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(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;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

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his confidence in my legal expertise. I did spend almost 30 years practising law, so I have a good sense of how the law operates. Having been here for seven years now, I also have a sense for how things get spun out of all proper proportion in the political world.

My colleague is placing unfounded fears before the House. With respect to labour negotiations, the budget of course sets the framework. As a lawyer, he will know that the frameworks establishes parameters, negotiations continue, and it is still open to the parties to reach a negotiated solution.

With respect to the long gun registry, my colleague knows full well that the intent of this honourable House was to abolish the long gun registry and to get rid of the data that went with it. This implementation bill would correct any oversight in that regard.

I want to close by reminding my colleague that this budget would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. I know that, on his side of the House, he has recently become a convert to low business taxes. Will he support that in this budget?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member really needs to expand his reading to go beyond the Prime Minister's Office. The numbers he throws out are truly amazing. I suspect he might actually believe what he is espousing when he glows about the millions of dollars going from Ottawa to the manufacturing industry. I can tell him that it is not working. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost in Ontario alone. That is a record high. No federal government other than the current one has seen so many jobs disappear.

When the member talks about the income-splitting issue, the bottom line is that less than 15% of people would benefit, the majority of whom are Canada's wealthiest.

When we talk about a deficit, the current government has added $4,400 for every man, woman, and child living in Canada.

My question is this. Does the member exercise any reading outside of the Prime Minister's Office?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly this question demonstrates one of the worst aspects of this particular Parliament, which is when one descends to personal slurs and attacks. It does not bother me, as I am used to hearing it, particularly from the Liberals. I respected and appreciated the comments made by my NDP colleague earlier, because he did not take the same low road that the member who just asked about my reading ability has done.

Just to establish beyond a doubt, let me read some of the things that I have read about this budget to my Liberal colleague, particularly with respect to Canadian manufacturing.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters stated:

...this year’s budget backs up the importance of both manufacturing and exporting with a number of important tax and investment measures that will have a very positive impact for CME members.

Most importantly, the budget provides an Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance over the next ten years for investments in manufacturing and processing technologies.

Aéro Montréal stated it is:

...proud that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of deploying such a program nationwide. This will...[provide a funding boost to programs] already in place in Québec.

Let me close with the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, which stated:

From the business perspective, this is a good-news budget. Economic growth in Canada is delivered—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, order.

Resuming debate with the last 10 minutes this evening, the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member could not put his speaking notes down. He really, truly believes that his speaking notes are his bible.

It is important to speak to this budget, which does such a bad job of addressing real need in Canada. It is a budget that is primarily focused on one thing, and that is the electoral prospects of the Conservative Party. To do that, Conservatives have questionably balanced the ledger and found new ways to reward Canadians who are doing very well.

In addition to that, they have wrapped these measures up in another omnibus bill that is stuffed full of items that have little or nothing to do with the federal budget. That has become a standard move from the Conservative playbook, and Canadians are getting tired of the budget shell game the government plays, with all sorts of measures that have nothing to do with spending and everything to do with keeping debate at a minimum.

That is among the reasons that New Democrats oppose this budget legislation. We oppose it on its content and on the anti-democratic process the Conservatives are using to force it through Parliament.

In many ways, this bill is like all of the other Conservative budgets we have studied in this Parliament. One thing they all have in common is the speed at which the Conservatives pass them, regardless of what is in them. Every day we see that the Conservatives are prepared to use undemocratic measures to impose their laws at breakneck speed. The more controversial the bills are, the faster the Conservatives push them through the House and through committee without proper study.

The other constant with these budgets is the government's ability to completely ignore the measures it could take to truly address the key issues facing the Canadian public. Too often the Conservatives choose to focus on the people they think will vote for them. This group never seems to include the growing number of families who work hard but cannot manage to make ends meet, no matter what they do.

If we look at how this budget was developed, it is clear that the Conservatives balanced the budget by making devastating cuts to the public service, by raiding the employment insurance fund—something they learned from the Liberals—and by selling Canada's shares in General Motors Canada. All of these measures will have an impact on the quality of the services that Canadian families rely on.

Balancing a budget in that way might get a pass at the cabinet table, but it would not get a pass at most kitchen tables, and it certainly would not in northern Ontario. In northern Ontario, people understand the value of hard work and the notion of a fair deal, and they are not seeing much of either in this budget legislation. They see right through things, like the unfair and top-heavy income-splitting scheme in the budget. Northerners understand it is nothing like the income-splitting plan for seniors.

This new scheme is designed to reward the wealthiest among us at a time when Canada has still not replaced the hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that were lost in the economic meltdown of 2008. This is not a measure to address need. It will not do anything to help with the jobs that are still being lost at places like Bombardier. That is what a budget should be addressing, but this one does far too little to address real need.

Another item that will not fly in the north is the notion that the employment insurance fund is a stream of revenue for the Minister of Finance to tap whenever things become a little difficult. Employment insurance is not supposed to provide mad money for the government so that it can dubiously balance the budget, but that is what has happened. This turns employment insurance into another level of taxation in this country. This means there is no truth to the Conservatives' low-tax stories that they like to tell themselves.

The real truth is that the budget is being balanced on additional taxation that is arrived at by turning employment insurance into a program that is less responsive, less well funded, and as we have seen, less available for those who actually pay the freight. I know that the Conservatives learned this from the Liberals. They turned raiding public funds into something of an art form, but it is stealing, nonetheless, and just because one party did it does not mean it is acceptable or wise. What it amounts to is just more tax for the privilege of having a job, and nothing less.

There are elements of the budget that are acceptable and, in a few cases, pretty good ideas, but that is what happens when we turn to New Democrats for ideas. An example of that is the way we have led the fight for tax relief for small businesses for some time. We heard the Conservatives say it was their idea. In actuality, they voted against it when we put it forward. Now they are saying it is their idea, but it is actually the New Democrats' idea. New Democrats understand that these businesses are Canada's real job creators, and we are happy to see that the government is starting to take action by lowering the tax rate for small and medium-sized businesses. Better late than never; that is the way we feel about this move.

The same can be said for measures that would remove some of the red tape these businesses are forced to navigate. Again, the New Democrats have called on the Conservatives to reduce red tape on small businesses for a while now, so the small amount of movement on that front in this budget is welcome too.

We can also point to the way the government is trying to repair its battered relationship with veterans, as a welcome addition to this omnibus bill. At the same time, we understand that this is just a start and the Conservatives should have gone further and committed to finally fixing Veterans Affairs, implementing the veterans charter, and reopening the nine veterans service centres across Canada. The Conservatives supported our motion this week. Let us hope that they will actually respect it and put it into action.

They are doing something and, as I said during debate on our opposition motion earlier this week, the Conservatives could remove the section related to veterans from inside the budget and bring it before the House of Commons immediately to be debated on its own merit. They may be laughing on that side, but when it comes to veterans, we are supporting them and we are the ones who are taking action. That would be a strong move that would remove the matter of veterans from the debate surrounding more contentious aspects of this budget and allow them to see—as they did when the New Democrats' motion was passed this week—how support for our veterans comes from all parts of the political spectrum. Without pursuing that course of action, the sad fact is that the government is planning to use veterans as a wedge in a cynical political move.

However, that is not what Canadians need or want. There are too many significant challenges to get sidetracked by an argument that has been planned for and is brazenly calculated.

What we need to be seized with, and what is missing from this budget, are measures that would deal with some of the bigger problems our country faces, like persistent and structural youth unemployment and under-employment. In fact, there is not much for young people in this budget at all. There are no messages of hope from the government on that front. The Conservatives should try to implement a youth hiring and training credit that would help businesses create jobs for young Canadians, but they did not. That is a New Democrat idea that the Conservatives could have borrowed as well. It would have been smart. Instead, the government is all in on items that would benefit a small and well-off portion of the population, with wasteful and unfair tax schemes like income splitting and increasing the tax-free savings account, which would cost billions. To pay for this, the Conservatives are nickel and diming most everyone else.

I encourage Canadians to understand that we are paying for these measures in some part on the backs of seniors who are being allowed to live under or at the poverty line for another budget cycle. That is because there is nothing in this budget to lift seniors out of poverty. New Democrats would never hand out lavish tax breaks without first addressing the circumstances of vulnerable seniors. We would immediately reverse the federal government's plan to raise the retirement age of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement to 67. New Democrats would also move forward on proposals for provincial and territorial finance ministers to increase basic public pension benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans and implement a plan to begin phasing in such an increase without delay, because that is what seniors need and what they deserve.

What Canadians need and deserve is a government that delivers for the whole country and not just for its supporters. Canadians deserve budgets that concern themselves with economic measures and that are not chock-full of the government's dirty work. Canadians deserve a budget that will bring back some of the good jobs we have lost during the Conservatives' reign, and of course, they deserve a budget that works to bring people together and not divide them.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders today has expired, but the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing will get five minutes for questions and comments when this matter next returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Erin O'Toole, Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House, in two capacities, to speak on the budget implementation act.

I am very honoured to represent my home town in Parliament as the member of Parliament for Durham and the communities of Clarington, Scugog and Uxbridge. I will speak to some of the great elements of economic action plan 2015 that concerns my constituents in my riding and issues for which I have advocated.

I also have the tremendous honour to sit in the House of Commons as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. As someone who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 12 years and had worked on these issues before joining this Parliament, it is a profound honour that I take seriously. There are some amazing new benefits and programs in the budget implementation act for veterans and their families, which I have made a pledge to pass before Parliament rises for the summer. It is why it is in the budget implementation act itself.

First, as the member of Parliament for Durham, I am very proud of this budget and what we would implement with it, because this is the culmination of four years of dedicated and strategic work by the Prime Minister and by our government.

Budgets do not balance themselves. Governments need to set priorities. They need to plan and they need to ensure they set an environment for job creation and economic growth, without taxing Canadians and small businesses too much, so we can stimulate an active economy and really see job creation and participation in our economy by young people, families and through seniors in their working and retirement years.

First, this budget is a balanced budget. We made a commitment to reach balance in 2015. We did that while raising transfer payments, in my case, to Ontario by over 80% for health and education. We did not take the route the Liberals did to balance a budget by slashing transfers to the provinces and making premiers cut hospitals and nurses. We have been increasing steadily that commitment. We have balanced the budget through growing the economy and by slowing the growth of government to core and strategic areas.

We told Canadians that once we achieved balance, we would offer tax relief for families with young children, seniors who were on fixed incomes and to continue to stimulate our economy. I am proud to say we have done that.

On the universal child care benefit, it is key to recognize that it is universal. Families with children will receive support, and then they can make their own decisions on what best works for their family. Whether one parent steps away from the workforce for a few years, whether one reduces and goes part time, whether they use live-in care, whether they use daycare, whether they use a parent or an aunt to look after the kids, parents make their choices and we empower that through our universal child care benefit. This has been very well received in my riding of Durham.

Now we are increasing it to $160 per month for children under six, which will be almost $2,000 a year for families to make their decisions with respect to child care. We are also enhancing it beyond the age of six, recognizing that there is after-school care. Schools get out 3 p.m. and parents need flexibility. Therefore, there will be almost $720 in a new extension of the universal child care benefit for children 6 to 17. We are increasing the child care expense deduction by $1,000 to allow people who use child care services to have more tax deductibility for that.

With our family tax cut, we are allowing income splitting on a limited basis for families in particular where mom or dad decides to step out of the workplace for a few years or reduce their hours. We are allowing that family unit to be taxed as more of a single unit, because parents are making decisions as a unit when they are raising families. All families do. I see that daily in my area of Courtice, Ontario. Therefore, while they are raising their children, this will allow them to smooth off that income and save up to $2,000 as part of our family tax cut.

For seniors, we are continuing to build on recognizing that seniors built the country, they are on fixed incomes in their pension retirement years and they need our support. Costs are going up.

We introduced pension income splitting a few years ago to allow seniors to be taxed as a unit while on a fixed income. In this budget, we have provided more flexibility so less withdrawals from RRIFs have to occur to allow for more savings. We have increased the tax-free savings account to $10,000 to allow financial planning and certainty for seniors and all families, and to encourage a saving culture.

I am also very proud that this government has listened to the MPs who hear from seniors in their ridings who want to stay in their homes and, in some cases, need modifications made to stay there. We have the home accessibility tax credit of up to $1,500, which would allow seniors to make modifications so they could stay in their own homes.

We are delivering for families and seniors with a balanced budget, as we promised.

Small businesses are the majority of employers across Canada. We have been cultivating the small business sector with over 30% lower taxes for it, allowing small businesses to invest with tax measures and encouraging them to hire in recent years with a new-hire tax credit. I am very proud our government is lowering the small business tax credit in this budget, from 11% to 9%. That allows small businesses to hire a few more people, to invest in their operations, to be competitive and grow. It is about jobs across the country, including in my riding of Durham.

This is how governments should work. It makes a plan, sets priorities, articulates that to Canadians, and then has the leadership that this Prime Minister has shown to deliver on that plan. This budget and the implementation of it recognizes that we are delivering exactly what we said when we reached a balance budget: support for families with young children, support for seniors, and stimulating economic growth and job creation in communities across the country.

In the remainder of my time, I will speak as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am very happy that the budget implementation act has some tremendous new benefits for veterans and their families, building on the work of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs last year. The new veterans charter needed to be updated and amended to address our most seriously injured, those who have the most difficult time transitioning from their careers in the Canadian Armed Forces, and some of the gaps in the new veterans charter brought in by the Liberal government, implemented by our government, and voted on by all members in the House. With fixes contained in this budget implementation act, we will get to a veterans charter that will serve more than just most veterans. It will serve all veterans.

The retirement income security benefit addresses the issue of post-65 income for seriously injured veterans, when their earning loss benefit ends at 65 and they hit those retirement years. Under the old system, they would have seen a big drop in income at 65. We fixed that. We are guaranteeing them a predictable level of income post- 65, along with a permanent impairment allowance, another lifetime benefit, which over time I want to see streamlined into a single pension for the most seriously injured. With the retirement income security benefit, the RISB, contained in this implementation act, we will give peace of mind to veterans, who are moderately to severely injured in service to Canada, and their families.

Also in this implementation act is a critical injury benefit, a benefit that recognizes and compensates for the pain and suffering that servicemen and women will go through if they are critically injured in service to their country, an acute injury that leads to hospitalization, intensive care, surgical intervention. In the past, if they recovered, they would get a disability award based on the recovery without recognizing all the pain and suffering of that recovery time. The critical injury benefit would do that.

As well, there is the family caregiver relief benefit for the most seriously injured, which will provide over $7,000 tax free to a family to provide more flexibility. If we know a spouse or adult child is an added caregiver, Veterans Affairs will provide contracted care in the home. However, the home will be changed if someone is seriously injured. We are providing more flexibility, recognizing the critical role of family in the wellness of veterans.

These types of new benefits for the most seriously injured veterans and their families are items for which all parties have asked. They were contained in Bill C-58, but after six weeks of delay, intentional or not, six weeks of criticism of the very reforms that some members of the House asked for last year, I have included all of these provisions alongside our purpose statement of obligation in the budget implementation act.

It is a great act not just as the MP for Durham and the support for families and businesses, but I am profoundly proud of what it would do for veterans and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He said that he would like to pass this before Parliament rose and yet he had an opportunity to do so just last week when the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-58 several times, which roughly covers the same ground.

It is hard to listen to the member talk about us putting obstacles in the way of veterans' benefits when the member was not willing to pass it right away. Our veterans need real support. Veterans Affairs runs just one hospital close to my riding, which is known as Ste. Anne's Hospital. Sean Bruyea, a veterans advocate, says that it is essential to have such hospitals because they understand that the needs of veterans are unique.

Supporting our troops needs to be more than just a bumper sticker slogan. We need true support for our troops and support for the families of veterans. Will the member undertake to take Bill C-58 out of the omnibus budget bill and pass it right away, right here, right now?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to veterans and their families over the last four months, as we have rolled out new benefits, new improvements, many of which members like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore recommended as part of the standing committee last year. When these benefits were rolled out, they were criticized, suggesting there would be delays on it. Therefore, we are moving to ensure I keep my commitment by putting it in the budget implementation act.

When the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore asked for unanimous consent of Bill C-58, it was after the budget implementation act had already been earmarked to go before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for debate. Unfortunately, that member and the NDP continue to be several steps behind and continue to play a little politics on these issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a balanced budget. It is important for people to recognize that we are months away from an election, and the Minister of Finance proclaims to all Canadians that we have a balanced budget. He wholesaled $2 billion worth of GM shares. He dipped into the contingency fund, something which other ministers said they would not do, to balance the budget. The Conservatives created a false impression that they actually created a balanced budget with a surplus of just over $1 billion. Canadians need to be aware that the Conservative majority government has never achieved a balanced budget, but miraculously in the year of an election, it has claimed it has one.

Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin consistently produced balanced budgets. Does the member believe the Conservative government will fool Canadians into believing it has a balanced budget when in reality it does not?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I am little surprised my friend would phrase the question that way if he listened to my remarks. This is a balanced budget. There still is contingency funds set aside. There has been spending on priority areas for Canadians. However, what makes it very different from the budgets of the Chrétien era is the fact that we have balanced this budget without foisting on the provinces massive cuts to health care. The interesting thing is that member would know he made the provinces cut and slash. He made Roy Romanow close more hospitals than any premier in the history of that province because Liberals balanced the budget on the backs of the provinces. That is not leadership.

The Liberals also slashed the Canadian Armed Forces in the nineties down to threadbare status. We have not done that either.

I am proud that we are balancing the budget and offering tax relief. My province of Ontario, under the course of this budget, has received over 80% more in transfers. We are allowing the provinces to have a steady and predictable stream of income for their priorities and we are making the priorities set on a federal level to balance.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to a previous question that continues to be put out to mislead people about veterans' hospitals, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs clarify the situation with veterans' hospitals and what has been going on with them, frankly, for the last 40 years, in terms of transferring to the provinces?

[Erin O'Toole]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and RCAF caucus colleague from Edmonton Centre for his question and his work for veterans. He knows these issues perhaps better than anyone in this House. I have learned a lot from him, and we are going to proceed to inform my friend from the NDP about how this program has worked.

Veterans Affairs Canada did have a network of hospitals in the 1950s, after World War II, before Canada had public health care. Beginning with Prime Minister Diefenbaker in the 1960s, these hospitals started being transferred to provincial governments.

As the member from Quebec noted, the final hospital transfer is of Ste. Anne's Hospital to the Quebec government. The transfer of Camp Hill, for instance, which the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore mentions quite regularly, was carried out in 1978.

The provinces will set the priorities on how those facilities are used. However, any veterans injured in the service of their country will have their care, including long-term care, paid for by the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce this government's undemocratic ways.

We have before us a budget implementation bill that is over 160 pages long, contains over 270 provisions and amends dozens of laws. I find it appalling that the government has introduced such a huge bill that includes legislation that has nothing to do with the budget. What is the prevention of terrorist travel act doing in a budget implementation bill?

I think it is worth pointing out that the current Prime Minister was the first to condemn this kind of practice when the Liberals were in power. At the time, he was shocked that a government could enact so many laws in one fell swoop. He has become very good at something he once denounced.

The number of pages in this omnibus bill is not the only problem. Another frightening thing is that the government is refusing to debate it. It imposed a gag order, as it does every time one of its bills contains contentious provisions. We cannot properly represent our constituents, the people who elected us, if we do not have the time to thoroughly examine the proposed provisions.

We are talking about the budget implementation bill. We are talking about Canada's future, and it is not right for a government to have such contempt for the people or toy with its institutions. This government is making a mockery of democracy and thumbing its nose at Canadians.

I will now talk about the content of the bill. Bill C-59 is a bill that we cannot support.

Let us start with income splitting. This is the perfect example of how out of touch the Conservatives are, since, as we know, only families with two incomes in two different tax brackets will benefit from this measure.

I would like to remind everyone of the impact that income splitting has on women. I have the good fortune of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I would like to share some of what we heard from witnesses. According to them, single women and single-parent families will not benefit at all from income splitting.

Similarly, the elimination of the child tax credit will take away about $2 billion from parents, many of whom are single parents. All of the family-related tax transfers actually deter the very women the government claims to care about.

Fewer women will be participating in the workforce as a result of this measure. According to Kathleen Lahey of the faculty of law at Queen's University, the advantages of income splitting will actually encourage young women and female college graduates to pay even less attention to their salary, since, after they talk to their peers, spouse or partner, they will know that it may be more worthwhile for the family to replace paid work with unpaid work.

While the whole country is trying to find better jobs for women, the government is using tax breaks to encourage them not to work. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Conservatives love to quote, has been critical of income splitting.

He estimates that the average benefit will go to families whose income exceeds $180,000, which is 15% of families. He also said that income splitting will cost taxpayers $2.5 billion in 2015. The Conservatives are ignoring the 85% of Canadian families who will not benefit from this measure. Why? Because they have their sights set on the election coming up in a few months and they are more interested in helping out those they think will vote for them. That group of people never seems to include families that are working very hard and having trouble making ends meet. The fact is that these families are struggling with income stagnation and the rising cost of living, which is prompting them to take on massive debt.

There are now 250,000 fewer jobs in Canada than there were before the recession, and 160,000 fewer jobs for youth. If one believed all the ads the government has bought with taxpayer money—almost $750 million worth—one would think everything was hunky-dory. However, Canadians know different because they are still carrying the highest debt loads in Canadian history.

In an atrocious economic environment, one would think job one from the government of the day would be to create jobs, to get people back to work, to diversify the economy, and to invest in the economy in ways that would actually produce the jobs that we have been missing since the last global recession.

Instead, we see the true priorities of the Conservatives when it comes to jobs, and that is their own jobs. They are hoping to buy back re-election just one more time. That is why they raised the ceiling for the TFSA, which will benefit only 20% of the wealthiest Canadians and will not increase Canadians' savings; however, it will certainly cost our economy billions of dollars.

Instead of doing things that are not going to stimulate our economy, the government could have invested in our health care system. Investing in health is an investment in Canada's economic future. For example, providing care to someone over 65 costs five times more than providing care to someone between 15 and 65. This Conservative government is turning a deaf ear and abandoning our seniors, the middle class and the least fortunate, who will not be able to access adequate health care. They prefer to spend money on catering to the needs of the highest earners.

Canadians deserve a government that works for all Canadians, not just for its supporters. They deserve a budget that works for them and contains sound economic measures, not electoral goodies.

I will close by emphasizing that this is the 96th time the government is imposing time allocation in this parliament. In Canada, we have never had a government that abused time allocation and closure as much as this one has. This is a testament to the arrogance and incompetence of this government, which has introduced a number of bills in the House of Commons that have been rejected by the courts. They were rejected because the government does not really do its due diligence to verify its bills. Canadians are fed up with this government that plays fast and loose with its institutions and they will prove it in October.