern and was unfair to MPs representing their constituents?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my own remarks, when I was a child, I went to a local community-based child care centre. No, it was not institutional. It was not a government-run daycare program, as the member across the way suggests.

He believes that parents who have a stay-at-home mom or dad are not doing their jobs. That is what the NDP believes. The member believes that community-based neighbourhood child care providers are not good enough. He believes that grandmothers, aunts, and uncles who step in to raise children throughout the day, while parents are at work, are not of high enough quality.

The NDP and the Liberals believe that there is only one kind of childcare that is acceptable, and that is government-owned, government-run, government-provided bureaucracy that in the past has not only failed to meet the demands of people but has failed to actually meet the promises of the politicians who made them.

The Liberals promised such institutional day care. Over 13 years, they did not create a single space. They spent billions of dollars, but it did not result in any benefit for parents on the ground.

We believe that regardless of the choice parents make, the dollar should go in their pockets, and they should decide how to raise their own kids.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will turn the question back to my colleague. Do you not think that there are people who would like to have a universal system and that the the way you are presenting things is not—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I want to remind hon. members that they must address the Chair and not their colleagues directly.

The hon. Minister of State.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all method for raising children.

In fact, that is the whole idea behind our position. We are giving money directly to parents so that they can decide for themselves what is best for their children. It is the opposition, the Liberals and the NDP, who believe there is just one way to raise children. The opposition wants all the money to go toward a bureaucracy that excludes the vast majority of the choices parents are making.

If a family has one parent who stays home to raise the children, that family is excluded by the NDP and the Liberals. If an aunt, a grandmother or a grandfather does the job, that family is excluded. If a neighbour provides the child care, the family is excluded. All the options, except one, run by government officials, are excluded under the costly plan proposed by the NDP and the Liberals. Only the Conservative Party provides parents with real choices as to how to raise their children.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard at times to sit here quietly and respectfully when members get up and say some of things like the previous speaker said.

He spoke about choice and grandparents, aunts and uncles raising and helping to raise children. At the same time, his government has prevented thousands of parents of new Canadians to come into our country and participate in that process of raising children and imparting the cultures from back home into the next generation. The government is taking choices away from families by not allowing them to be reunited in Canada for that better life.

He spoke about how the provincial government in Ontario was facing some financial struggles. At the same time, it is because the federal government has cut health care for refugees and the provincial government has had to pick up the slack. As the court said, that was cruel and unusual. That is what we get from the government. Time and time again, every budget, we find things that are cruel and unusual in it.

Now we have these new schemes coming from the government. It is hell-bent on ensuring that the cupboard is bare by the time the election happens, because another government of another sort might want to take a different approach.

He talked about being opposed to universality. We brought universality to health care and it transformed the country. From that point, no family had to decide between putting food on the table, or bringing a loved one to a hospital or to a doctor to get medical care.

That is what we want to do for child care. We want to ensure that families do not have to decide whether to work, whether to put their child into care, whether to feed their family, whether to put a roof over their heads. The government has actually taken choices away.

He mentioned that this would put money into the pockets of parents, that it would help fund child care. Child care in the Province of Ontario, depending on where one goes, costs on average between $1,000 and $2,000 a month. The government's plan, if it does everything it says it does, which it does not, would help to pay for child care for one to two months out of the year. What are parents supposed to do the rest of the time?

The government wants to expand the child fitness tax credit. That is great if one has the money. Single parents living in poverty already do not have money to put their kids into sports programs or arts programs. They want to but they are unable to. By putting all the money there, the government takes the choice away from those parents. They are forced to not put their kids into sports or arts programs. The government is in fact taking choices away.

I have sat here for the last three years, and time and time again I have heard the government boast that there are a million less people on the tax rolls. If they are for good reasons, I applaud it for that. However, a million less people are on the tax rolls because they are in fact too poor to pay taxes. Instead of focusing on a jobs plan to help get some of these people back to work, or to give them a living wage, like the NDP proposed with a $15 minimum wage, the government ignores them. It just takes them off the tax rolls and leaves them to fend for themselves.

That is un-Canadian. We look out for our neighbours, the less fortunate and those in need. A society is judged by how it treats and takes care of the least fortunate and the most vulnerable. The government, like some Conservative governments, particularly the Mike Harris government in Ontario, has really shown great disdain for people living in poverty by cutting their supports and services, and treating them like criminals. It has no place. We need to move on from that kind of behaviour.

Bill C-43 has shown to be yet another anti-democratic omnibus bill that subverts our traditional way of government and completely dismisses the role of the House in providing considered oversight and debate. The bill, as has been said, over 450 pages long, has more than 400 clauses, amends dozens of acts and contains a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget.

The Conservatives' anti-democratic haste has meant that the previous budget bills have been forced through the House and committees without adequate study, and we lament the fact that this will likely recur again. How are parliamentarians, Canadians and the people in my riding supposed to give considered thought and feedback to such Trojan horse bills that get rammed through the House by the government?

Now many of the measures contained within the bill are fixing the problems created by the Conservatives ramming through the previous bill, the one before that and the one before that. If the government would actually stop to take the time to do things properly, it would not have to spend so much time fixing problems it has created. It seems the Conservatives enjoy creating new problems, much to the contrary of what the parliamentary secretary said a few minutes ago.

We are not able to properly study these bills and the finance committee, which does very good work for the House, is then overburdened by the fact that the budget bill comes with so many clauses, amendments and things that have nothing to do with the budget. That makes the job of the committee chair for finance even more challenging, and I have to admit he does a very good job at committee. However, then he has to spend time, like committee members, dealing with amendments and clauses that have nothing to do with the budget, things that should be going to the environment committee, the industry committee, the transportation committee or to the agriculture committee. There are many things in the budget that have nothing to do with the budget itself.

It means we end up wasting a lot of time because of it. Then the government has to come back and fix it again next time. I am very curious when we get to the spring and there is a new budget and an implementation act, how many things in that implementation act will be put in to fix the problems created with this one.

The Conservatives used to lament omnibus bills, but when they came to power, instead of changing Ottawa as they said they would, Ottawa seems to have changed them. They have become exactly like the governments that came before them with respect to omnibus bills, and they have taken it, frankly, to a whole new level.

The Prime Minister used to stand when he was leader of the opposition and get very angry at the fact that there were Liberal bills that were 80 pages long. Eighty pages sounds like the good old days. Now we are dealing with omnibus bills that are 400 or more pages long, that are 370 more pages than that bill was. However, the Prime Minister has no problem with those now.

We do have a well spelled out and reasoned amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in which he states that:

—this House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-43,...because it: a) amends dozens of unrelated Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight; b) fails to address persistent unemployment and sluggish economic growth; c) aims to strip refugee claimants of access to social assistance to meet their basic needs; d) imposes a poorly designed job credit that will create few, if any, jobs while depleting Employment Insurance Funds...

On that point, the parliamentary secretary talked about how the government wanted to keep money in the pockets of people. The government was complicit with the Liberal government before it in raiding the employment insurance fund, the fund and money owned and contributed by workers and employers, a mere $60 billion. That could have gone back to workers, that could have gone into skills development and training. They could have made sure that more than half of the people in Toronto, who are unemployed, could actually qualify for EI.

The Conservatives talk about employment and growing jobs. Unemployment in my riding is over 12%. It is a far cry from where it was when the Conservative government came to power.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by talking about our great announcement yesterday to help families. I have done a few rough calculations, and I would like the member to respond.

If a child under the age of six roughly gets $2,000 a year in tax credits, over six years, that would be close to $12,000. Then, from the ages of 7 to 17, another 10 years at about $720 a year, that would be another $7,200. We are talking about a child from birth through to the age of 17 and helping that family financially with tax credits worth up to $19,000. If we take a family with three children, we are talking about the government helping that family by close to $60,000.

I am the father of five children. When I was raising my young children, all I got from the government at that time, which was Liberal, was higher taxes. I am almost convinced that what I would get if we had an NDP government would be even higher taxes.

I would like to know how the member could possibly put down a government helping a family with three children by close to $60,000. Two-thirds of Canadian families will benefit from the measures that we announced yesterday, so I do not want the member to say this would just benefit the rich, because that is absolutely false.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly fine. I do not need to say that. The member just laid it out himself when he talked about the amount of money that would come back to a family for children up to the age of six.

I did some rough calculations and based on the numbers that the member himself used, it would take six years of what the Conservatives are prepared to give to parents to pay for one year of child care in Ontario. What about the next five years? Then where are they going to find the money to help them with child care?

This is where the NDP's universality in child care would actually help to provide the money to pay for that child up the age of six, when they go to school.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is on the nature of the budget being very lengthy, and he made reference to that. It has numerous pieces of legislation, some of which could have been stand-alone legislation and introduced by separate ministers, which would have had more debate inside the chamber. However, the Conservatives snuck them in through a budget bill.

Then we have time allocation that has been put on the bill, which will again prevents the opportunity to have more dialogue. Then we have committees that are no longer meeting because the NDP will not allow them to meet.

To what degree does the member believe members are losing the opportunity to ultimately hold government more accountable when we see measures of this nature being taken?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House definitely lose the ability to address the issues that matter to Canadians and deal with these budgets in the proper way when they are introduced through omnibus legislation.

However, I would quickly point out for the member that committees just require the committee chair to call a meeting. Therefore, if committees are not having meetings, maybe the member should ask the Conservative committee chairs why not.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservatives come out with a wasteful and ineffective income-splitting program that will benefit only the most wealthy 15% of Canadians. The Conservatives will try to spin it that it is not what their income-splitting program is, but anyone who examines it will know that.

Could the member describe the benefit of having a universal child care program? I know that people in my area are paying tens of thousands of dollars every year to get good quality care for their kids, if they can find it. The NDP will fix that. Could he describe how?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the first five years of my working life in child care in a daycare teaching kids how to count to 10 and write their names. It is a very rewarding endeavour, but people are not paid very well in it.

The NDP's plan would create up to a million new child care spaces so parents would have the choice of whether to put their children into care or to take care of them at home.

Governing is about choices. The Conservatives call us tax and spenders, but their plans to spend money in this reckless fashion make them tax and wasters. They tax Canadians and then waste the money on the people who need it the least.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to talk about how our Conservative government is successfully implementing the initiatives in our economic action plan in order to promote jobs and growth and support families and communities.

Our initiatives greatly benefit Canadians and families in rural regions such as my riding, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Now that we are on our way to keeping our promise to Canadians to return to a balanced budget, our government is focusing on moving forward with our initiatives so that hard-working people can also benefit from the surplus.

The Liberal Party and the NDP both want Canadians to pay more taxes. They want more revenue so that they can turn around and spend it.

The Conservatives believe that Canadians need to keep more of their hard-earned money.

It is because of the Conservatives' economic management skills that the initiatives we have already implemented are producing such positive results. Thanks to our action plan, the Canadian economy has already created more than a million net new jobs since 2009. Our country has ascended the ranks and our middle class is now among the wealthiest in the world. Considering the economic challenges that exist outside our borders, we can be proud of what we have achieved as Canadians.

We know that urban and rural businesses are crucial to our economic prosperity and growth. The 2014 budget and Bill C-43 focus on the needs of small businesses. We want to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and we are clearly offering additional support to small business owners.

One of my goals, as the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is to bolster local economies within my riding because they create jobs and employ the people living in the region.

I hope to see the local businesses in my riding succeed because when they are successful, they grow, and when they grow, they create new jobs and hire more people.

According to a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small and medium-sized businesses employ 70% of Canada's entire private sector workforce.

Thanks to our job credit aimed at small businesses, these companies and their employees will soon benefit from a tax credit that will lower small business employment insurance premiums by 15% over the next two years.

More than 90% of Canadian companies will benefit from this initiative, which will save them $550 million. They can then use that money to solidify their business or expand it and create more jobs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that 25,000 person-years of employment will be created due to our EI credit.

I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister in a trade mission to the United Kingdom in September. There, I had the opportunity to meet with Dan Kelly, the president of CFIB, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to discuss the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in rural economies such as Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

This is what Mr. Kelly said in support of our EI credit. The small business job credit “will make it easier to hire new workers or invest in additional training to help entrepreneurs grow their business.”

It is plain to see that our Conservative government is indeed supporting small businesses in very concrete ways in order to ensure that Canada's economy continues to thrive.

As I had previously mentioned in the House in the last budget debate, the launch of the Canada apprentice loan, a key initiative identified by employers and various organizations with which we have consulted, would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year. This is important in communities such as my riding, which has a great demand for skilled trades, for example, related to agriculture.

Family farming is an integral part of our rural communities and our country. Farmers and producers have greatly contributed to our many successes and have the well-earned reputation of growing extremely high-quality product, both for Canadians and international consumers.

As part of economic action plan 2014, we have allocated over $3 billion, including provincial and territorial contributions, toward investments in innovation, competitiveness, and market development for our Canadian agricultural sector under Growing Forward 2. Now we are implementing further measures to support farmers by making the tax system simpler and fairer for farmers who already work very long hours to provide what goes on our tables at every meal. Many farms, in fact, will benefit from the small business tax credit, which I mentioned earlier in this speech.

Another important initiative that I would like to highlight is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. We have heard the concerns of Canadian families regarding the rising cost of raising a family, and we understand that organized sports in our day and age play an important role in the health and growth of our children. Our federal government is taking concrete steps to make life more affordable, especially for low-income families. Canadians saw this with the Prime Minister's most excellent and well-received announcement yesterday concerning income splitting between parents, increasing the universal child tax benefit, and increasing child care deduction limits.

However, I digress. I actually wanted to speak of us having doubled the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000. To us, it is important that we promote a healthy and active lifestyle, especially with children. It is vital that all children of all walks of life have access to sports and athletic activities. Our youth have access to many great sports, including hockey, which, as Canadians, we consider to be our national pastime. Our child fitness tax credit would help ensure that future generations continue active participation in sports and recreational activities.

I am encouraged by our Conservative government's initiatives to create jobs and encourage economic growth, as well as long-term prosperity, all while returning to balanced budgets. Unlike the opposition, which votes against measures to strengthen our Canadian economy, our federal government continues to take action in implementing initiatives, such as supporting families and communities, and improving the fairness and integrity of the tax system, among many others. In addition, we have been transparent. The budget was tabled in the House long ago, back in February. We value democracy and have been openly debating inside and outside the House.

I urge the opposition to join us in helping hard-working Canadians. I urge them to stop stonewalling and voting against important measures that will create jobs, strengthen our economy and alleviate some of the financial challenges facing Canadians.

I know that the Liberals and New Democrats love nothing more than imposing taxes and increasing spending, but I urge them to make an exception and to vote in favour of Bill C-43.

Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative government will continue to move forward and take the necessary action to create jobs and promote economic growth, while still working toward a balanced budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

Of course, when we are debating a bill as important as a budget bill, like Bill C-43, we need to look at the whole thing before deciding whether we will vote in favour or against it. That is what I have done, as have many in this House, and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary has done so as well.

That is why I would ask him to talk about the fiscal and budgetary implications of the measure in part 4 that amends the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this extremely important and specific measure in the government's Bill C-43.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleague that when we take the Conservatives and how we have implemented transfers to provinces, we have significantly increased the amount of federal funding that we transfer to provinces. I will give an example from here in Ontario. When we were first elected in 2006, the federal government was transferring approximately $11.9 billion to Ontario every year. That amount has now climbed to close to $20 billion. This has been an increase for Ontario of almost 75% to 80%.

He is asking what the tax implications would be. If the provincial government spends that money wisely, then it, too, could lower taxes for Canadians. This is what Canadians want. Certainly when I am in my riding, Canadians have had it with high municipal taxes, provincial taxes, and federal taxes. I am proud to be part of a government and of a party that is focused on lowering taxes for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of a senior MP on the Conservative side, so I am glad to have this opportunity. It is a question that I asked earlier in the day and I did not get an answer. It is about the legislation, and in particular, the Industrial Design Act. I have to ask this question because this bill is an omnibus bill, so it contains things that were not in the budget.

In budget 2014, it said that there would be legislation to implement treaties. In proposed subsection 7(e) of the new Industrial Design Act, it says that a design is registerable if the design is not contrary to public morality or order. That is new.

Would this be implementing a treaty or something else that the Conservative government is trying to do?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member for his very narrow question on the budget. I think it is important that Canadians look at the budget in its entirety and what it would do for them and for our economy.

As I pointed out, this is a good budget for Canadians. This is a good budget for our Canadian economy. As Conservatives, we have a very strong track record, in terms of creating jobs or putting in place the policies that allow the creation of jobs. We have a very strong record on lowering taxes for Canadians.

While I appreciate the question, the fact that it is so narrow makes me wonder why he is ignoring all of the other very positive measures that are contained within the budget, those types of benefits that Canadians want and ask for, that we promised to deliver and that we are indeed delivering.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of things for families in the budget. There are also a lot of things for small businesses.

I know the parliamentary secretary is very engaged on the agriculture file. Maybe he would talk about some of the tax relief for small businesses, including for farms. I know in the budget there is an extension of the lifetime capital gains exemption for farming properties, for example, and some of the other small businesses.

Would he comment on that and the host of measures for farming and other small businesses?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I have been in contact with farmers within my riding. It is a very agricultural region.

There are several measures contained within the budget. One was just mentioned, which is the extension of the capital gains exemption, which of course is financially advantageous to parents who sell their farms to their children. This is advantageous for getting youth and young people involved in farming, which is one of the challenges that our farm sector faces today.

I also spoke about the small business tax credit that is related to EI. Many of our farms are, indeed, small businesses. They employ less than 15 people. They will benefit from that tax credit regarding EI.

Last, in wrapping up, I will mention that we have lowered taxes and the tax burden on small businesses. I believe, if I remember correctly, that the budget contains wording about small businesses now paying about 30% less or the cost of doing business with the government is about 30% less for—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Resuming debate, there are three minutes remaining this afternoon for the hon. parliamentary secretary for public safety.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to speak for those three minutes.

Our Conservative government's proposal for a missing persons index is being brought forward as part of the economic action plan 2014. Every year in Canada, approximately 60,000 Canadian men, women, and children are reported missing. While 85% of those missing are found within a week, the tragic reality is that some 100 new missing person cases go unsolved each and every year. This means that there are thousands of families across Canada who wait in the dark for years, wondering if their family member will ever come home. In other cases, knowing that their loved one has been murdered, they wait in vain for closure and for justice to be delivered to whomever has harmed their loved one.

This is why DNA can play a vital role. DNA analysis is one of the most powerful tools that police have at their disposal when they investigate crime. Unfortunately, as it stands today, our national DNA data bank has limited use in the investigations of missing persons. Under current and existing laws, using DNA for national identification purposes is strictly governed by the DNA Identification Act. Through the national DNA data bank, police can only access two different indices. These are the convicted offenders index, which contains court-ordered DNA profiles of individuals convicted of a designated offence, and the crime scene index, which contains DNA profiles from biological material found at crime scenes of designated offences.

This information is critical to police investigations, and the national DNA data bank has been highly effective in helping to bring criminals to justice, exonerating the innocent, and linking crime-related incidents together. However, the act does not allow DNA to be added, retained, or matched to support missing persons or unidentified human remains investigations. In other words, there is no mechanism by which DNA, on a national basis, could be used to help advance missing person cases and hopefully bring that closure to grieving families.

For several years, Canadian families have called for changes to the system. They have advocated for a system in which DNA analysis could be used to link missing persons to unidentified human remains to help reveal their identity and their location. With Bill C-43, we will move ahead with these changes to help bring closure to these families and help our police with their criminal investigations.

We would amend the DNA Identification Act to create a new humanitarian application of the national DNA data bank. This would include creating three new indices. As I just mentioned, we would create the DNA-based missing persons index, which would contain the DNA profiles of biological material found on personal effects of missing persons. This index would be used to help find missing persons and identify previously unidentified human remains by comparing these profiles with profiles contained in all of the other indices.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this point. The hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining in her speech when this matter returns before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are seven minutes left for the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill no. 2. I only wish I could say that I am pleased to speak to this particular bill. However, Bill C-43 does nothing to address many of the challenges facing my constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's and Canadians in general.

This omnibus bill is clearly the product of a tired, void-of-ideas government that has completely lost touch with the people it is meant to serve. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced omnibus legislation full of changes that simply do not belong in a budget bill. At 460 pages, with over 400 separate clauses, Bill C-43 represents an abuse of power. To use a single omnibus budget bill to limit debate on a host of unrelated measures is undemocratic. If the government does not recognize this, it really is time to put it out to pasture.

Using a single omnibus budget bill to limit debate prevents members of Parliament from doing their jobs and properly scrutinizing legislation. Since forming government in 2006, in its rush to push through legislation, and by ignoring input from other parties, the Conservatives have cemented a disturbing number of preventable errors in law. By my count, Bill C-43 attempts to fix no fewer than 10 of those sloppy mistakes, including many from previous omnibus budget bills.

The government has proven time and time again that it is not interested in input from anyone outside the Conservative caucus and the Prime Minister's Office, even if it means that Canadians would be negatively impacted.

Take for instance the so-called EI tax credit proposed in Bill C-43. This flawed measure actually discourages job creation and economic growth. This measure in particular is bad for employers, bad for workers and those seeking work, and bad for the Canadian economy as a whole.

In a recent report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Conservatives' EI plan would cost $550 million over two years and would create only 800 net new jobs. This translates to a cost of almost $700,000 to taxpayers for each new job created under the Conservative program. Canadians deserve a plan for jobs and growth. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the Conservatives' EI plan provides neither.

While the Minister of Finance claims that EI cuts for small businesses would produce thousands of new jobs, the numbers prove otherwise. The reality is that the government's changes to EI would encourage businesses to stay small and would actually punish them if they grew and were successful. For instance, the Conservative changes to EI would offer up to $2,234.04 to small businesses for firing a worker but only up to $190.52 for hiring a worker. Furthermore, there is no requirement for job creation. Regardless of whether a small business hired new workers, remained the same size, or even fired workers, so long as a business pays less than $15,000 in EI payroll taxes, it would qualify. This may be a tax credit, but it is certainly not a job credit.

There are currently over 6,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who had a job this time last year but who are now out of work. My constituents in Random—Burin—St. George's, and people throughout the province, face unemployment rates well above the national average.

For young workers, job creation is even more important. Youth aged 20 to 24 in Newfoundland and Labrador face higher unemployment rates than their peers throughout the country. At a time when many are struggling with high debt loads, youth unemployment is high and many young workers are forced to leave the province to seek work.

The Conservative government continues to compound the problem. What we need in Newfoundland and Labrador are more jobs, not fewer. Canadians from coast to coast to coast deserve a government with a plan to encourage job creation, not a government that is committed to limiting growth. As the Liberal leader said, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are generally worried about their future.

For the first time in our country's recent history, people are concerned that the next generation will struggle more than the present generation. Unfortunately, out of necessity, it has become common practice for adult children to live with their parents to make ends meet, and in doing so they have made it difficult, in some cases, for their parents to make ends meet. Such a practice was rarely heard of but is now more the norm than the exception.

That is why the Liberals are committed to helping create the right conditions for investment and economic prosperity, which will foster those badly needed jobs. Our proposed EI holiday on new hires would reward employers for creating new jobs instead of rewarding employers for firing workers. The Liberal plan has been applauded by job creators throughout the country, such as Restaurants Canada, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Yet the Conservative government refuses to consider a proposal that would be helpful, preferring instead to forge ahead with a proposal that is fraught with problems. Unfortunately, this is nothing new.

Since taking office, the Conservatives have also shown little respect for Canada's democratic institutions. The government has often refused to work in partnership with the provinces and territories to help solve many of the challenges it currently faces.

Last week, we heard that the government is unwilling to listen to its provincial partners in terms of amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. According to an official, only Ontario was consulted about these changes, in spite of the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador would be affected by these changes. It and eight other provinces had absolutely no say. The Conservative government did not just ignore input from Newfoundland and Labrador, it ignored Newfoundland and Labrador altogether.

This amendment was not one the provinces asked for. In fact, the same official has confirmed that there had been absolutely no demands from any province for this change, none whatsoever. It is puzzling that the Conservative government is committed to pushing through a change that no province asked for and no province seems to want, while ignoring calls for policies and programs that would provide real benefits to Canadians.

In some cases, Bill C-43 would not add support. What it would do is add taxes.

Many of my constituents of Random--Burin--St. George's, as in other ridings, are seniors, who are often living on fixed incomes. For the government to add GST and HST to some services provided by non-profit health care facilities, such as residential services provided at an old age home, is simply wrong. At a time when the rate of poverty among Canadian seniors is rising, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is warning that current pension supports may be insufficient, adding to their financial burden is just not right.

Now I will speak about what is not in the budget.

In a 460-page document, with over 400 separate clauses, there is not a single mention of veterans. After years of ignoring the needs of Canadian veterans and their families, the Conservative government had an opportunity to finally act. Instead, it chose to remain silent.

In June, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs outlined a series of measures that would make a difference in the lives of veterans and their families, but without further legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs can only act on the recommendations that do not require any new money. This leaves it unable to implement many of the recommendations supported even by the government's own committee members.

In its response to the committee report, the government stated:

The more complex recommendations require further inter-departmental work, budgetary analysis, and coordination with a wide range of federal departments, as well as with the Veterans Ombudsman and Veterans' groups.

They will be dealt with at a later date.

Why do complex recommendations to support veterans require additional scrutiny, when the Conservatives maintain that many of the other measures proposed in the bill do not? Surely amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act is a complex measure. Yet without consulting with the provinces, the government saw fit to include it. Why will the government not give veterans the same priority? Bill C-43 was an opportunity to implement these recommendations. However, it has proven to be yet another opportunity wasted under the Conservative government. Sadly, Canadian veterans and their families will have to wait another year in the hope that the Conservative government will finally follow through.

This also would have been an opportune time to restore and enhance search and rescue capabilities; support Canadians with mental health issues, including PTSD; and address many more priority items.

Unlike the Conservatives and their flawed budget implementation bill, the Liberals are committed to growing Canada's economy and helping to create jobs by investing in infrastructure, education, environmental initiatives, our culture, and science and technology. We believe that government must not only create the right conditions for economic growth but must also ensure that growth is sustainable and will help struggling families.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a representative and as the leader of the Green Party, I am getting very few occasions to speak to this omnibus budget bill. With time allocation, it looks as though I will be denied any opportunity to give a 10-minute presentation on all the things that are wrong with this omnibus bill.

Permit me to thank my hon. colleague for allowing me to ask her to confirm that this is in fact an omnibus bill that we have not, as many Conservatives members have said in this place, had for an abundant amount of time to study. It is not the budget that was tabled in the spring. It is an entirely different piece of legislation, encompassing changes to many different pieces of legislation, many of which have nothing at all to do with the budget.

In the guise of a budgetary bill, measures that should properly go to committees for study, even measures we might support, like the creation of the Cambridge Bay research station, will only go to a committee of finance for inadequate study. I ask if my hon. colleague would not agree that this bill should never have been presented as an omnibus budget bill.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question, recognizing again the limited amount of time she has to speak to this bill itself.

She is absolutely right, in fact, that there is so much contained in this omnibus budget bill that it really does not give parliamentarians the opportunity they need to act on behalf of the people they represent. We do not get to scrutinize the legislation. Everything gets rolled into one bill, and by the time we get to read the bill and look at the impact it would have on Canadians from coast to coast to coast, we are limited in terms of the amount of time we get to discuss it. These omnibus bills that are put forward by the Conservative Party on a regular basis are not fair, not only to the parliamentarians who represent Canadians but to Canadians in general, because they need an opportunity to hear what is being said and proposed.

At the end of the day, we end up voting on a bill that we have had little time to digest. Canadians have no idea what is involved in it. Then we are asked to vote. Maybe some things are good in it, but there are lots of things that are bad in it. We cannot vote for the good, because we cannot possibly vote for the bad.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

Our economic situation is becoming increasingly difficult, and there are huge disparities between the different regions in Canada. Could she explain why this type of bill, this so-called budget implementation bill, only increases the disparities between the different regions in Canada?

I would also like her to explain how this bill, like many of the government's previous bills, continues to widen the gap between rich and poor and between men and women. I would like to hear more from her about the fact that these bills only widen the gap between rich and poor rather than ensuring that wealth is fairly distributed in Canada.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, anyone looking at what is being proposed in this particular bill would have to agree that it is not fair. It does not matter where they live in the country. The fact that the government did not even consult with the provinces, with the exception of one province, Ontario, in terms of fiscal financial arrangements clearly points again to the fact that the Conservatives have no respect or consideration for the impact legislation they propose will have on Canadians, no matter what region of the country they live in, their walk of life, or their income.

We are finding that we have a budget on which input is limited. It is only input from the Conservative caucus or from the Prime Minister's Office that is considered. We are members of Parliament who represent Canadians throughout this country. We can bring valuable input to the table. Yet the current government chooses to put measures in place that will have a negative impact on women, children, seniors, and veterans, and the Conservatives are not listening to how they could improve things for people from coast to coast to coast.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, Health.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to support Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2.

Since 2006, our government has put in place a number of tax relief measures to support hard-working Canadians and their families. With balanced budgets in sight, our government is more determined than ever to provide tax relief.

We believe that good tax policy does not mean just collecting tax dollars. It also means putting money back into the hands of hard-working Canadians, so that they can save, invest and spend it as they see fit. We believe that Canada should have a tax system that rewards hard work.

One of the first family-related tax credits our government introduced in budget 2006 was the children's fitness tax credit.

It was developed based on the recommendations of a panel of experts.

Our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit to promote physical fitness and physical activity in children, because we want all children to have the chance to grow up healthy and happy in this great country. It is one of our government's most popular tax credits, providing about $115 million in tax relief to 1.4 million Canadian families each year.

In 2011, we promised Canadians that we would enhance the children's fitness tax credit as soon as we had succeeded in balancing the budget. We are now making good on that commitment by proposing both to double the maximum amount that can be claimed and to make the credit refundable.

The maximum amount that can be claimed under the tax credit will increase from $500 to $1,000 for 2014 and subsequent years.

Parents will be able to take advantage of the new limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014.

Obviously, they have to submit receipts with their claims.

The children's fitness tax credit will become refundable starting with the 2015 tax year. This change will increase the opportunity for low-income families to benefit from further tax savings. When fully implemented, the measures we are proposing will deliver additional tax relief to about 850,000 families who enrol their children in eligible fitness activities. I know that all four of my children were active in sports, in and outside of school.

This sets the foundation for a long, healthy, active adulthood. These enhancements build on the long list of actions that our government has taken to support Canadian families.

For example, we introduced the registered disability savings plan to help families with children with disabilities.

We introduced the universal child care benefit, first time home buyers' tax credit, public transit tax credit, family caregiver tax credit, and so much more.

Our government is equally committed to supporting Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, the backbone of our economy. Small businesses represent about half of the jobs in the private sector and a third of Canada's gross domestic product.

That is why, under the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, we are taking measures to make small businesses even stronger.

Our government is proposing to introduce a new tax credit that will save small businesses more than half a billion dollars over two years. This small business job credit will help small businesses by lowering their employment insurance, EI, premiums in 2015 and 2016. The savings they realize will make it easier for them to grow their businesses.

The small business job credit lowers EI premiums for eligible businesses from the current legislated rate of $1.88 to $1.60 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2015 and 2016. Any business that pays employer EI premiums of $15,000 or less in those years will be eligible for the credit.

What this means is that almost 90% of all EI premium-paying businesses in Canada will receive the credit, reducing their EI payroll taxes by nearly 15%. The new small business job credit is expected to save small employers more than $550 million over 2015 and 2016.

We are making sure that there will be no increased paperwork associated with the new tax credit. Business owners do not have to apply for it. The CRA will automatically establish eligibility for 2015 and 2016 separately based on the employer EI premiums paid for each of those years.

The CRA will calculate the credit and apply it to any outstanding balance on the company's payroll account and then reimburse the company for any remaining amount.

Besides the two tax credits that I just highlighted, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2, contains many other measures that affirm our commitment to economic growth, families and communities.

One of our government's key areas of concern is the issue of international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Bill C-43 contains our proposals to prevent the shifting of certain Canadian source income to low or no tax jurisdictions, encourage the exchange of tax information, and add new conditions for qualifying under the regulated foreign financial institution tax rules.

Our government has made great strides in improving the fairness and integrity of Canada's tax system. We believe that a strong and well-functioning tax system is of great value to Canadians and to Canadian businesses. The steps we have taken since 2006 and the measures included in Bill C-43 help to keep Canadian tax rates low and competitive. Low tax rates are an incentive to work, save and invest in Canada. They foster economic growth and prosperity for the benefit of all Canadians.

Canada's economic action plan is working.

Canada has had one of the strongest job creation records in the G7 since the height of the recession. Nearly 1.2 million net new jobs have been created in this country since July 2009.

Globally recognized authorities, from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the International Monetary Fund, have ranked Canada as one of the best countries in the world in which to do business. They expect Canada to be one of the strongest growing economies in the G7 over this year and next.

Canadians are seeing the results of sound economic policies in action.

Personal income taxes are now 10% lower than they were before 2006, and the average family of four now pays close to $3,400 less in taxes. Overall, the federal tax burden is at the lowest rate it has been in over 50 years.

I encourage all members of the House to join me in supporting the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2.

Members' votes would allow Canadian families and businesses to continue to reap the benefits of our sound fiscal policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we recognize middle-class families. The Conservatives talk about this income splitting, and the Prime Minister has been talking a lot about it lately, but middle-class families should not have to pay more to give families such as the Prime Minister's a $2,000 tax break. The Conservative income splitting plan favours the wealthy. It is bad for growth and it is bad for the middle class.

The previous minister of finance commented at great length in terms of how income splitting was not good, sound policy. Why does the member believe that the former minister of finance, the late Mr. Flaherty, was wrong in his assessment and that the Prime Minister is on the right track? In fact, the biggest group paying for this would be the middle class of Canada.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our very honoured colleague, the previous minister of finance Jim Flaherty, was speaking of a plan that was only laid out at the time in very general terms. The plan that has come forward is not the plan he was speaking of when he talked about that.

Our plan would reach over four million families and is part of a suite of actions. It is not standing alone. In other words, the family tax cut, a federal tax credit that allows the higher income spouse to transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income, is part of the proposal. However, along with this is increasing the universal child care benefit for children under the age of six, where parents would receive a benefit of $160 a month for each child. That is up from $100 a month. It would expand the UCCB to children age six through 17. As of January 2015, under the expanded plan, parents would receive a benefit of $60 per month for children age six through 17.

It would also increase the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000. The maximum amounts that could be claimed would increase to $8,000 from $7,000 for children under age seven and to $5,000 from $4,000 for children age seven through 16.

Even The New York Times has recognized that our middle class in Canada is doing extremely well.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Minister of National Revenue and the answers that she gave in the House of Commons. I am always surprised by the answers she gives. She listed a series of procedures and talked about increases to tax credits.

Given that she is in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency, I am wondering whether, at some point, the Canadian tax system might run into difficulty or become overburdened. The government has added small tax credits here and there in all of the massive budgets it has brought down.

Is she not worried that this administrative burden will be just as heavy as the omnibus bills that are introduced in the House of Commons?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency is a professional tax administrator. It knows very well, and is leading the world, in methods to collect tax and to sustain a very equitable tax administration that keeps our tax base solid and working for all Canadians and all taxpayers in a fair and equitable manner.

Tax credits are a targeted way of helping Canadian families. Our government is very proud of its record for introducing various tax credits that benefit families. In this case, we are concentrating our remarks more on Canadian families with children. They, of course, are the future of Canada, so it behooves us all to vote for a budget bill that helps them out.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has focused on what matters to Canadians: job creation, economic growth and Canada's long-term prosperity.

Canada's economy has had one of the best economic performances in the G7 for a few years now, during both the global recession and the recovery.

As I have said, we are moving forward, with creating jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity being our focus. There are numerous things in Bill C-43 that would help do that, that would help create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, and some specific measures.

Among those, one that I want to highlight to begin with is the new small business job credit. Our government recently introduced this small business tax credit, a credit for small businesses that would reduce payroll taxes 15% over the next two years. It is estimated that this would result in savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over two years. Our government recognizes the fundamental importance of small businesses in fuelling the Canadian economy. That is what this shows.

I want to be clear that this is very important for the constituents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, whether it be the Nottawasaga Inn, where Sylvia Biffis runs a great enterprise and wants to hire more individuals; or Rebecca who is running Clearview Tea and wants to ensure she has that next employee; or finally the 100 Mile Store in Creemore, where Jackie and Sandra are running a great business but if they could expand they would look forward to it. That is exactly what this small business tax credit would do, provide them a great opportunity.

The second item that I will touch on is something that is very important to me, both personally and professionally. That is not just professionally as a member of Parliament and because of the constituents I have, the thousands of families in my riding, but as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. Our government believes that fitness is an important part of healthy lifestyles, and that habits should be encouraged from a very young age. As a pediatric surgeon, I can attest to that and to our need to focus on ensuring that children have an opportunity to be fit and healthy.

As a result, in budget 2010 we introduced the children's fitness tax credit, a non-refundable $500 tax credit for registration costs associated with an eligible program of physical activity for children under the age of 16.

In October of this year, the Prime Minister announced that our government planned to double the children's fitness tax credit—which would go from $500 to $1,000—and to make it refundable. This would increase the benefits for the low-income families who claim the credit.

What does this mean? It means that we are making it more affordable for Canadians and more importantly Canadian children to participate in an active lifestyle. I chaired the panel on the children's fitness tax credit. I had the great opportunity in 2006 of having our late colleague, Jim Flaherty, the former minister of finance, call me at a conference and ask me if I was willing to chair the expert panel. I and two other individuals, Michael Weil and David Bassett from Vancouver, had the great opportunity of deciding how to focus the tax credit to include as many children as possible. Our task by the minister of finance was to be as inclusive as possible, to make as many children as possible, and their parents, eligible for this tax credit so that as many children as possible could be active. It did not mean just looking at Olympic sports but also dance, and ensuring that children who have disabilities have a great opportunity.

Now the doubling of this tax credit would mean that even more families would be able to participate and more important, being refundable means that all those families who may not have been eligible before would be eligible today. That is important, whether it be for the Sproule family that has, I cannot say how many, grandchildren who are active in activities and sports, or Holly Haire who is someone who works with me whose son Harrison is active in hockey, or the Special Olympics athletes that come to the Blue Mountain Resort every year to learn how to ski. All of these young people have a disability and are learning how to ski and now this is more accessible to them.

I cannot say enough great things about Dan Skelton, Dave Sinclair and Gord Canning, who help make sure that program runs.

The reason we are focused on this as a government is that we care about families. We want to ensure we are supporting them and the things that are most important to them, such as making sure that their families are healthy and happy and participating in things that are meaningful.

The third item that I will speak to is also outlined in this bill. When our government released the economic action plan in February, we promised to strengthen labour market opportunities and investments that would bring us closer to the goal of creating jobs, growth and economic prosperity.

One of our major investments was an $11 million commitment over two years and $3.3 million per year, ongoing, to reform the temporary foreign worker program. The goal of these reforms is to make sure that the program is used as it is intended and to ensure that Canadians are first in line for every available job here in Canada. It is a last and limited resource to fill those acute labour shortages through the use of the program when Canadians are not available. I think all sides of the House would agree that Canadians should always be the first in line for those available jobs.

We have brought in new changes. We brought in new rigorous application processes. We now require employers to provide more evidence that they have tried to hire Canadians first. They must disclose how many Canadians have applied for the jobs in question and how many Canadians have been interviewed for the jobs. They must also provide an explanation of why they have not hired a Canadian.

The scrutiny of employers who are using large numbers of temporary foreign workers has increased substantially. This will be gradually phased in over three years at a 10% cap on the number of low wage temporary foreign workers allowed to be on a work site. In addition, employers seeking high wage temporary foreign workers are required to develop a transition plan that outlines specifically the measures that are required to further reduce their dependency on this program. We have raised the application fee from $275 to $1,000 to ensure that the cost of administering the program, including all of the reforms, will be borne entirely by the employers who use the program and not by the taxpayer.

We have also made changes to the enforcement of the program. There will be four times as many government inspectors. One in four employers using the program will be inspected every year. Inspectors will also have greater powers to catch those breaking the rules through, for example, warrantless on-site visits, the ability to compel employers to produce relevant documents, and the ability to ban employers from the program when they break the rules.

Not only will inspectors have more power, Canadians will too. An improved confidential tip line has been launched along with a new complaints website, which is accessible from any location and any Internet connection. Any allegations of abuse of the temporary foreign worker program will be vigorously investigated. In fact, they have been already.

A basic principle of the temporary foreign worker program remains the same, and that is to fill acute short-term labour needs as a last and limited option when qualified Canadians are not available. In order to strengthen our economy and create long-term prosperity, we must ensure that employers cannot use the program and hire foreign workers unless they have no other choice.

Employment and Social Development Canada is working with Statistics Canada to develop two new surveys to collect reliable and comparable data on wages and job vacancies. This labour market information will help ensure that temporary foreign workers who enter Canada would only enter Canada when Canadians are not available. These steps, along with a number of other balanced reforms, will ensure that Canadians and their employers put Canadians first in the temporary foreign worker program.

As I said at the beginning, our government is focused. Our top priorities are job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We are moving forward with measures to create jobs, such as the small business tax credit. We are also implementing a number of initiatives that specifically help and support families, such as the children's fitness tax credit, which the government is doubling and making refundable. These are important things to Canadian families and I am sure that all of my colleagues here in the House agree.

I look forward to the opposition supporting these initiatives that are good for families.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech.

However, despite the budgets the Conservative government has presented over the years, things have only gotten worse for women. Similarly, the new policies included in this budget will only make things worse for women.

Why does the minister not support policies that support women who are improving their economic situation by giving them access to day care services and allowing them to have well-paying jobs so that they can contribute to Canada's economy?

Why is the minister is telling us about a tax credit that does not help families in need? Can she tell us more about the measures in this budget? I do not see any measures in here that make things better for Canadian women.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am part of this government because this government supports well-paying jobs for all Canadians, including women.

Let us be clear. In economic action plan 2014, for the first time ever in Canadian history, unlike what an NDP government would do and unlike what the Liberals have done in the past across all provinces, Status of Women Canada announced support specifically for women entrepreneurs, making sure that they can start their own businesses, be mentored and championed, and have great opportunities.

We have also moved forward with an initiative called “women on boards”, challenging the private sector to get 30% of all their board members in the next five years to be women.

We are making important changes.

It is extremely important that members opposite get on board. Canada has an excellent track record. We support women overwhelmingly, whether it be the universal child care benefit, which makes sure that families can choose how they are going to provide care for their child so that mom can go to work and mom can participate in what she wants to do. More importantly, women entrepreneurs and women on boards are great initiatives I am delighted to support.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that the budget implementation bill that we are debating today talks about making changes that will ultimately give tax breaks using EI benefits.

The Liberal proposal that we have offered to the House would generate tens of thousands of jobs in all regions of the country and is supported by many different stakeholders. There is absolutely no comparison to the plan that the Conservatives are going to put in place. The middle class and Canadians in general would benefit immensely under the Liberal plan compared to the Conservatives failed attempt at trying to create jobs.

The member is a minister and is close to the PMO. Why does the PMO not recognize a good thing when it is presented to the government? Our proposal would provide employers with EI premium breaks for new hires. This would create thousands of new jobs in every region of the country. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, this government has created 1.1 million net new jobs since the downturn of the recession. The Liberal Party does not support that job creation plan.

Second, I want to be clear on EI. Our new small business tax credit would help create jobs. It would infuse into small businesses across the country the opportunity to hire more Canadians. It would be a 15% decrease in payroll tax. That means, as I mentioned before, people in my riding such as Rebecca at Clearview Tea and numerous others would be able to hire new people.

This is different than the Liberal approach or the EI boondoggle that we know about from the early 2000s, where the Liberals were taxing people out of having jobs available at all, let alone what their leader has said most recently with regard to tax increases. He would be happy to raise taxes, because, as he said, we might just have to do it. You know what? That would kill jobs. This government is about creating them and we are doing it every day.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I believe the hon. member for Churchill is rising on a point of order.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, during the 80th time the government has brought in time allocation, to bring forward a motion addressing the fact that we are not having the time or due process to look at this bill carefully, the way it ought to be looked at.

I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion.

I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, that Bill C-43, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses: a) clauses 102 to 142 related to the Industrial Design and Patent Acts; b) clauses 145 to 170 related to the proposed Canadian high Arctic research station act; c) clauses 172 and 173 related to changes to the provision of social assistance for refugees; d) clauses 186 to 190, related to the Investment Canada Act; e) clauses 191 to 210 related to the Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act and the charging of pay-to-pay fees; f) clauses 225 and 226 related to the employment insurance small business job credit; g) clauses 306 to 314 related to temporary foreign workers and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; h) clauses 376 and 377 related to the proposed extractive sector transparency measures act;

that the clauses mentioned in section a) of this motion do form Bill C-45; that Bill C-45 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 Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section b) of this motion do form Bill C-46; that Bill C-46 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 Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section c) of this motion do form Bill C-47; that Bill C-47 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 the clauses mentioned in section d) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 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 Industry, Science and Technology;

that the clauses mentioned in section e) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 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 Industry, Science and Technology; that the clauses mentioned in section f) of this motion do compose Bill C-50;

that Bill C-50 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 the clauses mentioned in section g) of this motion do compose Bill C-51; that Bill C-51 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 Citizenship and Immigration;

that the clauses mentioned in section h) of this motion do compose Bill C-52; that Bill C-52 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 Natural Resources;

that Bill C-43 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-43 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.

That is why we are proposing this motion calling for real debate and a real examination of these issues that matter so much to Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Thursday, October 30, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #267

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #268

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 6:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.