Bill C-59 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures

Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed or referenced in the April 21, 2015 budget. In particular, it
(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;
(b) ensures that amounts received on account of the new critical injury benefit and the new family caregiver relief benefit under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act are exempt from income tax;
(c) decreases the small business tax rate and makes consequential adjustments to the dividend gross-up factor and dividend tax credit;
(d) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million for qualified farm and fishing properties;
(e) introduces the home accessibility tax credit;
(f) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(g) extends, for five years, the tax deferral regime that applies to patronage dividends paid to members by an eligible agricultural cooperative in the form of eligible shares;
(h) extends until the end of 2018 the temporary measure that allows certain family members to open a registered disability savings plan for an adult individual who might not be able to enter into a contract;
(i) permits certain foreign charitable foundations to be registered as qualified donees;
(j) increases the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts to $10,000;
(k) creates a new quarterly remitter category for certain small new employers; and
(l) provides an accelerated capital cost allowance for investment in machinery and equipment used in manufacturing and processing.
Part 2 implements various measures for families.
Division 1 of Part 2 implements the income tax measures announced on October 30, 2014. It amends the Income Tax Act to increase the maximum annual amounts deductible for child care expenses, to repeal the child tax credit and to introduce the family tax cut credit that is modified to include transferred education-related amounts in the calculation of that credit as announced in the April 21, 2015 budget.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Universal Child Care Benefit Act to, effective January 1, 2015, enhance the universal child care benefit by providing $160 per month for children under six years of age and by providing a new benefit of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
It also amends the Children’s Special Allowances Act to, effective January 1, 2015, increase the special allowance supplement for children under six years of age from $100 to $160 per month and introduce a special allowance supplement in the amount of $60 per month for children six years of age or older but under 18 years of age.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 enacts the Federal Balanced Budget Act. That Act provides for certain measures that are to apply in the case of a projected or recorded deficit. It also provides for the appearance of the Minister of Finance before a House of Commons committee to explain the reasons for the deficit and present a plan for a return to balanced budgets.
Division 2 of Part 3 enacts the Prevention of Terrorist Travel Act in order to establish a mechanism to protect information in respect of judicial proceedings in relation to decisions made by the designated minister under the Canadian Passport Order to prevent the commission of a terrorism offence or for the purposes of the national security of Canada or a foreign country or state. It also makes a related amendment to the Canada Evidence Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, provide for extensions of time limits in unforeseen circumstances and provide the authority to make regulations respecting the correction of obvious errors. It also amends the Patent Act and the Trade-marks Act to protect communications between patent or trade-mark agents and their clients in the same way as communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to increase the maximum amount of compassionate care leave to 28 weeks and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which that leave may be taken. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, increase to 26 the maximum number of weeks of compassionate care benefits and to extend to 52 weeks the period within which those benefits may be paid.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Copyright Act to extend the term of copyright protection for a published sound recording and a performer’s performance fixed in a published sound recording from 50 years to 70 years after publication. However, the term is capped at 100 years after the first fixation of, respectively, the sound recording or the performer’s performance in a sound recording.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Export Development Act to add a development finance function to the current mandate of Export Development Canada (EDC), which will enable EDC to provide development financing and other forms of development support in a manner consistent with Canada’s international development priorities. The amendments also provide that the Minister for International Trade is to consult the Minister for International Development on matters related to EDC’s development finance function.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code in order to, among other things, provide that Parts II and III of that Act apply to persons who are not employees but who perform for employers activities whose primary purpose is to enable those persons to acquire knowledge or experience, set out circumstances in which Part III of that Act does not apply to those persons and provide for regulations to be made to apply and adapt any provision of that Part to them.
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to, among other things, provide that the Chief Actuary is not permitted to distinguish between members of either House of Parliament when fixing contribution rates under that Act.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the National Energy Board Act to extend the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas that are issued under that Act.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the Parliament of Canada Act to establish an office to be called the Parliamentary Protective Service, which is to be responsible for all matters with respect to physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and Parliament Hill and is to be under the responsibility of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Division provides that the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness must enter into an arrangement to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide physical security services throughout that precinct and Parliament Hill. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the definition “insured participant” in the Employment Insurance Act to extend eligibility for assistance under employment benefits under Part II of that Act, while providing that the definition as it reads before that Division comes into force may continue to apply for the purposes of an agreement with a government under section 63 of that Act that is entered into after that Division comes into force. It also contains transitional provisions and makes consequential amendments.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Small Business Financing Act to modify the definition “small business” in order to increase the maximum amount of estimated gross annual revenue referred to in that definition. It also amends provisions of that Act that relate to eligibility criteria for borrowers for the purpose of financing the purchase or improvement of real property or immovables, in order to increase the maximum outstanding loan amount.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to extend the application of that Act to organizations set out in Schedule 4 in respect of personal information described in that Schedule.
Division 14 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to provincial securities regulators in certain circumstances.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to
(a) clarify and expand the application of certain provisions requiring the collection of biometric information so that those requirements apply not only to applications for a temporary resident visa, work permit or study permit but may also apply to other types of applications, claims and requests made under that Act that are specified in the regulations; and
(b) authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to administer that Act using electronic means, including by allowing the making of an automated decision and by requiring the making of an application, request or claim, the submitting of documents or the providing of information, using electronic means.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the First Nations Fiscal Management Act to accelerate and streamline participation in the scheme established under that Act, reduce the regulatory burden on participating first nations and strengthen the confidence of capital markets and investors in respect of that scheme.
Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act to
(a) add a purpose statement to that Act;
(b) improve the transition process of Canadian Forces members and veterans to civilian life by allowing the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make decisions in respect of applications made by those members for services, assistance and compensation under that Act before their release from the Canadian Forces and to provide members and veterans with information and guidance before and after their release;
(c) establish the retirement income security benefit to provide eligible veterans and survivors with a continued financial benefit after the age of 65 years;
(d) establish the critical injury benefit to provide eligible Canadian Forces members and veterans with lump-sum compensation for severe, sudden and traumatic injuries or acute diseases that are service related, regardless of whether they result in permanent disability; and
(e) establish the family caregiver relief benefit to provide eligible veterans who require a high level of ongoing care from an informal caregiver with an annual grant to recognize that caregiver’s support.
The Division also amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act as a consequence of the establishment of the critical injury benefit.
Division 18 of Part 3 amends the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to, among other things, provide that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act do not apply with respect to records and copies of records that are to be destroyed in accordance with the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act. The non-application of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act is retroactive to October 25, 2011, the day on which the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act was introduced into Parliament.
Division 19 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to modernize, clarify and enhance the protection of prescribed supervisory information that relates to federally regulated financial institutions.
Division 20 of Part 3 authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite the Public Service Labour Relations Act, terms and conditions of employment related to the sick leave of employees who are employed in the core public administration.
It also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish and modify, despite that Act, a short-term disability program, and it requires the Treasury Board to establish a committee to make joint recommendations regarding any modifications to that program.
Finally, it authorizes the Treasury Board to modify, despite that Act, the existing public service long-term disability programs in respect of the period during which employees are not entitled to receive benefits.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for a comprehensive speech.

The interesting thing is that this is what veterans want and need, and everyone on the veterans affairs committee, of which I was a member, agreed unanimously that these are good things. We have added things even beyond those.

Given the games that are being played, and there are going to be a lot of accusations in all directions, how important is it, because the time is short, to not give the opposition an opportunity to frustrate getting these measures passed? That is why we put them in Bill C-59 and that is why we are also debating those elements.

The opposition members will have a chance to vote on it at committee. They will have a chance to show that support. How important is it to roll it all into Bill C-59 so that we can make sure that the aim of getting these benefits there for veterans is not frustrated by game playing?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank that member for his service to our country and for that good question.

I think the member is touching on a key point. The recommendations that were made by the veterans affairs committee were unanimously accepted, and here is the fruit of what the veterans affairs committee actually recommended contained in the budget implementation act.

Why are these measures in the budget implementation act? It is because the Minister of Veterans Affairs has made a commitment to veterans and their families that these measures will pass through the House before the end of this session. That is why they are in the budget implementation act.

I am calling on members of the opposition parties to vote in favour of these measures to support our veterans, their families, and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to share my thoughts on the 2015-16 budget despite the fact that it is yet another omnibus bill with closure. I think that the Conservatives have made history, not for their skill with budgets, but for their contempt of democracy. So successful have they been that the expression “Conservative tactics”—meaning the undue use of time allocation, lack of transparency and contempt for democracy—has become part of our everyday vocabulary. A sure sign of that is their use of an omnibus bill to pass measures that are outright illegal, such as those related to the RCMP and access to information.

We all know that the Conservatives are trying to protect themselves from prosecution by passing a bill that retroactively legalizes the illegal things they did. That is in clause 230, if I am not mistaken. When people in any Canadian province say that a government is using Conservative tactics, they are referring to this government.

If the members take a good look at themselves in the mirror, perhaps they will one day understand that what they have done here is completely undemocratic. It is really unfortunate, because more and more young people are becoming cynical about politics. The tactics that the Conservatives have been using over the past four years will only reinforce that cynicism among young people regarding politics. It is unfortunate.

Let us talk about the budget, but let us also talk about what is not in the budget. We talk a lot about what is in the budget, but we do not talk about what is not there.

We are in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis in Canada and Quebec. We know that 1.5 million households do not have access to housing. The federal government continues to disengage year after year. In its 2012-13 budget, the government cut investments in housing by $21.7 million. By 2030—and 2030 is closer than you think; it is only 15 years away—if the federal government maintains its current level of disengagement, $1.7 billion will have been cut from social housing. This amounts to 85% of the total federal housing budget. For example, with the end of social housing agreements, 26,000 housing units have been affected since 2011. By 2016, over 100,000 units will have been affected. We are talking about families, women and children, who could wind up homeless, who will be forced to turn to food banks, who will no longer be able to afford groceries because they will have to pay too much for housing. Is that acceptable? No.

La Pointe-de-l'Île is no exception. In the borough of Rivière-des-Prairies—Pointe-aux-Trembles, 6,500 people spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The director of Infologis de l'Est de Montréal calls these numbers alarming. I would like to commend him on the excellent work he and his organization do for La Pointe-de-l'Île and Montreal East. When families spend more than 30% of their income on housing, they do not have much left to spend on other essentials, such as food. Almost 20% of the households in Pointe-aux-Trembles spend more than 50% of their income on housing; that is one in five households. It makes no sense.

In 2009, the current Prime Minister went to the UN and made a promise to the Human Rights Council to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that every Canadian and Quebecker had access to suitable and affordable housing.

The provinces are stretched to the limit and are at a loss as to what to do. The government's lack of leadership is only adding to the burden on the provinces. The lack of social housing and the deterioration of existing social housing have become critical. We are going to hit a wall.

The government needs to understand the importance of investing in affordable housing programs in order to put an end to homelessness and ensure not only that all families, all Canadians and all Quebeckers have a roof over their heads, but that they do not have to choose between food, health care and housing, because that is unacceptable.

We are the only G7 country that does not have a social housing strategy. It is high time that the government adopted the NDP plan for a national housing strategy so that everyone can have decent, affordable housing. Unfortunately, we cannot support a budget that reduces funding for social housing.

Let us now turn to rail safety because La Pointe-de-l'Île is a railway hub. Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster, we have come to realize that our system has privatized Canadians' safety. Rail safety and our system are inadequate. In the early 2000s, the system was privatized. Self-regulation prevailed, even with respect to inspection. At a time when the transportation of crude oil is increasing exponentially, our safety system must be reviewed.

In a report published on October 22, 2013, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives criticized the shortage of inspectors. In 2009 there was one inspector for every 14 tank cars. Now, in 2015, there is one inspector for every 4,000 tank cars. Since the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic, the Government of Canada has hired just one additional inspector. We went from 116 inspectors to 117. That is unacceptable, and it is putting the lives of the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île in danger.

It is high time for the government to invest in rail safety. Everyone agrees on this: the unions, the Auditor General and the Railway Association of Canada. We have a big problem with inspections, and now is the time to take action. There is not a single mention of rail safety in the 2015-16 budget.

We cannot support a budget that puts the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers in danger. For example, the DOT-111 cars, which were declared dangerous by the Transportation Safety Board and the Auditor General, will be phased out, but it will be done over 10 years. For another 10 years those DOT-111 cars will continue to operate in communities across Canada and Quebec, including in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. Rail safety is clearly a problem.

I am calling on the government to make appropriate investments in rail safety in order to keep everyone safe. For example, with regard to the most recent oil spill in Gogama, in northern Ontario, the Transportation Safety Board said that the problem was with the tracks. That means it is an inspection issue because the companies are responsible for the tracks. The government has been complacent about this. Given the large number of accidents that have occurred since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, I hope that the Conservatives will realize that it is high time something was done about this.

There is also the issue of health, since we have an aging population. Seniors need proper and accessible health care. The government did away with the Health Council of Canada, which told it that the provincial transfers would have to be increased by 6% to address the issue of the aging population. The Conservatives silenced the Health Council of Canada and said that they were going to cap the transfers at 3%. The provinces are left with a $36 billion shortfall when it comes to health investments for everyone, including seniors.

Does this government really think we are going to vote for a bill that directly affects health care for Quebec and Canadian seniors? I am sorry, but we cannot support this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard reference to an NDP plan for housing and I welcome a look at it, but so far I have not seen details much beyond a plan to have a plan. It is important that we know how the money would flow, both to provinces and to municipalities, which sections of the housing community it would support, and how it would arrive and create construction.

I also have a question about the state of the repair budget. It is not just a question of the waiting lists; state of good repair is a significant issue in many cities. How is that issue going to be addressed?

Finally, there is the issue of the subsidies. Are the subsidies and the commitment to co-ops and affordable housing going to continue? The agreements are expiring.

It is a three-part question. I would like to know what the plan is from the NDP, beyond just having a plan to have a plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member may not be familiar with our many initiatives, because he had not yet been elected at the time, but the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced Bill C-400, which is precisely our proposal for a national social housing strategy. I invite the member to look it up online to see the details of our plan.

My colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill before Parliament calling on the government to continue to invest in rent subsidies, thereby maintaining the agreements. I invite the member to also look that up online for more details, and to consult the NDP website to learn more about our plans. We have concrete plans. We have brought them before the House, and the government refused to support them.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very passionate about housing and housing needs in Canada. That is a worthy goal.

She raised the NDP's plan, which was a private member's bill. Inside the bill was a requirement that all housing built under it, which would be paid in part by the federal government, would require the highest green standards; I believe it is LEED.

When I spoke to people in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, many groups like Habitat for Humanity, and others that may from time to time do housing projects for seniors, voiced that as a considerable concern because it would increase the building costs. It would actually exclude many small not-for-profits from being able to contribute and bring reasonable housing to meet the needs of people.

I would like to hear what she has to say about that. Will she revise that particular notion of the NDP's plan? If so, let us hear the alternative plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member consulted with organizations in his riding, and I did the same thing. What I can say is that organizations all across Canada supported our plan. Even the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supported our plan to invest in social housing. We are in the middle of a crisis. We are about to hit a wall, and the government continues to disengage. In 15 years, the government will have cut $1.7 billion from social housing, and I have no doubt that if the government continues on this path, over 100,000 families will wind up homeless or will no longer be able to afford groceries, unfortunately, because they will have to pay too much for housing.

If the member wants to play politics on the backs of our families, our women, men and children, he can continue to do so. What we on this side want to do is invest in social housing so that everyone can have a roof over their heads.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on a very good speech. My colleague serves the people of La Pointe-de-l'Île very well.

In her speech, she mentioned the Gogama derailment, which could have been very dangerous had it occurred two kilometres farther west. That would have put it right in downtown Gogama. It could have been another Lac-Mégantic. There was another derailment 40 kilometres from Gogama three weeks earlier.

Can the member tell us what the Minister of Transport is doing about rail transport's poor performance?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government did not mention rail safety one single time in the new 2015-16 budget.

Between 2010 and 2015, the office responsible for rail safety lost 20% of its resources to cuts. In 2009, there was one inspector per 14 cars. In 2015, it is one inspector per 4,000 cars. That accident could have been prevented if the government had enforced the rules and made appropriate investments in rail safety.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on our government's budget implementation bill.

Our Conservative government is focused on what matters most to Canadians: helping families to make ends meet by lowering taxes; protecting, and, of course, creating jobs. That was abundantly clear in economic action plan 2015.

Under this Prime Minister, this government recognizes that our country's greatest asset in the global economy is our people. With that in mind, we have worked hard to cut taxes for all Canadians to ensure that more of their hard-earned dollars stay in their wallets.

The tax relief measures introduced by our government are benefiting all Canadians. Economic action plan 2015 builds on our government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping them to save. We will also introduce tax relief for seniors and persons with disabilities to make their homes more accessible, as well as to help students to pay for their education.

We are seeking to increase the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts. We are seeking to adjust the registered retirement income fund, or as they are better known, RRIFs, and their minimum withdrawal factors that apply in respect of ages 71 to 94, to better reflect long-term, historical, real rates of return, and expected inflation. As a result, the new RRIF factors will be substantially lower than the existing factors.

We are also seeking to implement a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities. As the member of Parliament for Okanagan—Coquihalla, I know that many retirees in my riding want to be able to stay in their homes longer. I think this, in addition to helping people with disabilities, will help to do exactly that.

All of these measures work toward this government's goal of helping families make ends meet by lowering taxes, and, again, protecting and creating jobs.

Now, I would like to speak about some budget measures that fall directly under my purview as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. Economic action plan 2015 reaffirmed the government's commitment to pursuing a new disability and sick leave management system for Canada's public service.

As I said earlier in this place, the government's continued overarching goal in these negotiations is to reach agreement on total public service compensation that is fair and reasonable to both the employees and the taxpayer. The legislative changes proposed in the budget implementation act allow the government to take necessary steps for a modernized disability and sick leave management system to give employees the safety net they need.

The minister has been clear in his negotiations with the unions. He is working towards a settlement that includes a revamped sick leave system.

The President of the Treasury Board has been clear that mental health issues are important to our government. That is why we have worked with the public service unions to establish the joint mental health task force. This task force is a first step in improving how the federal public service can manage mental health challenges in the workplace. Additionally, economic action plan 2015 announced our government's intention to renew the mandate of the Mental Health Commission of Canada for an additional 10 years. This will allow the commission to continue its important work to promote mental health in Canada and foster change in the delivery of mental health services.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada has said:

This is wonderful news for the mental health community. [...] Together, we have advocated for change. And together, we are succeeding.

It is clear that this government is putting the health of federal employees at the top of its priorities during the ongoing negotiations. We will make every effort to reach an agreement with bargaining agents within a reasonable timeframe on these necessary reforms to disability and sick leave management.

We know that the 40-year-old sick leave accumulation system currently in place is antiquated and not responsive to the needs of the majority of our employees. Almost two-thirds of employees, 6 in 10 people, in the core public administration, do not have enough banked sick leave to cover a full period of short-term disability of 13 weeks. Worse still, a quarter of employees have fewer than 10 banked sick days, and many new and younger public servants have no banked sick days at all.

That is why this government, with thePresident of the Treasury Board leading the negotiations, is proposing a short-term disability plan that would help public servants get healthy and back to work. The proposed short-term disability plan would give public servants the comprehensive safety net that they need while protecting the taxpayers who are paying the bill.

To date, the government's bargaining representatives have had over 200 meetings with the unions. There are nearly 50 additional meetings planned in the future, which is more than enough time for both sides to come to a reasonable agreement.

The minister and his team will continue to negotiate with unions, but our objective is clear: we will not pay sick leave to people who are not sick. In the event that an agreement between the government and bargaining agents cannot be reached, this legislation would allow the government to take the necessary steps to implement a modernized disability and sick leave management system within a reasonable timeframe.

I think it is important for me to address some of the misconceptions about the savings that are booked in economic action plan 2015.

The $900 million booked in 2014-15 is a subset of the contingent liability associated with banked sick days that have accumulated over decades under the existing regime. This savings target is a commitment to taxpayers that the government takes this very seriously. As always, our government will be mindful of the purse strings, and, of course, accountable to the taxpayers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government really understands or gets the picture of the importance of Canada's middle class. We need to recognize that it is the middle class that generates the economic growth that Canada needs, and at the end of the day the government has not been able to generate the types of jobs that are important to our middle class.

We have seen literally tens of thousands of good valuable jobs lost in the last few years, particularly in industries such as our manufacturing industry. We have had very recent examples of that.

I wonder if the member would explain to the viewers why the government has not been successful in generating the type of economic growth in which Canadians expect their government to demonstrate leadership.

The 1.2 million new jobs that the government always makes reference to is hogwash. In the last year and a half, it is a very small percentage of jobs that have actually been generated compared with the amount of growth in population and so forth.

Could the member explain why the government has failed Canadians in dealing with the important issue of job creation to support Canada's middle class?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's views and appreciate that he has a certain view. Of course, this government has our view.

I would say that ultimately it comes down to leadership. One of the most important things that leaders can do is to be abundantly clear. His leader has said to southwest Ontario that they should transition away from manufacturing. On this side, we say that southwest Ontario, by putting improvements into Internet connections and working with the provinces on valuable infrastructure, will help to raise the tide that will float all boats, particularly in manufacturing.

We have also seen reductions in tariffs that are unseen in any other developed nations. Now manufacturers can bring in new equipment with no tariffs to become more productive and get ahead of the innovation curve.

We have been abundantly clear.

I also want to reference that we need to bring in new opportunities for manufacturing. Through the 13 long years of the previous Liberal government, the Liberals put about $1.5 billion in infrastructure into British Columbia. Within the first seven years of this Conservative government, we saw three times that, $4.5 billion, and much of it to the Asia-Pacific gateway, which we know will open up new opportunities. They voted against all of those investments.

They continue to say that they are great on trade, but if we look at their actual record, there were five free trade agreements. We are opening up opportunities in Korea, in Europe. Honda has said it is going to be sending out its new CR-Vs directly to Europe. That is because it sees the opportunities right here in Canada in manufacturing. It sees that Canadian workers, Canadian companies, can compete and succeed. That is why on this side of the house, we have clarity on manufacturing; we have clarity on the economy. I wish that the members opposite would get clear on what really is a pro-Canada agenda.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised by the parliamentary secretary's speech. I must admit, he is rather consistent. However, we obviously do not agree, especially when it comes to sick leave. I think it is despicable that this government is attacking its own employees for political reasons, to achieve a budget surplus.

I would like to him to clarify what he is thinking. On one hand, he is threatening employees with cuts through this bill, on the other hand, he is talking about negotiating when the employees have a gun to their heads.

In his speech, is the parliamentary secretary saying that he is prepared to suspend the sick leave measures in the bill in order to leave room for negotiations?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member saying that I am consistent. My wife would agree with the hon. member that consistency is one of my traits that is positive, I hope. However, I also have to compliment the members. The NDP are consistently against Canadian jobs and opportunities such as trade.

However, getting back to the point of sick leave, I said in my speech very clearly that we want to help make sure that our employees, particularly those who are new to the public service and young, have access to a safety net that will help them return to work. I would suggest that the member opposite read the actual budget implementation act under division 20, clauses 270 and 271, which may bring him some comfort.

As I said, the government is taking the position that we want to make sure we have a safety net for our employees, but also to make sure that we are accountable to taxpayers, and that we provide sick leave to those who are sick and not to those who are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is called the 2015 budget. However, to my perspective, it is actually the 2017 budget because none of the money for cities will arrive for two years.

We will hear in conversations from the other side about how the Conservatives have put all kinds of money into cities through the gas tax. I would remind everybody here that this was a Paul Martin Liberal Party initiative. To take credit for it is to give us credit for forward thinking.

However, the budget has been described by the minister on the other side continually in question period as having three Ts, and I agree with him. There are three Ts. This budget is totally useless, totally unnecessary and totally unfair. For cities, nothing highlights this more than the housing promises.

There is a provision in the budget bill to forgive mortgages held by CMHC taken out by public housing providers and to put a fund in place to pay off the penalties for discharging mortgages and refinancing, and that is taking up a second mortgage with a second, private sector lender. What is not detailed, but has now come out through questioning, is that when public housing providers take advantage of this so-called opportunity, they lose their subsidies for the rent-geared-to-income units in those buildings. In other words, they would give up a mortgage, take on a new mortgage and somehow, magically, would be expected to finance subsidies for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and other individuals who need assistance. They would actually end up spending more money, relieving the federal government's obligation to people who need housing.

That is the most cynical bait and switch I have ever seen on the housing file. What it ends up situating is one of two opportunities. Either low-income Canadians are subsidizing the government so it can provide tax cuts for affluent Canadians, literally Robin Hood in reverse; or else, the housing providers are given an opportunity to refinance the housing, but in doing so they send the poorest in the housing sector out onto the streets. Out west in Manitoba, where the minister resides, most of those people, close to 5,000 of them, are seniors on fixed incomes. Putting those people at risk is unfair. The fund is totally useless and the response to the needs of the housing sector is totally unreal.

However, it is not just that. There is a promise of $1.7 billion being spent every year as a result of provincial and federal agreements. The Conservatives said that would be continued, that there would be no cuts to this program. They know damn well that those funds actually shrink year after year as subsidies disappear and as mortgages expire. The suggestion is that because they would have no mortgage, they could somehow have a poor neighbour subsidize a less affluent, even poorer neighbour. That is just not fair.

What is really cruel about this is that the assumption is that because housing providers have retired their mortgage they can finally find sums to pay for the subsidy. The truth of the matter is that the funds that are needed when these mortgages retire are there for state of good repair. Because there is no federal capital funding to repair old and aging housing stock, the money that suddenly becomes available to housing providers is dedicated for that, not for subsidies for other poor people. It is the most regressive way of running a housing program we have ever seen.

We have a housing policy, and that policy is more than a plan to have a plan. It involves partnering with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funding directly, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to create supportive housing programs with an endowment. The second part of that is to renew the co-op and housing agreements and to step back into the housing market, but then also to take those savings as they accrue to the department and reinvest them once again in sustaining and building more co-op and affordable housing across the country.

The final piece of this is that with a shrinking CMHC and pulling CMHC out of the housing market, we also need to ensure we do not just focus on affordable housing but housing affordability. That housing affordability is critical in places like Calgary, Saskatoon and Edmonton where, because of the drop in commodity prices, the housing market has suddenly become very fragile. We need a federal government that protects middle-class homeowners, access to rental housing and access to the market for first-time buyers. Instead, what we get is some sort of laissez-faire attitude that says “do what you will”. We have not indexed, for example, the tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, so it is still stuck in the 1980s model as opposed to being updated annually and making housing accessible to everyone who wants to gain that opportunity.

These programs need to arrive. The government on the other side has no program other than to pull money out fo the public housing sector and use it to subsidize tax breaks to the affluent.

The NDP, to its credit, has a plan but it is only a plan to have a plan. If we read Bill C-400, we see it is to have a big meeting. There are no actual specifics as to how to solve the housing crisis in the country.

When we speak about it and folks criticize an earlier government, they are fine to go off and build a time machine, and go back and prosecute that election. It is time to start building housing in the country and the Liberal plan would do that. This budget does not address one iota of that.

On transit, it is even sillier. There is no money for two years and then it comes in dribs and drabs. The program the government has proposed is too big for small cities and too small for big cities, and it will not get transit built in a timely way. Cities need that money now, and not just for new projects. The state of good repair in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver is a critical issue facing urban centres. Without additional dollars, not earmarked for ribbon-cutting exercises but earmarked for the development and sustaining of existing transit systems, those transit systems will fail.

Stepping in and providing that revenue is critically important today, not in two or three years' time. If it arrives in two or three years' time, the new transit does not arrive for five to ten years, and that is not a response to gridlock. In fact, what the Conservative government is saying with this budget is, “Wait at the side of the road. Wait for the bus for two or three more years. Wait, wait, wait, we'll get to you at some point”, because right now it is more important not to provide the assistance to cities for which they have asked.

Finally on infrastructure, two years ago there was a 90% cut. Last year, there were zero dollars in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and small communities and small towns right across the country. The odd dollar arrived, but the bulk of the program, once again, is back-end loaded for 10 years. For critical infrastructure, to build strong cities, in which close to 82% of Canadians live, there is no new money in this budget. There is not a new timetable. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the cities know this.

This budget has to change, and it has to change to support those very programs I just mentioned. If it does not change, cities will not grow, our country will stagnate, and 82% of all Canadians will see their cities fail as the government promises tax cuts that, quite frankly, do not even address the socio-economic needs of the people who live in those cities. This is a huge problem and it needs to change and it needs to change with a go-forward argument, not a debate about what happened 25 years ago.