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(a) reduces the required minimum amount that must be withdrawn annually from a registered retirement income fund, a variable benefit money purchase registered pension plan or a pooled registered pension plan;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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are 149 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-59. All motions, except Motion No. 49 and Motion No. 116, have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115, and 117 to 149 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 48, 50 to 115 and 117 to 149 to the House.

Motions in amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the long title.

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

,

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

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting the short title.

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

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

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

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

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. House leader for the official opposition is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt you, but the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour is on his phone and that is not permitted in this House. I have made signs for him to stop his call, but he appears to be ignoring me, and quite frankly, he still is. Members know that the rules in the House mean that a member cannot be talking openly on his or her phone in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hope that the member realized that was not acceptable and that he ended his call.

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

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

Motion No. 28

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

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

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

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

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

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

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

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

moved:

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

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

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

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

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

moved:

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 253.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 254.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 255.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 256.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 257.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 258.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 259.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 260.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 261.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 262.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 263.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 264.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 265.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 266.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 267.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 268.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 269.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 270.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 271.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 272.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Clause 273.

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

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

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Schedule 1.

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-59 be amended by deleting Schedule 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for going through that prodigious task of reading out the amendments to this omnibus budget bill. The reason there are so many is that it is such a bad piece of legislation. It takes a lot to fix something that is so inherently flawed as this budget bill is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reading out some of the amendments the NDP has brought to this 150-page omnibus bill, which has 270 amendments contained within and a range that is breathtaking. Yet is not surprising with these Conservatives, who have grown somewhat addicted to the idea that all legislation of merit should pass unscrutinized through the House of Commons and should be done under the guillotine of time allocation and the closure of debate. That is a process the Conservatives like to use now, having been in government and having grown in their arrogance and entitlement. It is a process they used to hate when in opposition, and now they have used it almost 100 times, I believe, to shut down debate on almost every piece of legislation that has been in the House.

This bill was also rushed through, yet it touches on some important things. It is worth taking a step back to look at the context in which this budget falls.

We have seen the Canadian economy for the last 16 months experience its slowest growth, outside of a recession, in more than 40 years. Think about that for a moment. The Conservatives have been in power for nine years now, trotting out their old Reaganomics trickle-down theories, and we have seen the results: losses of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, 1.3 million Canadians out of work, and almost a quarter-million more Canadians out of work than when the Prime Minister took office.

Having experimented with their failed policies, we now have a moment in which we see the results. For 16 months, the growth rate in Canada has been far below that of population growth in Canada. It is the worst record, outside of a recession, any government has seen in more than a generation. These guys are out patting themselves on the back, spending $750 million on self-promoting ads to tell Canadians how terrific it is, but Canadians know the reality. Canadians who have experienced job losses, Canadians who have experienced the lower quality of jobs, which according to CIBC are the lowest-quality of jobs in Canada in a generation, know the reality. No quarter-billion dollar ad campaign is going to cover up for that.

We have also seen job losses across sectors, not just the more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario and Quebec and value-added jobs right across the country, but retail and energy jobs. Just today, Blacks Canada is shutting its stores, following Sony, following Target, following job losses in the energy sector and beyond.

The Conservatives have also refused to act on some things that just seem like no-brainers. New Democrats found a big loophole in the tax system. It is for the folks in the corner offices on Bay Street. It is a CEO-designed loophole for someone who is paid in stock dividends.

Conservatives claim to protect the middle class. I do not know a lot of middle-class Canadians who are paid in stock dividends, but the middle-class Canadians the Conservatives are focused on are given a $750-million tax break every year. That is $750 million for those who get paid in stock dividends, because they get taxed at a much lower rate than we mere humans. The folks up in the office towers and penthouse suites get a three-quarter of a billion dollar tax break from the Conservatives each and every year. New Democrats sought to close that tax loophole and transfer the money over to low-income Canadians, and the Conservatives said no.

The government promised to create more than 100,000 child care spaces. We remember that promise. It was similar to the promise the Prime Minister made that he would not appoint anyone to the Senate. Do members remember that? Do members remember the Prime Minister getting up and saying that he would not appoint anyone to that unaccountable, unelected chamber? That is what he called it. Lo and behold, the seeds we sow bear fruit. We see it today with a bunch of senators finally getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They are getting Canadian taxpayers to pay for golf trips, hockey games, for fishing, and for getting a staffer to drive a car back to the east coast. Is it not nice to be a senator?

There is also paying for a second home, because Lord knows, a senator making $140,000 a year and working sometimes three days a week for several hours a day must be exhausted. It must be hard on one's constitution.

All those bagmen, failed Conservative candidates, and failed Liberals that slopped their way over to the Senate finally got caught doing what we know they have been doing for years. Thank God for them the audit only went back so far. We know that if a corrupt institution is built, it will act like a corrupt institution. That is what the Senate is.

If we look back to the original speeches of this country, it was John A. Macdonald, when he was arguing for the creation of the Senate, who said that they needed to create the Senate to protect minorities from the rabble, from the majority here in the House of Commons. What minority was he speaking of? It was the wealthy. His argument was that they needed to protect wealthy Canadians from the rabble, from the rest, from the majority, and thereby needed to create the unelected Senate.

The Prime Minister promised reform, and he only gave us something somehow worse. The New Democrats have been making arguments for generations now to abolish the Senate. Who knew that senators would make an even better case for their own abolition? There they are doing it day in and day out.

What else is in this bill, another massive omnibus bill? The Conservatives do not even talk about them anymore, because they have been such policy failures, but two things they have trotted out include a $2.2 billion income-splitting scheme that would help out only 15% of Canadian families and would skew toward wealthier Canadian families. It would not help create any child care spaces, breaking yet another Conservative promise made by the current Prime Minister. It would not help out low- and middle-income Canadians or working Canadians at all. What it would do is allow wealthier Canadians to split income and so forth and gain back more tax money. That may help out the friends around the Prime Minister's dining table, but it would not help out Canadians around their dining room tables.

The Conservatives then doubled down and said they would double the TFSA, the tax-free savings account, which at its current $5,500 cap is only being maxed out by about 11% of Canadians. We asked them for evidence of how it would help Canadians, even if TFSAs to this point have helped Canadians save. They have not at all. What Canadians are doing is transferring money from one retirement vehicle to another. That is fine and fair enough, but now they are doubling it. What effect will that have?

We learned that the top 20% of earners, the top 20% of Canadians, the wealthiest Canadians, will in fact get 180% more benefit than all the rest of us combined. Is that not nice? If people are well off, earning $200,000 or $300,000 a year, Conservatives have their interests at heart. They are willing to spend billions of dollars to do it. In fact, doubling of the TFSA would, over time, cost $30 billion to $40 billion a year to the treasury. When the Minister of Finance was asked about this, he said that was not for us to worry about; it was for the Prime Minister's imagined granddaughter to worry about. Is that not nice?

That is not the Conservative thinking I know. The conservative people I know in the northwest of British Columbia are conservative in their thinking. They like to pass things on to their kids and grandkids in better shape than they found them. They do not like to leave a big bill behind, as the Conservatives are doing with climate change. The Conservatives are saying that someone else will have to deal with that.

They say that they are going to push forward things to try to buy the next vote, because they are down in the polls and they need help in the election. So what if this thing gets massive over time and costs future generations the ability to pay for health care, roads, sewers, and bridges, which we desperately need.

There is a $172-billion infrastructure deficit in this country right now. What did the Conservatives trot out to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities last week? It was back-loaded programs: transit later, infrastructure funding later. Right now, the Conservatives need to try to buy their way back into office because of all the scandals and the corruption that has gone on under their watch.

We also see that just in the last few years, Conservatives have cut $14 billion from program spending. This is funding that was going to vets, to food safety, to rail safety, and to employment insurance, another fund they raided. We remember how the Conservatives used to chastise my Liberal friends down the way for raiding the employment insurance fund to the tune of $54 billion. The Conservatives must have been paying too much attention.

Finally, there is a little retroactive piece in here. The Conservatives are going back in time and re-interpreting and reimagining the will of Parliament with respect to the elimination of the long gun registry. This is fascinating. The Privacy Commissioner came forward and said that it was perilous. She noted that if the same thing had been imagined by the Liberals while they were in power, we would have never found out what happened in the sponsorship scandal, because what they would have been able to do was retroactively go back and reimagine what Parliament was thinking that day and make what was illegal suddenly legal. They buried this in this bill.

[An hon. member]

What a concept.

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

“What a concept”, say the Liberals down the way, Mr. Speaker. If only the Liberals had thought of that we would not have known about all those tens of millions of dollars they stole on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives probably would not be anywhere close to power, but so be it.

What they want to do is change precedent in Canadian law, and to do this they are burying it in the middle of an omnibus bill.

This does so little for the Canadian economy, and Lord knows, the economy needs some help, but their plan has failed. If the Conservative plan for the Canadian economy was working, well then it would be working, but 1.3 million Canadians out of work today will tell us otherwise. This is not a plan to get this country back on track.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the government's budget, Canadians recognize many different issues. One is the sense of unfairness. The member made reference to income splitting. The government is proposing to spend literally $2 billion annually that fewer than 15% of Canadians would actually benefit from.

The Liberals are suggesting that it would be far better to give money to our middle class in a tax break. We are giving a flat percentage across the board to provide a tax break for the middle class.

I am wondering if the member could give some insight into what the NDP would be proposing in terms of tax breaks, if that is something currently in their platform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say that there is some confusion about the Liberal plan, because it changed three times in the first 72 hours after it was introduced. There is now another new Liberal plan, of sorts, to potentially go after the CPP, the Canada pension plan. It is a little risky, because it is directing the CPP in what to do and not do.

The Liberals used to be in favour of voluntary CPP contributions. The Conservatives were opposed. Now they have switched places. Now the Conservatives are in favour of voluntary contributions, and the Liberals are opposed. Consistency is rewarded occasionally in political life. We will find out.

One issue I was not able to get to in my speech was the section about unpaid interns. We heard from Claire Seaborn, of the Canadian Intern Association, and other groups, like CASA, and folks who were very concerned about protecting unpaid interns from sexual harassment and from unfair work conditions, which right now they are not. Conservatives promised to move on this, and we looked forward to some action to protect what are obviously vulnerable workers. They are taking internships. They would be taking paid jobs, most likely, if they could find them, but in today's economy, under the Conservatives, they cannot.

Allowing for the protection of unpaid interns is important to us, yet we get to the omnibus bill, and it still allows for sexual harassment of unpaid interns and for unfair work hours. We pull back from this and ask what Conservative priorities are. Young Canadians in particular are vulnerable when they take some of these internships. Why, for heaven's sake, would we not protect them under the Labour Code like we do all other workers? Yet again, Conservatives did not find the heart or time to protect the most vulnerable and those who need the help.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent speech about the Conservative budget. I think he described with great clarity how the economy is doing remarkably poorly right now, how we have the slowest growth in about 40 years, and how young people are on track to do worse than their parents did in this economy.

It is not surprising that the Conservatives do not want people to be looking at the economy, so they trotted out their anti-terrorism bill, that very dangerous Bill C-51, which sadly, was supported by the Liberals and passed in this House by the Conservatives as a kind of distraction so that people would not be focused on this poor economy.

I want to ask a question that directly impacts the city of Toronto, where my constituency is. On Monday, all of our subway systems were shut down in the middle of rush hour for more than an hour. What we are hearing from the Toronto Transit Commission is that we are not even keeping up with the kind of maintenance we need for our existing subway system, not to mention the huge growth in our population and the dramatic need for greater investment in transit in our city.

The Conservatives talk a lot about investing in infrastructure, but I am not seeing any result from this in the city of Toronto. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the need for infrastructure and what exactly is covered in this budget in terms of infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, we see how this works. The Toronto Board of Trade has said that traffic congestion is costing the Toronto and Canadian economy billions of dollars, that smart investment is in things like transit.

However, we see how Conservative priorities line up, which is to try to protect their own jobs by moving through income splitting, helping only 15% of Canadians. They actually backdated that program. However, when we get to transit and infrastructure funding, the funding comes two, three years, eight, nine years down the road. It is obviously not a priority. We have to judge the Conservatives on what they actually choose to do, not what they choose to say. What they have chosen to do is leave cities like Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary all desperate for funding.

One of the Conservative MPs from Calgary actually chastised the Calgary mayor saying he should get on with it and start applying for money when Calgary had in fact applied three times. It was rejected twice and is still waiting on the third. It is time to work with the cities, work with the provinces and actually get this moving.

The NDP has a fully costed proposal that was warmly accepted at the FCM just this past weekend. We look forward to engaging with cities as a government to be able to move our economy forward to take up the congestion, get people back to work and our economy back on track.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage. I understand I am speaking to my amendments that were the deletion amendments and that substantive amendments that I put forward still await a ruling.

As I have the floor now, just in brief response to the point made by the government House leader that he was somewhat caught unaware by my point of order, I have checked with my staff on the number of times the government House leader has risen on points of order directed at restricting my rights as a member of Parliament. I have not received any advance notice from the government House leader. Not that I was in any way suggesting tit-for-tat, but I did not realize it was a convention in this place to give the government House leader more notice of my points of order than he has ever given me.

Turning to the substance of Bill C-59, I appreciate the remarks from my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The substance of the bill needs to be put forward again clearly that this is an omnibus budget bill once again.

This is an omnibus budget bill that amends 20 different Canadian laws. These are 20 completely different things.

Therefore, there is no single unified purpose, which is the underlying principle of why we would ever have omnibus legislation in this country. Under this administration, the use of omnibus budget bills is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, as is the use of time allocation. We have never had any other administration ever put forward so much legislation through the form of omnibus budget bills with sections that are unrelated to each other and equally unrelated to the budget.

This one is not as lengthy as others. Certainly, Bill C-38 had over 400 pages and was followed by Bill C-45 at over 400 pages. In earlier times, when the Conservatives were a minority, they brought forward 800 pages of omnibus budget legislation in 2008. I think it was over 900 pages in 2009. In terms of page length, this one is just under 160 pages. It is less lengthy but no less complex than previous omnibus budget bills. As a result, it has had inadequate study. It was pushed through committee and pushed through this place, with time allocation at every stage.

In looking at it in any level of detail, I think it is worth reviewing with other members of this House because we have had so little time to study it, how many different sections of laws are affected by this.

It affects parliamentary precinct security. That is one thing I want to return to because it is a fundamental and very important constitutional question of who is in charge of security in this place.

It changes the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA.

It makes amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, a good piece of legislation that we had been waiting for for some time, which really deserves its own care and attention through this place.

It makes changes to the Trust and Loan Companies Act.

It makes changes to the Public Service Labour Relations Act, which are quite egregious in that they pre-empt collective bargaining. I will stop at this point to say that this pre-empts collective bargaining to make changes to sick leave provisions for our very hard-working federal civil servants.

The changes that would occur to the National Energy Board Act would change the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of natural gas issued under the NEB Act.

It goes on and on in terms of the number of distinct and different pieces of legislation, none with a relation to each other, none receiving adequate study.

I will add one anecdote. I presented amendments at committee on a previous omnibus budget bill. It was not until I presented the amendments that the committee realized that there had been no witnesses on that particular section. None of the committee members remembered having read it, so my amendments could not be adequately discussed because nobody really knew about that section of the omnibus bill. There were just too many sections to give it adequate care and attention.

Let me just touch on some of the ones that are concerning.

I certainly was concerned to see the changes to the Copyright Act. These are changes that benefit the music industry, particularly the large U.S. companies, not the songwriters and not the musicians of Canada, by changing the copyright for a song recording from 50 to 70 years.

There are also changes in division 9. I mention these briefly but without describing them. The natural gas exportation licence would be extended to 40 years, up from 25. That is quite a significant change. It was opposed in committee by the witnesses from West Coast Environmental Law. I will just quote from their testimony. They said:

It is quite possible that something thought to be a good idea today may not, in 25 years' time, with the advent of climate change, economic shifts, an increasingly harmed environment, and other potentially unforeseen alterations in the landscape...

be considered a good idea in four years' time. These are significant changes that did not receive enough study.

We heard from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, and I completely agree, about the precarious nature of interns working in the federal civil service. All parties have at various times said that they want to do something to ensure that unpaid internships and student work within the government are protected properly. The access is going to go in that direction, but as a submission from the Canadian Intern Association made clear, much more needs to be done if these workers are not to be exploited in the system.

Given the time I have at the moment, I will move on to other areas of the bill that really should have had greater study. The biometrics piece is one that came out with witness testimony at the very last minute. It was actually on the morning that we moved to clause-by-clause. We realized how sweeping the changes are in terms of collecting biometric information. They might even apply to people who want to come here as tourists, given the changes that were made in the fall of 2012 in Bill C-45. For people seeking to come here on vacation, if they are not in a country that requires a visa, these potential tourists would also have to apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for permission to come to Canada. The sweeping nature of the changes under biometrics information could apply to tourists, even though I do not believe that that is the government's intent.

Let me just make sure that in the three minutes remaining, I concentrate on the two most egregious changes in Bill C-59.

I mentioned earlier the change in security in the parliamentary precinct. There could not be a more serious issue for those of us assembled in this place. We had the attack and the tragic murder of Nathan Cirillo on October 22, 2014, and what could have been a far more devastating tragedy had the security team of the House of Commons, the RCMP, and the Ottawa Police had not acted as they did and ended that crisis.

The conclusion being reached that we need a unified security team is exactly right. We do need to ensure that the outside grounds and the inside of Parliament are all protected by people who are in one unified system. The large question, and one that has been rushed through this place without adequate study, is which of the security agencies should be in control. It is deeply embedded in parliamentary tradition. The first reference to this that I could find goes back to the year 1500. It is deeply embedded in parliamentary tradition that you, Mr. Speaker, are the person, the entity and the office that protects the security of the members here.

A change to give control to the RCMP, which ultimately reports to the Prime Minister or to the executive part of government, is a fundamental change that is unconstitutional. However, because of the privileges that surround Parliament itself, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to challenge this in a court.

It should not be rushed through this place. It is a fundamental change in the relationship between the Speaker, the members of Parliament who look to the Speaker for the protection of their rights, and the risk of an abuse of that authority to impede access to this place, based on party membership. I am not going to suggest that it exists with any particular prime minister. There is a significant risk that remains for potential future prime ministers if we do not change this.

The last point I want to raise is best expressed in the words of the Information Commissioner of Canada about the changes to undo laws in effect. She said:

These proposed changes would retroactively quash Canadians’ right of access and the government’s obligations under the Access to Information Act. It will effectively erase history.

...[it] is not an attempt to close a loophole; but rather it is an attempt to create a black hole.

Such changes should not be allowed in any democracy. Bill C-59 should therefore be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is interesting, with these omnibus bills that are notionally attached to the budget, that we spend so much of our time talking about non-budget things, because that is the majority of what sits in the bill. That is also true for this Bill C-59. It has 150 pages and 270 different clauses changing all sorts of laws and rules, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with the Canadian economy.

One would wonder if a government is actually interested in helping out Canadians who are out of work, the 1.3 million-odd Canadians. The youth unemployment rate is 1.5 points higher than it was a year ago, and we have had more than 16 months of terrible growth rates in Canada, never mind the innovation gap. The Prime Minister recently committed to decarbonizing the Canadian economy in 85 years' time.

I am wondering what my friend's assessment is. There has been a global surge in clean tech investments, outpacing investments in carbon energy, globally speaking, and many of the provinces and cities have moved forward in Canada. Yet the lack of leadership, the lack of thoughtfulness about this pressing environmental concern, is only surpassed by the ignorance toward the economic opportunities that exist for Canadians to retrofit their homes, to move to and from work in more environmentally friendly ways, and to go to work at places that are more conscious of our impact on the planet.

My question is of a financial nature, yet wedded within the ecological questions that we all must ask ourselves. The Prime Minister has now committed that he thinks carbon is a problem and he is going to do something about it—or not him, but 85 years from now someone is going to do something about it.

I am wondering about my friend's assessment of Canada's performance to this point in getting onboard that light rail train of opportunity that is expressed by the clean tech sector globally.

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

Mr. Speaker, my assessment is that we have missed that train. That train is out of the station.

The member has raised a very important point. Last year, 2014, was the first year ever, in terms of global finance, that the investments in clean tech and renewables outpaced investments in fossil fuels.

This particular administration has misjudged the marketplace and failed to diversify. The “putting your eggs in the bitumen basket” strategy has created the economic uncertainties that the finance minister used as the excuse for delaying his budget.

I do not think we were ever as dependent on bitumen as the propaganda would want us to believe. The oil sands, while important, contribute only 2% to our GDP. Small business in Canada contributes 30%.

While I do applaud the fact that the Prime Minister has finally accepted a communique that uses the word “decarbonization”, I lament the fact that Canada's recalcitrance and objections at the summit in Germany led to the G7 weakening its timetable to get us to where the world needs to be in a post-fossil economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could pick up on the leader of the Green Party's comments, in which she talked about how it is that we have, in essence, a legislative agenda being incorporated into a budget document, in good part.

There is a loss of opportunity to provide diligence by having separate pieces of legislation before the House, where they would be properly debated and individual experts would be afforded the opportunity to present at committee stage, so that we could in fact have good, solid legislation. Quite often there is merit for some things in the budget legislation that would be great stand-alone legislation.

Doing things in the manner the government has, it has really deprived Canadians the opportunity to have a good, sound, robust system that would ensure we have good legislation, recognizing of course that all governments of all political stripes at different levels do at times incorporate legislation into budget bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North allows me to point out that, under this Conservative administration, the treatment of legislation through the House amounts to contempt of Parliament. There has been a series of abuses, from the use of omnibus budget bills to time allocation, to converting what used to be a very consensual, non-partisan study of bills in parliamentary committees into a scripted, whipped vote process in which amendments that should be accepted because they represent misunderstandings or typographical errors, even clerical errors, were pushed through, in bills such as Bill C-38. It is, in fact, a contempt of Parliament.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House and discuss Bill C-59, which would implement certain provisions of economic action plan 2015.

First, let me remind the House and Canadians who are watching that we live in what continue to be challenging times. Around the world, many nations, including some of our friends and allies, struggle to achieve fiscal security. Global growth coming out of the great recession has been lacklustre. Geopolitical uncertainty continues to hobble the recovery. Of course, the dramatic plunge in oil prices has taken its toll. It has taken its toll here and in many other countries around the world.

Still, the news for Canada is, by and large, positive and good. This is thanks to the strong leadership of our Prime Minister and our low-tax balanced budget plan. Just last month, Canada's economy added nearly 59,000 jobs, almost all of them in the private sector and most full-time jobs, which raises the number of jobs created since June 2009 to more than 1.2 million jobs.

As any economist would tell the official opposition, no single labour force survey should be interpreted on its own, given the volatility of the job market. However, I must point out that over the last six months, total employment has averaged gains of 15,200 per month, and over the last year, employment has averaged gains of 16,000 per month.

The facts are clear. Canada's economic action plan is working. Canada has demonstrated the best economic performance among the G7 countries over this recovery period. The IMF, or International Monetary Fund, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development expect Canada's growth, already ahead of our peers during the recovery, to continue to be solid. Of course, we have a balanced budget. All the while, the government has maintained its priority: putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and hard-working businessmen and businesswomen. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that we have returned to a balanced budget while maintaining the lowest tax burden on Canadians in half a century.

That brings me to economic action plan 2015. Now that the budget is balanced, our government can continue to focus on what matters most to Canadians. Those priorities are, one, helping Canadians and communities prosper; two, ensuring the security of Canadians and protecting Canadians from the threat of terrorism at home and abroad; and three, supporting jobs and growth by creating an economic environment that allows businesses to thrive, fostering trade, and making essential investments in world-class advanced research and infrastructure.

Ever since Canadians first elected and trusted our government to place Canada on the path toward growth and prosperity, our approach has been clear and consistent: take as little as possible and give as much as possible. From families with young children to seniors, small businesses, and beyond, we have followed through. We have reduced taxes more than 180 times since 2006 and we have no intention of stopping now.

Bill C-59 goes even further to help families make ends meet with the following measures: implementing the family tax cut, which would allow a high-income spouse to, in effect, transfer up to $50,000 of taxable income to a spouse in a lower tax bracket, saving tax dollars for that family; increasing the universal child care benefit for children under age 6 and expanding it to children between the ages of 6 and 17; and increasing the child care expense deduction dollar limits by $1,000.

This is all good news for Canadian families, but both opposition parties have opposed much of our tax reductions. The Liberal leader has said that he would reverse the family tax cut because it costs the government too much. Whose money does he think this is?

By promising to adopt the Ontario Liberal dramatic payroll tax hike, the Liberal leader also promised he would force money directly off middle-class workers' paycheques, without their consent. A worker earning $60,000 a year would take a mandatory $1,000 pay cut with the Liberal plan.

Meanwhile, the NDP wants to raise the price of gas and groceries with a carbon tax. While raising government revenues is its priority, our priority is helping families make ends meet.

Another priority I would like to touch on for a moment is our government's responsibility to ensure safety and security of Canadians and defend the nation's sovereignty. Canadians want to feel safe and secure in their homes. They want to feel safe online. They want to feel safe in their communities.

Our government understands the dangers, and we are determined to respond to those dangers. Today's legislation includes several measures to ensure the continued security of Canadians. First, protecting the integrity of our borders is essential to keeping Canadians safe and secure, while facilitating economic activity.

In economic action plan 2014, we highlighted the importance of biometric immigration screening as an effective means to combat identity fraud and abuse of Canada's immigration system, including helping to identify known criminals before they come to Canada. To further improve the security and integrity of Canada's immigration system, economic action plan 2015 proposes to expand the use of biometric screening to verify the identity of all visa-required travellers seeking entrance to Canada. By helping to prevent inadmissible individuals from entering our country, expanding biometric screening would help facilitate legitimate travel to Canada while protecting the safety and security of our Canadian citizens.

Finally, we remain unflagging in our support for jobs and growth. It only makes sense that small businesses the drivers of job creation, receive as much tax relief as we can provide them. After all, they account for 99% of all businesses across our country and they employ half of all the working men and women in the private sector. A business that spends its time focused on its own success, rather than handing over to the government excessive amounts of its profits or complying with onerous and unnecessary red tape, is one that is creating jobs to benefit hard-working Canadians.

Today's legislation continues to break new ground. It would reduce the small business tax rate to 9% by 2019. That is the largest tax rate cut for small businesses in more than 25 years. For example, for a small business with taxable income of $500,000, as a result of this tax cut and other measures that we have brought forward since 2006 in previous legislation, the amount of federal tax paid would be nearly 50% lower than since we were elected in 2006. That is nearly a 50% reduction in taxes that these small businesses could use to create jobs and reinvest in their businesses, in innovation, or in research, or perhaps even hire extra staff for extra positions.

It is very unfortunate that the Liberal leader opposed our newest small business tax cut. We know the NDP does as well. The changes we have made would help enhance the ability of small businesses across Canada to retain earnings, grow their businesses, and create jobs.

To sum up, in an uncertain world, Canada's economic action plan is working. It is creating jobs and it is keeping the economy growing. Now is not the time for risky schemes and untested leadership. By staying the course and sticking to the proven leadership that we have with our Prime Minister, Canada remains on track to a very bright future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by quickly setting the record straight after my colleague claimed that we are against lowering taxes for small businesses. In fact, the NDP proposed such measures even before the government presented its budget.

However, I want to focus on unpaid internships and on protecting the young people who work in federally regulated workplaces. We introduced a bill that the government opposed, but that would have improved conditions by preventing sexual harassment or unreasonable work shifts, which, in a very high profile case, even led to a death. In the Standing Committee on Finance, the minister's colleagues voted against including concrete measures in the budget, even though they had committed to bringing in these protections.

Could he explain why the government does not want to include concrete measure to protect interns and young workers in this omnibus budget bill, especially since the bill contains all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the budget?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member had a number of questions.

It takes more than standing in Parliament and saying that we are for small business, that we will cut small business tax. The NDP members can make all the claims they want. We have never seen them vote in support of a tax decrease. We have never seen them support a free trade agreement, maybe one with Korea. We have never seen a record that backs up what they say.

Our government recognizes that small businesses are the drivers of our economy and represent half of the employment in the private sector. We took that small business tax rate from 12% to 11%. This budget makes the further commitment to move it from 11% to 9%. There are a number of other measures in the budget such as the accelerated capital cost allowance for small business, for manufacturing, so they can invest back into their businesses to provide jobs for young and old.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things know from the Conservatives is that reality really does not matter. They have no problem, whether it is in question period or in giving their speeches, to make statements that are not only bizarre but just are not true.

We just heard that in a number of the statements from the member. When he talked about the child benefit, he said that the Liberals would get rid of it, take it away from Canadians. The reality is that leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus have been very clear that we will not take it away. In fact, the Liberal Canada child benefit plan is better than the Conservative plan. There would be more money going to the children of Canada.

How does the member reconcile truth from the non-reality of the statements he has put on record?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have had the Liberal leader make a pledge that he would cut income splitting and the family tax cut. He had a different plan for the universal child care benefit. Then all of a sudden the economists started looking at the Liberal plan. They saw his promises, but they saw a $2 billion mistake, a Liberal leader's oopsy, or as the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, a bozo moment. However, it would be $2 billion lack of funds.

Every family with children under the age of 18 would benefit from our tax breaks, and they know it. The vast majority of benefits go to low and middle-income Canadians, and they get it. A typical family will save $6,600 with the Conservative plan. We are reducing taxes on the middle class and providing benefits directly to families.

However, we know the Liberals would take that away. We know they would make promises that do not add up. We know they have a leader who believes that budgets magically balance themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have added over $120 billion to the national debt. They inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada, a $13-billion surplus. They actually spent through that and, through a combination of their tax and fiscal policy, put Canada into deficit even before the global financial crisis in the fall of 2008, and then went on to rack up record levels of national debt in Canada, including the largest deficits in Canadian history.

That is the fact on the Conservative's shoddy record of fiscal mismanagement.

I am rising today to speak to the government's budget bill, C-59. For years, the Conservatives have crossed the line in what is acceptable in a functioning democracy as a government in terms of respect for Parliament. It is not only how they have now normalized the use of massive omnibus bills, they regularly shut down debate in the House, they prorogue Parliament multiple times, they use committees as branch plants of minister's offices, but this legislation would go further than we have ever seen before. This legislation contains something so egregious it is shocking, even for the Conservative government.

The government, in this legislation, is actually trying to end an OPP investigation into the illegal destruction of documents. It would do this by retroactively making acts which were illegal at the time legal. It would effectively stop an OPP, or police, investigation into the RCMP, the very people we rely upon to uphold the law. The government has refused to say who in the government, whether it was the Minister of Public Safety, ordered the RCMP to break the law. With Bill C-59, Canadians may never find out.

Imagine retroactively making what was illegal at the time legal and allowing for the destruction of evidence associated with the wrongdoing. This is absolutely shocking.

I want to be clear. I believe the RCMP was given no choice by the government. It was given its marching orders. The legislation in this budget bill is actually being used by the Conservative government to try to cover up its crime.

In April 2012, the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act came into force. It called for the destruction of certain records in the long gun registry. However, it was flawed in that it made no mention of the Access to Information Act. That omission meant that the records could not be destroyed until after any pre-existing access to information cases were closed.

In April 2012, the Information Commissioner wrote to the Minister of Public Safety, in his role as the head of the RCMP, and reminded him of this legal commitment. On May 2, 2012, the public safety minister acknowledged the commissioner's letter and promised that the RCMP would abide by the access to information law in this matter.

This is the point at which the Conservative government could have gone back to Parliament to fix the legislation. It could have respected the law and our democratic institutions and sought Parliament's permission. Instead, somebody in the Conservative government ordered the RCMP to destroy the records and, as such, break the law. In October 2012, the RCMP did just that, destroying the records.

The Information Commissioner conducted an investigation and concluded that the RCMP destroyed the records knowing they were the subject of a request under the Access to Information Act. That is against the law.

In late March of this year, she referred the matter to the Attorney General. How did the government react? Instead of immediately referring the matter to an outside police organization for action, the reaction of the Conservatives was to cover up the crime.

The Conservatives' solution was this legislation, a budget bill. Imagine a budget bill being used to effectively and retroactively change the law to make the crime legal, erasing any liability for the people involved. The government has since referred the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police for an independent investigation into the matter. However, it will be hard for it to investigate when this law one past erases all liability for everyone involved and permits the government to effectively oversee the destruction of evidence of previous wrongdoing. Canadians deserve to know what happened and who broke the law.

At committee, I introduced amendments to allow the OPP's investigation to continue. My amendments would have delayed the elimination of liability and stopped the destruction of evidence. Records would have been protected from destruction “if there are reasonable grounds to believe that they could afford evidence of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under an Act of Parliament.”. These amendments were not about trying to save the long gun registry, they were about protecting only those records that provided evidence of an illegal act. The Conservatives quietly voted against the amendments and downplayed the whole affair. In their words, Bill C-59 simply closes a bureaucratic loophole.

I agree with the Information Commissioner when she says, “Bill C-59 is not an attempt to close a loophole; but rather it is an attempt to create a black hole”. The Information Commissioner has recently gone to the Federal Court to file a preservation order to stop the Conservative government from destroying evidence of wrongdoing. Members should let that sink in for a moment and think of the seriousness of what is going on here. An officer of Parliament has gone to court to stop the government from trying to cover up an illegal act.

I would like to go from this abuse of power and blatant corruption by the Conservative government in this budget implementation act to discussing some other measures in the bill that should also be considered offensive in terms of a functioning democracy.

There are measures in the bill which are almost certainly unconstitutional, such as Division 20, which is connected to the government's sick leave and disability programs. The government is using these measures to play politics and to deliberately pick a fight with the unions in the lead-up to an election. The Conservatives are circumventing the collective bargaining process in an attempt to unilaterally impose their will on government workers. They are trying to pretend that workers do not have legal rights. The government's behaviour is poisoning the well and will make it harder for future governments to achieve labour agreements and peace with labour unions in Canada.

We have also heard some very serious concerns about Division 3, which includes measures to extend privilege to patent or trade-mark agents and their clients. In the words of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, it “raises complex issues and would have significant implications not only for the patent and trade-marks system, but also for the legal profession, other professions, and for the administration of justice.”

The government is using omnibus legislation to bundle together hundreds of unrelated measures into a single bill. Many of these changes have nothing to do with the budget and do not belong in a budget bill. However, the Conservatives do not care about respecting Parliament. Instead of introducing proper legislation that allows for meaningful input from the public, the Conservatives combine an overwhelming amount of unrelated changes in legislation into a single bill. They do this in order to limit debate and scrutiny, and ram the changes through Parliament.

There are some measures in the bill which are actually related to the budget, such as the increase to the TFSA limits and income splitting, two measures that are disproportionately good for the wealthy but do not do enough for the middle class.

The Liberal plan for the middle class would cut the taxes for middle-class families. The Liberal plan for the middle class would introduce a new Canada child benefit that would provide middle-class families in Canada making $90,000 per year with two children a real break. They would get $2,500 more than they are getting from the Conservatives right now. Families making $45,000 per year with two children would be $4,000 better off than they are right now. Single parents would benefit from the Liberal leader's plan for a Canada child benefit. We would do more for the families that need the help the most. We would be able to afford to do that by doing a little less for the families that do not need the help. We do it in the context of respecting Parliament and the laws that govern our country. That is what a Liberal government would do to restore fairness and respect for the rule of law to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about the Liberal plans. We know what Liberal governments have done in the past and we know what Conservative governments have done in the past, and more and more working families are being left further behind.

The Liberal tax plan would give absolutely nothing to two-thirds of Canadians while giving the most benefit to wealthy people earning up to $200,000. It sounds a lot like the income-splitting scheme we have debated in this bill. We also have to look at the fact that under the Liberal tax plan somebody who makes $45,000 per year would get a total of $4.49, while someone making $150,000 would get $670. Can the member tell me how fair that really is?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would gladly take some time to provide the hon. member with a technical briefing of the Liberal plan for fairness, and I will help her somewhat because I am a generous person. The reality is a family making $45,000 per year with two children would be $4,000 better off every year over the Conservative plan with the Canada child benefit. That is huge.

In fact, some commentators have actually referred to this Liberal Canada child benefit as the closest thing we have seen to a guaranteed annual income for children. In fact, it would start at $6,400 per child, which is actually more generous than the Canada 2000 campaign has called for. One of the authors of our plan is Sherri Torjman who is at the Caledon Institute of Social Policy. We worked with Sherri Torjman. She is a member of my leader's economic advisory council. We have worked with some of the most progressive minds in Canadian social and economic policy to design a plan that is really good for middle-class families and those Canadians working hard to join the middle class.

We are very proud of our plan, and I think Canadians will see that it is a fair plan and it is a good plan for growth as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Kings—Hants, particularly for taking some time to walk through with some degree of detail the extraordinary legislative alchemy that magicians across the aisle propose to do. They propose to magic away laws that are currently in place for access to information, which would be removed even with, as the member pointed out, the full notice from the Information Commissioner to the former public safety minister, Vic Toews, warning him of what was going to occur and receiving from him an undertaking that the RCMP “...will abide by the right of access described in section 4 of the Act and its obligations in that regard”.

What are we to make of such an outrageous and flagrant violation, not just of our laws but of the principle that anything a minister says is worth the paper it is written on?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking just as a legislator. As a citizen, I find this disillusioning. The Conservatives have created sort of a new normal when it comes to these things, where the media in fact are not being as rigorous as they ought to be on this. It is a government that, effectively through an abuse of power, is changing a law retroactively to make legal that which was illegal at the time and destroying information and data, contrary to an officer of Parliament saying they should not be doing that.

I say this for all members of the House, regardless of party, and members of the governing party who sit in this House. Our role individually and collectively as members of Parliament is to scrutinize the activity of government even if we happen to be of the same party. The idea that the current government has created the sense that members of its caucus, whether at committee or in the House, have to basically follow marching orders and cannot question what a government is doing is fundamentally wrong.

I have been here long enough to remember when committees actually were not branch plants of ministers' offices, when committees actually rendered reports that were unanimous and sometimes disagreed with the governing party. I can tell members that a Liberal government would respect Parliament and we would see committees actually used for what they were intended, and that is to scrutinize legislation, to develop good public policy ideas and to work hard as legislators, untethered from the PMO and from ministers' offices to do their jobs on behalf of Canadians and to hold the government to account.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Report stage

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on economic action plan 2015.

First, I want to compliment the Minister of Finance for his budget and for this government's 10th budget since taking office in 2006. It is clear that since that time, we have indeed enjoyed a healthy, robust Canadian economy within the global network that we trade and work with, and we have gone through difficult times, which this government has faced and has put forward budgets that matched the time and need, and matched it responsibly. When we look at the economic action plan 2015, the plan for 2015-16, it is a balanced budget.

This is the first time a government has come from a situation where, as it wanted to make sure the economy of Canada was strong, went into deficit, but made a promise to ensure that, as the economy restructured, as we strengthened, it would indeed come out of that deficit, bring forward and present a budget that was balanced. Indeed, this budget is that.

I recall the election of 2005-06 when we won government. One of our five critical planks, important pieces of what we would do as a government, was to introduce a universal child care benefit that would see every family receive $100 a month per child under the age of six.

I recall at that time that the other parties involved in that election that won seats here in the House of Commons spoke vehemently against that plan and that decision. In fact, the Liberal Party is now presenting an interesting option, which it obviously sees as the way Canadian families want to see the universal child care benefit or child care assistance across this country be used, and that is directed to families across this country versus some form of a massive national child care plan.

Therefore, I have seen, at least in the last 10 years, the Liberals learn one thing about this country. In their 13 long years of continuing to promise a national child care program, which it never delivered in those 13 years, it looks like now, after an additional 10 years, some 23 years, they have finally abandoned that dream of a national child care plan and said that the Conservative government is actually onto something: actually giving taxpayers' money back to them—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. If those members at the back of the chamber want to yell at each other, would they please step out of the chamber? I am having a hard time hearing the parliamentary secretary.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. I know that my words instill discussion, and sometimes pointed discussion, from the Liberal Party over to the Conservative Party.

Let me repeat that, 23 years later, we finally have a Liberal Party that has said that maybe the national child care program is not going to work for them. However, what seems to be working for the Conservatives is actually listening to what families say, asking families to take the money that is theirs—which was paid to the federal government—and giving it back to them to use for their children.

In economic action plan 2015, we have introduced an opportunity for an additional $60 per month for every child from birth until 6 years of age, to receive $160 per month. Every child between the ages of 6 and 17 is now eligible for an additional $60 a month. We are growing a plan based on the fact that we now have additional revenue that has put us into a balanced budget position and has enabled us to tell families that they can have a little bit more of the money back that they paid to the federal government. What is more, they have it specifically to use for the children who are in their care, whom they brought into this world.

It seems to me that even the Liberal Party of Canada said, “Wow, these guys have figured out how to deal with families across this country”. They will try to have some sort of plan—although has a $2 billion hole in it—that maybe comes at least within striking distance of what the Conservatives are offering.

I will tell members something. Families across this country are seeing something interesting, which is a government trusting families with how they use that money for their children. Even some of the parties in opposition are starting to wonder whether that plan is something they should be endorsing and copying. I guess that is the most sincere form of flattery.

We have also increased by $1,000 the maximum amounts that can be claimed against child care expense deductions. That is an additional $1,000 for the purchase of child care. We have now increased it by $1,000 to allow families to keep some more of the money that they pay. We have also introduced the family tax cut, which is a tax credit of up to $2,000 for couples with children under the age of 18.

We said in 2011, during the campaign, that we would look to family income splitting. We introduced it in 2006-07 for seniors to split their income so they could keep more of their hard-earned pension dollars to be able to stay in their homes, live within their means, and have a little bit extra on a monthly basis to afford what they needed. We have taken that to the extent of being able to say that, yes, a form of income splitting is going to be introduced in the 2015 economic action plan. That is a tax credit of up to $2,000 per family.

We have also increased the child fitness tax credit. It is $1,000, which was made retroactive to 2014, and the credit is now refundable. Again, that is something that happened in 2006. We offered help to families across this country who were in need of some additional revenue. We offered help to families in need of a tax credit, at least, that allowed them to get their children into programs that would give them the ability to begin fitness, to stay in that vein to ensure that their health is better, to help them stay in shape, and to learn that as a way of life through their older years. Now, we have grown that to ensure that the cost for families to put their children in sports and fitness events is tax deductible.

Back in 2008, we also introduced the tax-free savings account, for the 2009 budget. It was introduced as a $5,000 amount. Individuals across this country over the age of 18 could deposit some savings into those accounts, and the interest earned on those accounts would never be taxed by the federal government.

We increased that in a subsequent budget, and we made a commitment to double it by the time we had reached the 2015-16 budget. We are now going to pass a budget that includes a maximum of $10,000 per year that can be contributed to one's tax-free savings account.

I have heard all of the rhetoric from across the way about who is going to benefit from this program the most. We need to look at how this has been implemented and how it has worked over the last number of years. If we go to page 233 of this budget, we see the tax-free savings account is a popular means of savings for Canadians at all income levels. Individuals with annual incomes of less than $80,000 accounted for more than 80% of all TFSA holders and about 75% of tax-free savings account assets at the end of 2013. About half of the TFSA holders had annual incomes of less than $42,000.

The folk arts multicultural celebration just took place in my community in the last two weeks of May, the longest-running folk arts festival in the country. On three separate occasions, individuals approached me to talk about this specific policy and said, “Rick, you don't know and understand. I'm not someone who earns $100,000 or $150,000 a year”. All three of them told me they make less than $60,000 a year and appreciate the fact that they can actually save for themselves and their futures without having to pay tax.

That is a way to help Canadians. It is a way that we have put in our budget. It is a budget that makes sense and a budget that should be supported.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would point out to the parliamentary secretary that using one's first name is not parliamentary language.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the government's willingness to try to get more kids active. Obviously, youth inactivity has been a big problem in Canada. A couple of years ago a report card was issued giving us a D, which is far from where we want to be.

On that note, I have a question about the fitness tax credit. The member alluded to people having that extra money, allowing them to sign their kids up for physical activity. I asked an order paper question a couple of months ago and another one, the answer to which should be coming before the end of this sitting, but I would ask the member to give me a little preview of that answer. Does he know how many new people actually signed up for organized sports in their communities—up to this point, I have been unable to get that answer from the government—or is it only benefiting people who had already signed up for physical activity? Is this really doing something to solve the problem of youth inactivity?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the member for seeking that number. I am sure when the order paper comes back, it will be shown. I will have a look at it before it gets sent over. I would be happy to get that number for him.

What this speaks to is that, across the country, people who were in a position where they could not necessarily afford to put their children into sports now at least feel and understand that the federal government is there to help them in that process. Let us not forget that, since that time in 2006, we have had programs like the Canadian Tire Jumpstart program so that, when there are situations when children are unable to sign up because of their parents' financial position, there is a way to make it happen. It is part of what was built upon, about getting children engaged and ensuring they have an opportunity to get involved in fitness and play sports. It is not just necessarily the government's responsibility to do that; it is the responsibility of all of us.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of funding families, but we all know that with the current government a family getting support is dependent on what income bracket the family is in.

I got a letter two days ago and I will quote from that letter. It says:

... [this Prime Minister's] government is abolishing the housing subsidies for low income families effective July 1 2015! This is disgraceful. Landlords of subsidized housing are claiming that they cannot lose the $200 a month subsidy and continue to offer housing to their current tenants. The families in those homes will be out on the street as they agreed to live in these apartments due to lower affordable rents.

The point is that the government is not helping low-income families. Through Canada Mortgage and Housing, it is cutting housing subsidies effective July 1. My question is this. Why is the government continuing to cut CMHC monies meant to ensure that individuals have a decent place to live while, at the same time, giving a $2 billion tax break to those who really do not need the money?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to focus the speech that I gave on the progress we have made from 2006 to 2015, and it is very clear. If there is ever an opportunity, the member should come to my riding in the St. Catharines community and see the investment the federal government has made into social housing, into assisting those who used to pay federal tax but do not have to pay it any more because we have raised the thresholds.

We have played a role in working with the region of Niagara and with regions across this country to ensure that those who need housing and those who cannot quite afford it have the opportunity to start and move in that direction. We have made those opportunities happen. We have continued to invest in housing. This budget invests again in housing. There has not been a budget since we took government that did not invest in social housing. The member knows it, and to say otherwise is a fallacy.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Conservative government's budget, which is an omnibus bill.

After studying the bill very carefully and consulting with my constituents as I went door to door on the weekend in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, I can confirm without a doubt that this budget is strictly an election budget. It favours the rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor, and more importantly, it does not meet the pressing needs of the people of my riding.

On top of that, the Conservatives have introduced another omnibus bill, a budget designed to make hundreds of changes with no opportunity for us to examine them. The bill is 150 pages long, has over 270 provisions and amends dozens of laws, including a large part that has nothing to do with the budget.

Once again, this government is showing its utter contempt for democracy. For these reasons, and many others that I will try to list, I am proud to say that as the NDP member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I oppose this budget.

I would like to talk about employment and investments in the regions. First of all, everywhere I go, the issue that my constituents want to talk about the most is employment. My region is no different than the rest of Quebec, but unfortunately, the Conservatives are offering nothing to spur job creation in the regions.

In fact, that is not entirely true. The Conservatives took our proposal to reduce taxes for small businesses to promote development and indirectly create jobs. The NDP truly believes that SMEs stimulate the local economy.

Other than this measure that they borrowed from our party, the Conservatives have made no investment in the regions of Quebec. On the contrary, they are still making major cuts to the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

More than 420,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector. The Conservatives stand idly by. Their budget is not really helping the situation. It only fixes past mistakes.

It is flattering to learn that the government is adopting our idea to extend the accelerated capital cost allowance period in the manufacturing sector. However, it is too bad that this measure comes so late, after the damage has been done.

In my region, the unemployment rate is alarming, and the government is doing nothing about it. Furthermore, the budget reaffirms the government's commitment to reducing EI premium rates and its refusal to make it more accessible for the workers who pay into it, but cannot access it when they need it. The government's reform is still just as detrimental, and to top it all off the government has followed in the Liberals' footsteps and raided the employment insurance fund to balance its books. These funds belong to the workers and employers.

Let us talk about the pyrrhotite situation. In the region, approximately 2,000 families have been affected by pyrrhotite. A number of these property owners are grappling with this problem. When I received the budget, I looked for the money set aside for this and the word “pyrrhotite”.

Since May 2, 2011, I have been working with the member for Trois-Rivières to raise awareness among MPs about the issue of pyrrhotite. We also asked the federal government to help these victims.

Unfortunately, the government's answer every time was that this was a provincial jurisdiction, even though the federal government had previously intervened in the pyrite crisis in Montreal. The pyrrhotite problem is devastating for our region. This is definitely a social crisis that the government should have taken action on.

Fortunately, it is not too late. Thanks to the NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Party will be able to redeem themselves by voting for Motion No. 615, moved by the member for Trois-Rivières.

As the official opposition’s deputy agriculture critic, another very important issue for me concerns temporary foreign workers. The problem is not only that the current government fails to take action at the right time during a crisis, but also that it creates even more crises.

For example, because of its reform of the temporary foreign worker program, last fall Quebec’s farmers lost $52 million. The government failed to take any financial action.

In the spring another crisis with this program was looming in the mushroom industry, for example, and once again the government stood idly by and did nothing. The temporary foreign workers program is vitally important to farming. By increasing the maximum number of years from two to four, the government caused a great deal of instability in the vegetable industry, not counting the training costs resulting from these changes.

I am really proud of my fight to make life more affordable for Canadian and Quebec consumers. However, it saddens me that the government is not doing anything to reduce the cost of living, especially when costs continue to rise while good jobs and good wages are not keeping up.

Fortunately, the NDP managed to get the government to support our motion forcing it to take action on pay-to-pay fees. It is important that the government regulate bank fees charged to consumers.

I am also dismayed to not find any measures to improve food security in Canada. In my riding, there are a growing number of people struggling to pay for rent or for groceries, and it is a shame that the Conservatives are not taking action to address this serious problem.

Under their watch, demand for food banks has gone up 25% since 2008. Government assistance and action have been ineffective and have not solved any of the problems. I would have liked to see the gora food strategy such as the one put forward by my colleague from Welland put in place by the government to improve the situation for these people.

I also want to point out that there is nothing in the budget for single-parent families. The government chose instead to proceed with income splitting, a measure that, according to reports by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the C.D. Howe Institute and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will benefit only 15% of families. They also indicated that the benefits will flow mainly to the wealthiest households and that such a policy would encourage women, in disproportionate numbers, to leave the labour market or not to enter it in the first place.

Doubling the tax-free savings account contribution limit is another foolish measure that will only help the wealthiest. In addition to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment that increasing the limit will not benefit the public purse, many studies have shown that a very small percentage of households will benefit from this measure. Once again, this measure will benefit only the wealthiest Canadians.

People in my riding are also concerned about cuts to Radio-Canada, which provides a vital service in the regions. Because of the government's cuts, the Radio-Canada network in Mauricie will have to make do with a 30-minute news broadcast all year long. Radio-Canada needs stable, long-term funding to do its job well.

The government must absolutely restore the health transfers to Quebec and other regions in the country. Its decision to freeze transfer caps is putting a great deal of pressure on the provincial governments. It is the federal government's duty to transfer the money the provinces need to provide people with adequate health care. The population of my riding is aging and health care is an important issue. Again, the government seems to want to balance its budget on the backs of people who truly need help.

In closing, I am extremely disappointed in this election budget. Making a budget is about choices. I would have liked to see more measures to help the middle class and families in my riding.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member to clarify a little of her speech.

She talked about our government borrowing the NDP's proposal for accelerated capital cost allowance. I hardly think that is correct when in fact the accelerated capital cost allowance was put in in 2007. We had extended it in a number of ways up until the end of 2015. In the NDP playbook, they were looking at an extension of an additional two years. In budget 2015, we are extending it by 10 years. That is hardly borrowing from the NDP playbook.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of giving business a 10-year window on this. As the member would probably know, many manufacturing businesses sometimes take two to three years to actually do the engineering and everything else that is required to make an investment in machinery

Could the member comment on the fact that maybe 10 years is better for business to be able to make these investment decisions?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

I remember when I first arrived after the election and the first time I worked in the House with my colleagues from the other parties. I found there was a real lack of collaboration and things have only gotten worse.

For example, the government introduced this omnibus bill. We should be focusing our efforts and working together more. When there is a good idea, we should use it and work with all the parties in the House to ensure that there is a healthy environment for creating jobs here in Canada.

We know that SMEs are important businesses, especially in rural areas where they create nearly 80% of the jobs. It is therefore important to have common sense measures to foster the right environment for creating jobs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here we are today debating amendments to the government's budget.

In anticipation of the election which is only months away, political parties are stating their ideas and some of their thoughts. I would like to share some of ours and ask the member to reflect on them and provide comment in regard to the NDP plan.

A Liberal government, for example, would make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That would be a $3 billion tax cut for those who need it the most. The Liberal plan would also provide one bigger, fairer, tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high cost of raising their kids. We would also ask the wealthiest Canadians to pay a little more so the middle class can pay less. Liberals would cancel the Prime Minister's income-splitting and other tax breaks for the wealthy. We would introduce a new tax bracket for the top 1% on incomes over $200,000.

I am wondering if the member could share some of her thoughts on these ideas.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that did not sound too much like a question, but more like an ad for the Liberal plan.

I would just like to reflect on something that we have proposed and something which I think a lot of Canadian families have really rallied behind in terms of child care. I am a single mom. I had my son at a young age, and when I went back to school, I put him in day care. It cost me $55 a day. I was a single mom going back to school and I paid $55 a day for child care.

In Quebec, we have a system and it works. It is great. However, across the country affordable child care is something that is very important for parents and those getting back into the workforce. It is something that both governments have promised quite a few times but have never been able to succeed in creating child care spaces.

With this upcoming election just a few months away, Canadians will be able to vote and actually get what was promised. They would have affordable child care spots for $15 a day. I think that is important for a lot of Canadian families

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my absolute pleasure to take part in this debate on Bill C-59. It is a bill that I am very proud of and a bill which will make a big difference to my constituents in Winnipeg South Centre.

To begin, Bill C-59 builds on our government's record of support for Canadian families by keeping taxes low and helping families save more and invest more in their children, their families, their future.

Since 2006, our government has introduced measures to make life much more affordable for families. These measures include: reducing the lowest personal income tax rate and increasing the basic personal amount, so making more income tax-free; cutting the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%; introducing pension income splitting for seniors, which makes a huge difference to so many seniors, and certainly is one thing I hear about in my riding; establishing tax credits to support working low-income individuals and families, public transit users, first time homebuyers. I received a thank you note from someone who had just bought their first house. Especially for families caring for disabled relatives, we have done amazing work in that area.

We have also provided additional support for families with children through the children's art and fitness tax credits, enhancements to the registered education savings plan, and adoption expense tax credits. Most recently, the government has proposed a new family tax cut and enhancements to the universal child care benefit and child care expense deduction.

Canadians of all income levels are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our government with low- and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionally greater relief.

I am going to speak specifically to what economic action plan 2015 has done for families, for seniors and for students.

This year, Canadian families and individuals will receive $37 billion in tax relief and increased benefits as a result of actions we have taken in government since 2006.

For example, a typical two-earner family of four will receive tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 annually in 2015 and every year going forward in perpetuity. This is thanks to measures such as the family tax cut, the universal child care benefit, the goods and services tax rate reduction, the children's fitness tax credit and other new credits, especially the broad-based income tax relief, including the reduction in the lowest personal income tax rate.

By reducing taxes year after year and enhancing benefits to Canadians, our government has given families and individuals greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them. Families are just like pantyhose: one size does not fit all.

Additionally, while we have been busy cutting taxes for families, we have in turn made sure that federal transfers to our provinces and territories, the transfers that help pay for what Canadians cherish so much, education and health care, have continued to grow. In fact, including the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer, this year, 2015-16, the amount is going to be almost $68 billion. This is an all-time high, and all the more impressive, it is at the same time as we brought the budget into balance.

This economic action plan is also very supportive of seniors who are already benefiting from important money-saving measures such as pension income splitting and of course, their TFSAs.

Bill C-59 will introduce new measures that give seniors freedom and more flexibility when it comes to managing their retirement income. For example, our government will be reducing the minimum withdrawal factors for registered retirement income funds. This will make a huge difference for many seniors in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre and across Canada. By permitting more capital preservation for our seniors, the new factors will help to reduce the risk of outliving one's savings, while ensuring that the tax deferral provided on RRSP and RRIF savings continues to serve a retirement income purpose.

I am also very pleased that our government is introducing the new home accessibility tax credit. This proposed 15% tax credit will apply on up to $10,000 of eligible home renovation expenditures per year for seniors and for people with disabilities all across Canada. Eligible expenditures will be for improvements that allow a senior or a person who is eligible for the disability tax credit to be more mobile, safe and functional within their homes. We will also be providing up to $42 million over five years to help establish the Canadian centre for aging and brain health innovation. We have allocated $37 million annually to extend employment insurance compassionate care benefits from the current six weeks to six months as of January 2016.

Our government continues to invest significant funding in training and education for students. Federal support for post-secondary education amounts to $10 billion annually and includes financial assistance, such as Canada student loans, Canada student grants, the Canada apprentice loan, and specific programming targeted to first nations and Inuit students. There are also programs designed to enhance skills training among specific groups, including through our youth employment strategy, through our opportunities fund for persons with disabilities, and of course, for aboriginal peoples, through investments of over $440 million annually.

In addition to ensuring Canadians have the skills they need, we also invest in labour market programming, which helps to bridge the current needs of our labour market with the future evolution of our labour force. In 2014-15, the government transferred $2.7 billion to support labour market programming, including $500 million for provinces and territories through the Canada job fund agreements, which include the Canada job grant.

The government has also taken action to support the labour market participation of older Canadians who wish to remain in the workforce by providing $75 million to renew the targeted initiative for older workers, providing assistance to improve the ability and employability of unemployed workers age 55 to 64.

This budget builds on existing measures to help people find jobs and help jobs find people. It commits to working with provinces and territories to facilitate the harmonization of apprenticeship training and certification requirements in targeted Red Seal trades. Some members know that Red Seal trades include mechanics, electricians, carpenters, and even bakers. Our government, since last year, has made it so apprentices in these trades have had access to over $100 million in interest-free federal loans each year.

Overall, Canada saw a 20% increase in registrations in apprenticeship programs between 2006 and 2012. Based on that success, Bill C-59 will provide $1 million over five years to Employment and Social Development Canada's Red Seal secretariat to promote the adoption of the Blue Seal certification program across Canada. Blue Seal certification recognizes business training among certified tradespeople. Currently offered in a few provincial jurisdictions, the certification can help increase the chances of business success for entrepreneurial tradespeople.

Finally, our government has fulfilled a long-standing commitment of increasing the annual contribution limits of tax-free savings accounts to $10,000. This will be helpful to all Canadians, including families, young people and seniors. TFSAs help Canadians save at every stage of life, whether for retirement, starting a business, or buying their very first home. By doubling the TFSA limit, which when we introduced the TFSA in 2009 was $5,000 annually, we are empowering Canadians to save even more of their own money for their own priorities. We hope that more Canadians will take advantage of the tax-free savings account going forward. Of the nearly 11 million individuals who already have a TFSA, 2.7 million are seniors.

I am extremely proud of our government and the continued commitments it has made to Canadian families, Canadian students and Canadian seniors.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House next returns to debate on this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will have a five-minute period for questions and comments with respect to her 10 minutes of remarks this afternoon.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day, for it is the 100th time the Conservative government has put a gag order on members. We must not forget that the role of members in this House is to represent our constituents and stand up for their ideas and their aspirations.

I represent the people of the riding of Drummond, and they want me to be able to have my say on this bill to implement certain provisions of the budget. The bill is extremely important, because it will have a significant impact on their lives. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have imposed a 100th gag order, which is a new record. It is completely shameful. On top of that, we are nearing the end of this term. Fortunately, we will have the chance to get rid of this Conservative government in the upcoming election.

I am very pleased nonetheless to have this tremendous opportunity to speak to this bad bill, an opportunity that some of my colleagues will unfortunately not have. Once again, the Conservatives have introduced an omnibus budget implementation bill. This mammoth bill was drafted in order to ram through—to say nothing of the gag order—hundreds of changes to a number of laws, without any study or scrutiny.

Let us talk about the Conservatives' bad ideas that are going to hurt the middle class. On the weekend, I attended half a dozen events where I met with people from Drummond's middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle class. They told me that the NDP's measures would encourage the middle class and that the Conservatives' measures, such as income splitting, would certainly not help them. That measure will benefit only the wealthiest 15% of our society. It is not going to help the people who truly need help in the riding of Drummond, and it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Canadians need our help. They need us to set a $15 an hour national minimum wage and implement a national child care program. With that improvement, Quebec would have a better-quality child care system. Canadians need us to cancel the $36 billion in cuts to health care that the Conservatives are planning to make over the next decade. These are bad decisions the Conservative government is making.

The Conservatives are also increasing the TFSA contribution limit. This will also benefit the wealthiest in our society, but there is nothing for the middle class or the people in Drummond who aspire to be part of it.

Families in Drummondville and the greater Drummond area want a responsible government that will address the challenges of this decade and this century, such as the fight against climate change. There is nothing in this budget implementation bill about the environment or the fight against climate change. We need to stimulate the economy, but we need an economy that is in line with the three pillars of sustainable development.

I do not need to remind the House that the leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, is the one who implemented the Sustainable Development Act in Quebec. He is the father of sustainable development. He is very familiar with the three pillars of sustainable development, whether we are talking about the economy or respect for the environment. Of course we need to stimulate the economy, but in doing so we need to be respectful of the environment and workers. Unfortunately, there is nothing about that in this budget.

It was not surprising to see that on his recent trip to Europe for the G7 summit, the Prime Minister sabotaged the efforts of the heads of state in this organization. They wanted to reach an agreement, to take a strong stand by limiting climate change and achieving carbon neutrality or no carbon emissions by 2050.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government, led by this Prime Minister, sabotaged the G7's vision by extending that timeframe far into the future. He said that our goal should be 2100. Once again, this government is passing problems on to future generations. As his Minister of Finance said, the Prime Minister's grandchildren will have to deal with this problem. That does not make any sense. It is a total lack of responsibility.

Canada definitely needs an NDP government because the NDP is the only party that can replace this tired, irresponsible government that does not care about future generations. An NDP government will make these kinds of changes.

There is no mention in this budget of programs to transition to green energy sources. As I mentioned, the government shows no desire to do so. Its weak Copenhagen target will not even be reached. This Conservative government was the only government in the world to withdraw from Kyoto. They are really out to lunch when they talk about the economy of the future. What, exactly, does that mean? It means an economy that will transition to green energy sources. The Conservative government has no plan to invest in green energy sources in its budget. It has no plan to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. Every year, Canada's fossil fuel industry receives some $1.3 billion in subsidies and all kinds of assistance. That is a huge amount of money that goes to companies that do not need it. Oil and gas companies, as well as companies in the coal industry, do not represent the economy of the future. The economy of the future involves transitioning towards green energy sources and energy efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have just two minutes left. Time flies. That is why, as I said, it does not make sense to have a gag order.

A few months ago, I moved a motion on energy efficiency. Unfortunately, the Conservatives opposed it.

I would like to refer to some other reports, but since I do not have much time left, I will conclude with a few words about a report entitled “Acting on Climate Change”. This is a solution proposed by 60 Canadian scholars. These scientists from across Canada have proposed solutions to address climate change. The government could have found some inspiration there. The report is non-partisan and unbiased.

According to the report, the first thing we need to do is put a price on carbon. We need a national emissions cap and trade system like the one that Quebec and California belong to. The NDP's proposals are similar. The report also calls for the elimination of fossil fuel industry subsidies. The $1.3 billion I mentioned could be allocated to green solutions. That would create 10 times more jobs. There would be 10 times more jobs for the people of Drummond if the government took that money and invested it in green energy. In addition, investments in building and maintaining infrastructure would have to tie in to a long-term decarbonization goal. There are so many economic measures the Conservative government could have taken to turn our economy into a low-carbon-emissions economy, but it did not. It is not doing anything for the environment and has no vision for the future in that regard.

The only party that has a vision for the future and can replace the Conservative government is the NDP, and that is what we will do on October 19. We will propose a comprehensive vision that integrates sustainable development, and we will grow the economy while respecting the environment and social issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, budgets are about priorities and the Liberal Party would argue that the government has its priorities all wrong. They are not the priorities of Canadians. It is important to recognize that under the the current government, middle-class Canadians have had to work longer and harder just to make ends meet. That is not right.

We are months away from an election and the budget debate provides us the opportunity to show some contrast. I would like to present some contrast and see if the member would like to do likewise for the NDP.

A Liberal government, for example, would make the tax system fairer and cut the middle-class tax rate by 7%. That is a $3 billion tax cut for those who need it the most. The Liberal plan would also provide one bigger, fairer tax-free monthly cheque to help families with the high costs of raising their kids. We would also ask the wealthiest Canadians to pay a little more so the middle-class can pay less. The Liberals would cancel the Prime Minister's income splitting and other tax breaks for the wealthy. We would introduce a new tax bracket for the top 1% of incomes over $200,000.

Would the member not agree that giving strength to Canada's middle class would give strength to Canada's economy, and that it is the way of the future?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I agree that the Conservatives have made some poor choices, and that is why I am mentioning it. People need to understand that the only party that is ready to replace the Conservatives is the NDP.

We need to get rid of income splitting and the increase in the TFSA limit, because those measures help only the richest 15%.

People in my riding tell me that we need to look after the middle class first, because members of the middle class are the ones who are having a hard time making ends meet. We also need to look after those who aspire to join the middle class. That is why we have a plan for small businesses.

Drummond has a long list of examples of successful small and medium-sized businesses that were set up by innovative, creative people. Those are the people we need to help, so that they can create jobs. Eighty per cent of new jobs are created by SMEs, and the NDP government will support SMEs to help create jobs.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for his speech.

I would like to pick up on what he said about the new economy and the extraordinary opportunities that come with protecting the environment. There is a very telling statistic about the Conservative reign. In 2006, the employment rate was 62.8% and in 2014 it was only 61.4%, which is a rather shameful statistic considering the economic recovery that followed the crisis.

It also stands to reason that with the upheaval related to the drop in the price of oil, the employment rate fell further in 2015. It really is too bad that we did not take up the challenge and start transitioning to a new economy, one that is more respectful and that gives people more autonomy in order to reduce their dependence on oil.

Would my colleague like to elaborate on the benefits of creating good-quality, well-paying jobs for middle-class families?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who is doing excellent work on environmental concerns at the Port of Québec. I am very proud because we cannot move the economy into the future in any old way.

There has to be a vision for sustainable development. I am so proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party, whose leader is the author of Quebec's Sustainable Development Act. He knows exactly what it means to move the economy forward while respecting the environment and the social concerns of workers and people.

When the people of Drummond hear about sustainable development and support for SMEs, they are truly happy because they know that is the way of the future. They know that 80% of new jobs are created by SMEs and that we need to give SMEs the opportunity to grow.

That is why we have a plan that will not only let SMEs grow and develop, but will help them to create jobs and hire people.

We also want to take back the $1.3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies. It is shameful that this money is used for that when it should be used to create the sustainable economies of the future.

We must not pass problems on to our grandchildren or, as the Minister of Finance said, pass the problems on to the Prime Minister's grandchildren. That makes no sense.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have kept our promise to Canadians, and the budget is balanced. Some underestimate the discipline involved. It was widely reported that there were some in the House that believed budgets magically balanced themselves. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me state for the record and the benefit of all members that magic cannot be counted on to balance the budget, and Hogwarts is not the London School of Economics. Our budget is balanced due to the fiscal responsibility of our government, not by waiving the magic wand. While the Liberals and the NDP are making billions of dollars in new political promises, I encourage both of those parties to dust off their calculators as their numbers do not add up. In fact, their budgetary plans have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.

Balanced budgets are the only way to ensure long-term prosperity in our economy. It allows for further tax relief for hard-working families and for our seniors. It bolsters our top credit rating, supports lower interest payments and protects health care transfers to the provinces. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity, no matter what some of our opposition colleagues might say. Now is not the time to spend money we do not have, which, if done, would only lead to massive deficits and larger debt payments.

For generations, Westman families have understood the path to prosperity and that we must not compromise tomorrow by spending recklessly today or pile on debt that we cannot afford. Rather, we must invest sensibly for a financially secure future.

My approach of standing up for hard-working taxpayers has been clear and consistent: take as little as possible and give back as much as we can. That is why I am pleased to stand and voice my support for this budget implementation act, as federal taxes are now the lowest they have been in 50 years. Countless seniors from my constituency of Brandon—Souris, and from across the country, have been taken off the tax rolls completely. Benefits are going directly to families, and we have reduced numerous taxes rather than funding an over-burgeoning and inefficient bureaucracy that can help few.

I also support this budget implementation act and budget 2015 because our Conservative government is supporting the good people of Manitoba like never before. Since 2006, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, health care transfers have risen by 57%. Unlike the previous Liberal government that drastically cut and slashed vital health care funding to Manitoba and other provinces to balance its federal budget, we took a much different approach. In fact, federal support has never been higher.

I am also pleased that the new building Canada plan is making critical infrastructure investments to grow Westman's economy, such as tripling the size of Manitoba's regional airport terminal at McGill Field, expanding the town of Deloraine's water treatment plant, and ensuring more homes and farms have access to clean drinking water in the rural municipality of Elton.

I would be remiss not to point out that the opposition voted against the funding of all these projects. The people of Westman are not pleased that every time the NDP and the Liberals have a chance to stand up for Brandon—Souris, they have sat on their hands. While the Liberals like to crow about infrastructure funding, they forget that their record of investing in Manitoba is abysmal. We only have to look at their lackluster infrastructure record of only investing $370 million in Manitoba over 12 years. In comparison, our Conservative government has already invested $1.2 billion into Manitoba's infrastructure, and we are well on our way to investing another $1.2 billion in the coming years.

Since the first day I had the honour of being elected as the member for Brandon—Souris in Parliament, I have reached out and consulted widely with local residents on ways we can continue to grow our economy and enhance our quality of life. I would like to briefly touch on the new measures contained in budget 2015 that support our seniors, reduce taxes for small business owners, and assist Westman farmers under initiatives that will close the skills gap and lead to the creation of new high-paying jobs.

Budget 2015 builds on our record of supporting seniors whose efforts have helped to make Canada the strong and prosperous country that it is today. We will reduce the minimum withdrawals for registered retirement income funds that will allow seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings to better support their current income needs.

Budget 2015 also introduces a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities to help with the costs of renovating their home so they can remain safe, secure and accessible.

There has been much hoopla from the opposition, which has something against Canadians putting more of their hard-earned money into a tax-free savings account. Without a doubt, the TFSA is the most important tax saving vehicle since the introduction of RRSPs. Providing Canadians a further incentive to save and invest is not only sound economic policy, it encourages future growth. The TFSA provides the flexibility of such things as saving for a new home and paying for their children's education. It is there for those who have an unexpected expense and need to quickly draw on their investments.

While our Conservative government will enhance the TFSA, the Liberals want to claw back this enhancement and, in turn, force Canadians into a mandated and compulsory increase in the CPP rather than trust Canadians to make investment decisions with their own money.

It should be noted for the record that regardless of what the Liberals may say about the tax-free savings account, 60% of those who have opened a TFSA make under $60,000 and close to half of those people with TFSAs are seniors. I can think of no greater example that highlights the difference between our government's economic agenda and the Liberal plan to force Canadians into larger, forced, mandatory CPP contributions.

While our plan allows Canadians the option of where they want to invest their money, the Liberal plan says that it knows what is best for them and while it is at it, it will take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of their employers as well.

Speaking of job creators, budget 2015 will help Westman's small business grow and create jobs. While we have already reduced the small business tax rate to 11% and increased the amount of income eligible from $300,000 to $500,000, this budget will further reduce the small business tax rate to 9%. This is in addition to the small business job credit that is providing relief for EI premiums.

As well, many Westman farmers will welcome the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million, which will allow them to retain more of their capital for retirement.

While our government's approach is to allow small businesses to keep more of their money to reinvest and hire even more employees, all of our hard work could be reversed if the Liberal CPP tax hike took effect.

Make no mistake, the Liberal, job-killing plan will hurt Westman's small business owners. While our government is investing in skills training and education for future growth, the Liberal tax plan will dampen the confidence of the private sector. Many in the House have raised the issue of the skills gap and how it affects their local economy. In many Westman communities, small business owners are having a hard time filling job openings.

The skills gap is an impediment and barrier not only to our local economy, but also to the national economy. That is why I am pleased our budget financially supports harmonizing apprenticeship training and certification requirements to targeted Red Seal trades.

I am also pleased that our government has made historic investments in apprenticeship training. We have supported post-secondary institutions, such as the Assiniboine Community College, so it can provide the skills and knowledge to meet local demands. Through programs such as the apprenticeship incentive and completion grants, we are providing young people with necessary financial assistance to finish their training. In addition to these, the tradesperson tool deduction and apprenticeship job creation tax credit and the Canada job grant are having a real world effect on our economy.

While there are those who have voted against some or all of these measures in the past, I encourage all colleagues in the House to support this legislation in front of us today. We cannot grow the Canadian economy if our workforce does not have the skills to fulfill the jobs of tomorrow.

I ask all of my colleagues, particularly those in the opposition, to join our government and stand up in favour of this budget implementation act. I ask that they stand up for hard-working taxpayers, seniors, students and for the long-term prosperity of our country. As I have said repeatedly, we must all work together to build a stronger Canada than we inherited, and this budget implementation act would do just that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech and I was truly astonished by what I heard.

We know full well that the provinces will not be receiving $36 billion in health transfers. We also know that the government took $2 billion from the employment insurance fund, money that employers and employees paid out of their own pockets. Finally, we also know that a $3 billion reserve has disappeared because the government wanted to balance the budget. As for the TFSA, which is a disaster, the banks are even charging fees if people make several deposits or withdrawals in the same month.

Can the member elaborate on these points?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to those points and I thank my colleague for those comments.

We have balanced the budget, and that is a key for the economy in Canada. It gives our industries and our families confidence in being able to invest in their own livelihoods and in their own businesses, and that makes a stronger country.

We have put forward a plan that is balanced, but also a plan that is fiscally responsible. Unlike the high tax increase programs of the NDP and the Liberals, programs that have not proven to be funded out yet, we have put forth a plan that is funded and certainly will help families in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments from the member, even though I do not necessarily agree with them all.

I have an issue about which the Liberal Party has been talking a great deal, and that is in regard to Canada's safety net, our national pension programs. We disagree with the government 's plan to increase the age of retirement, or OAS, from 65 to 67. A Liberal government would reverse that decision.

We have real concern about the CPP approach. The Prime Minister has refused to meet with the premiers, refused to recognize this is a valuable program that Canadians believe in and that they want the federal government to show some stronger leadership on the issue.

Can the member explain to the House and to viewers why it is that the current Prime Minister, who at one time suggested abolishing the CPP, that there was no need for a CPP, does not support the CPP? A vast majority of Canadians support it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is wrong. The Canada pension plan is there, it is viable and we are offering a voluntary mechanism for citizens in Canada to contribute to more on a voluntary basis.

Unlike the Kathleen Wynne program that the Liberals have put forward in regard to a forced mandatory inclusion of CPP contributions that would end up costing not just $1,000, for an individual who is making $60,000, but also $1,000 for the employer as well.

This plan has been well planned out in our Conservative announcements. I just have to say that the member's question is very well received, but I am surprised that he is the one who asked it, given the fact that the Liberals have a shortfall in the funding of that program.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is a very experienced public servant in legislature, and now a fantastic MP. I found it very interesting that the incredible statistic that the Brandon Airport Terminal has tripled in size due to federal investments. That is simply outstanding and indicative of the booming economy of the area.

I wonder if the member could tell us more specific examples of federal investment in his riding. There is a reason I ask this question. In today's Brandon Sun, the member was criticized for making too many announcements, for having been too available to constituents and for having been around the entire constituency.

I wonder if the member could react to this criticism.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for the excellent work he has done and he is so well respected across the country, never mind just in his constituency.

I thank him for the question regarding the expansion of the Brandon Airport. One of the reasons it was needed was because of the growing economy in our region that my colleague has referred to. We have had flood mitigation needs in the last few years from the excessive moisture we have had, so we have projects to enhance the dikes in the city of Brandon. Melita and Souris have been done, Wawanesa has been finished. There is small one in Reston and there is more to come.

In regard to being criticized for working too hard, I take that with a grain of salt. I would far sooner be criticized for doing too much than doing too little.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to ask my colleague from Brandon—Souris a question. I wanted to ask him about the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago. I wanted to show him chart 2.16, which compares Canada's unemployment rate to that of the United States. I wanted to help him escape from his fantasy world. He thinks that balancing the budget will solve all our problems. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily true, unless there is some sort of secret I am not in on.

The unemployment rate in the United States dropped from 10% in 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, to just 5.5% in January 2015. Meanwhile, in Canada, the unemployment rate went from about 8.7% to 6.8%. We all know that for years, the Unites States has been dealing with recurring deficits that it is quite unable to get out of and that it has a higher accumulated public debt than Canada. The government needs to back up its claim that a balanced budget will solve all our problems. We know what happens when a government gets bogged down in ideology. It is very difficult to reason, see clearly and put things in perspective.

That said, the government has imposed the 100th gag order, the 100th time allocation motion. When I was elected on May 2, 2011, I never could have imagined that I would see 100 gag orders, 100 refusals to give a voice to millions of Canadians across the country. A gag order is one thing, and it has been used for a number of different bills, real bills that addressed specific problems or specific topics. However, ironically, the 100th one is being used for an omnibus bill, yet one more hodgepodge of legislative measures that amend a huge variety of laws, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Patent Act and even the act pertaining to the federal public service. This is the same kind of nonsense we have been seeing all along, and it unfortunately prevents us from seriously studying the legislative measures that are being imposed, not proposed, by the government. That is the reality.

This is the sign of a worn-out government: it is still imposing its will despite its growing list of failures and the opposition of a huge majority of the people on issues as significant as the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51. Unfortunately, the bill was passed by the Conservative majority, which, just like the government, is running away and trying to escape its own corruption under the vigilant eye of the Auditor General. The real pity is that the government is missing yet another opportunity to work with the opposition parties and the other parties represented in the House.

At least there is one good thing about the Minister of Finance's budget: it includes some NDP measures. We see it as “friendly theft”. We are not going to complain about them stealing our good ideas. The really funny thing, though, is that the Conservatives do not want to give the NDP any credit. Everyone knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the measures for small businesses: lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% and the accelerated capital cost allowance.

Those are obvious ways to help small businesses, which often operate on very tight budgets. Sometimes their budgets are so tight that the owners cannot even pay themselves a salary.

It is a great privilege for me, as a member of Parliament, to meet so many business owners in my riding. Furthermore, Beauport—Limoilou is a riding that is home to many small businesses made up of just a few employees who are valiantly supported by the business owners. Those individuals have so much faith that they often work very long hours in conditions that are much worse than those of their employees. Every bit of help is important.

It is too bad, because those are the kinds of measures we could have supported wholeheartedly. However, instead of playing fair and having the courage to debate and discuss only the budget by introducing a coherent budget implementation bill that allows for a full debate, the Conservatives buried everything in this unpalatable jumble of an omnibus bill, which includes things that have nothing to do with the budget.

My colleagues have talked about that. Unfortunately, too few of my colleagues from all political parties will be able to speak to this omnibus bill. It is important to do so, because this bill will drastically change many aspects of our society, including good faith negotiations, which have been completely scrapped at the stroke of a pen, or respect for foreign visitors, who will be subjected to biometric screening. That last measure should have been the subject of a full debate to determine what limits should have been applied. Instead, the government prefers to short-circuit the debate. It is going to rush this through and we will have to live with the consequences. Judges are going to have to do the work of parliamentarians, once again, by perhaps striking down some of the abusive provisions that do not comply with our basic laws.

I think it is very important to go over the sorry record of nine very long years. It has been nine and a half years, actually, since the Conservative Party came to power. It was my first campaign, in 2006, one January 23. In 2006, as I said, the employment rate was 62.8% in the Canadian workforce. Last year, that rate fell to 61.4%, and I can assure the House that it has continued to drop given the turmoil caused by the drop in the price of oil. Given that the government increased development of our natural resources, especially oil and gas, we have reached a level of dependence that is forcing us to deal with a much harsher reality than we would have liked.

TD Bank's former chief economist, Craig Alexander, testified at the Standing Committee on Finance a few times and talked about this. His contribution is highly valued. He said that in the long term we need to build a knowledge economy that is globally competitive, productive and innovative and does not depend on speculation or fluctuating commodity prices.

For a government that ignored knowledge, innovation and the vibrancy of a talented pool of young people in favour of the massive export of raw, unprocessed resources, the judgment is particularly harsh. As Mr. Alexander said, the priority should have been the other way around, but the Conservatives forced us down a road that seems to be a dead end, and we do not know the way out yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about health care, which we know is of great concern to all Canadians. The government lost the opportunity back in 2014 to achieve another health care accord. In 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin, at the time, recognized the importance of working with the provinces in order to deliver a service which was of critical importance to all Canadians. We believe and trust that health care will not only be here for us today but also into the future.

When we look at today's budget implementation bill, one thing that is really lacking is any sense of commitment toward health care going into the future. This is something that I suspect would disappoint many Canadians. I am wondering if the member might want to provide his thoughts on the lost opportunity of not having a long-term health care accord with the premiers and that the Prime Minister should have done something a couple of years back.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Lester B. Pearson's government listened to the NDP, but those days are long gone.

The provinces adopted Paul Martin's famous accord with a gun to their heads, an old Liberal practice that goes back to the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the rounds of negotiations with the provinces in the early 1970s and 1980s. This is the last chapter in the saga of this famous accord; the government is drastically reducing the health transfers to the provinces.

The initial accord guaranteed that the federal government would pay 50% of provincial health care costs. It was a very clear and very simple accord, and this new program was the envy of the world. The Liberals began dismantling it and the Conservatives continued the job.

My dear colleague cannot be proud of the 20 years spent tearing apart the fabric of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Conservative government raided the employment insurance fund to balance the budget. The budget contains some good measures, such as cutting the tax rate for SMEs from 11% to 9%, which is an NDP idea. However, it also contains bad measures, bad initiatives and bad programs.

I am going to ask a question about unemployment. Given that there are 1,310,000 unemployed workers in Canada, what would an NDP government have done better in terms of creating jobs and ensuring that people can earn a higher salary and improve their quality of life, and also to help unemployed workers who have lost their jobs?

We see that the Conservatives prefer, unfortunately, to restrict access to employment insurance and then raid the fund. Some might even talk about theft. However, I will not do so in the House because that would be unparliamentary language.

What does my NDP colleague think about that?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has witnessed first-hand the impact that the dismantling of the employment insurance program has had. The people in his region have been particularly affected by this.

The fact that the government is using the employment insurance surplus to balance the budget is likely not the most shocking aspect of this budget. It is actually a hidden deficit. What is more, we are strongly opposed to two measures: the increased TFSA contribution limit and income splitting. Basically, were it not for these two measures, the government would have a surplus without having to resort to such manipulation.

The other really shocking aspect of the budget is that the government is actually hampering job creation and interfering with job mobility and economic activity by limiting access to employment insurance. I have provided statistics on the employment rate to prove it. This has forced millions of people across the country to put up with jobs that make them unhappy, jobs where they have no hope of getting ahead and jobs that do not meet their needs. This leaves the door wide open to abuse and often results in extremely unfortunate consequences.

At the same time, it is rather ironic to see the government implementing employment insurance measures to allow people who are sick to receive benefits for a longer period of time, but that may be the result of accumulated problems with and failures of the basic employment insurance program.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to support the budget implementation act.

As Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, I am proud that our budget will improve health and safety in the workplace, strengthen protections for interns and provide added support for employees who are caring for their gravely ill family members.

The Government of Canada understands very well that a safe, fair and productive workplace is an important part of creating jobs, stimulating growth and ensuring long-term prosperity. That has always been a priority.

We know that a strong and healthy economy relies on a workforce that is also strong and healthy.

That workforce includes interns. Internships have generated significant debate and discussion over the past year, and for good reason. Internships play an essential role when it comes to providing Canadians with opportunities to gain skills and experience that they need to join and succeed in the workforce.

Whether paid or unpaid, internships are an important way to improve employment prospects. In fact, a November 2014 survey by the Association of Universities and Colleges found that four out of five employers say that internships provide students added value as well as for their companies. They bring new talent into their organizations and the benefits go both ways.

Internships give students an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to participate in the workforce. It is estimated that there are currently hundreds of thousands of interns in workplaces across Canada.

Many of them are working toward degrees or diplomas through secondary or post-secondary educational institutions, or through vocational schools, but not all of them. There are also recent graduates, new Canadians, people pursuing career changes and those looking to return to the workforce after a period absence, among others, who are also engaging in internships.

Internships make it possible to acquire valuable knowledge and experience. However, it is also important for interns, regardless of pay, to be protected by the Canadian Labour Code.

Members may remember Andy Ferguson, a young student who died in November 2011 after an overnight shift at an Alberta radio station where he had been an intern. His brother believes he fell asleep at the wheel after working 16 hours in a 24-hour period. Since Andy passed away, his family has been pushing for labour protection for interns. When the budget was introduced, Matthew Ferguson, his brother, responded by saying, “I didn't expect it at this scale, or this quickly, but it's still very exciting that it has come out today”.

This clearly shows that the government took the necessary measures to ensure that interns are properly protected. Occupational health and safety are extremely important. We take our mandate very seriously.

The budget implementation act would amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that all interns under federal jurisdiction, regardless of pay, would receive occupational health and safety protection. This would include the right to refuse dangerous work.

The code would also be amended to clarify the circumstances when unpaid internships could be offered. In addition, the code would be amended to allow labour standards protection to apply and to be adapted to unpaid interns. That way we would ensure that all interns are protected appropriately in the workplace without discouraging employers from offering unpaid internships should they wish to do so.

As we heard in committee from Mr. John Farrell, the executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications Group, interns are not employees, but they have the right to be treated fairly and an appropriate balance is required.

Our government listened to what Canadians had to say about this and we acted quickly. Our government is also concerned about job security for employees who have to stop working to take care of a sick loved one and about the income assistance they receive.

Our government will also be introducing an extension to the compassionate care benefits under the federal employment insurance program. We will be investing up to $37 million annually to extend the duration of compassionate care benefits, from the current six weeks to six months.

We are also extending the time period within which claimants can receive those benefits, from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. In addition, we are amending the Canada Labour Code to ensure that employees in federally regulated workplaces have their jobs protected when they access these increased benefits. We expect these changes to come into force in January 2016.

We heard from Canadians that the existing program parameters did not reflect the financial hardship and emotional stress that people providing end of life care often face. I can say from first-hand experience, working with individuals within my own riding, and I am sure other members have experienced the same, that the issue of making sure individuals can be with their loved one at the most valuable time they can be when they require them, especially at an end of life experience, and that having this extension of compassionate care leave from six weeks to six months is being viewed extremely well.

That is why the government will support Canadian workers during the most difficult times of their lives. That is why these changes are so important.

Ensuring that Canadians are well protected and can pursue their own personal economic prosperity is something that our government is determined to do.

This bill would put our budget measures into action. It would strengthen workplace protections for interns and ensure job security for employees who are caring for their loved ones.

Budget 2015 is proof of our commitment to create a strong and healthy workforce that will, in turn, create a strong and healthy economy.

Budget 2015 is good for all Canadians. I would urge hon. members in the House to vote in favour of the bill and give their support to a stronger workforce and a stronger economy.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. It is quite clear that her background is in health care. She put particular emphasis on benefits for people who take care of their loved ones and on the occupational health and safety of interns.

I have two questions. Why did the government cut $36 billion in health transfers to the provinces?

My second question has to do with interns. Why did the government not agree to the NDP's proposal to require that interns be paid?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. First, with respect to transfer payments, they are on an escalator and will continue to be so, both the social transfer tax as well as the health transfer tax.

With respect to interns, as I mentioned in my speech, it is about coming to a balance. It is extremely appropriate to the point that the member made that individuals do receive payment once they have reached a tipping point.

The budget is very clear. We have a new six-point plan. Individuals who are at school and receiving vocational training would continue as they have in the past, but now would have all the additional protections. They would remain unpaid because that is part of their educational process.

For those who enter the workplace, we are setting a maximum of four months of unpaid internship and then an employer must move forward ensuring that those individuals receive a salary.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members in this place will know, I am deeply disturbed by the number of measures buried in Bill C-59 that are dangerous for this country and that are extremely anti-democratic, particularly the changes being made post facto, retroactively, to access to information.

I had initially welcomed the changes to protect interns, until I saw the submission from the Canadian Intern Association and realized how much we are failing interns. I asked the hon. minister if she had reviewed the testimony from this organization. Its members certainly are very concerned. I will just quote from their brief:

We submit that the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Division 7 offer inadequate workplace rights to students, interns, unpaid persons and entry-level employees working for federally regulated employers.

These are some of our most vulnerable and precarious workers, and we are not protecting them.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in this place, it is extremely important for all Canadians to look at what we have put forward in the budget. All portions of part 2 of the Canada Labour Code, that is, occupational health and safety coverage for any employee, are now being extended to interns.

With respect to part 3 of the code, labour standards, that is being reviewed, as requested, by individuals across the country to make sure that we cover all the labour standards that would be appropriate for interns. Obviously, people who are not being paid do not require paid leave, and we do not include that.

Those are the types of things we are looking forward to discussing with respect to labour standards to make sure that they are all-inclusive.

As I have mentioned before, we encourage the internship association to please read the bill and look at it. We did extensive consultations all over the country. The parliamentary secretary from British Columbia did an outstanding job of speaking to young Canadians, to older individuals who are transitioning in work, and to new Canadians about how important internships are. That is what this bill encompasses to make sure that all of those protections that have to be afforded, all occupational health and safety coverage in part 2 of the code, cover all interns in the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question in regard to the myth that the Conservatives have a balanced budget. In fact, when they first took office, they inherited a surplus, and they turned that surplus into a deficit within two years, prior to the recession. Ever since then, the Conservatives have not had a balanced budget. They have added billions of dollars to Canada's debt. Here we are months away from the election, the magic wand goes, and now they have a balanced budget. We will not know whether it is actually balanced until next year.

Does the minister believe that she is going to be able to fool Canadians by selling wholesale GM shares for $2 billion and going into the contingency fund and saying that they have a balanced budget? Does she believe that this is something Canadians are actually going to believe?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is balanced. The member opposite seems to believe that the Liberal Party would be able to deal with the economy of the country. This is a group that wants to raise taxes, and we are lowering them. These people want to eliminate jobs by raising taxes, and we are creating them.

The budget is balanced. It is that simple.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the 2015 budget. There is consensus that this budget is less than stellar. It is not future-oriented. It does not attempt to make the investments needed to improve our economic productivity for the long term, nor does it make the necessary long-term investments to keep our health care system viable.

Before I address these two points, I would like to comment on the government's plans in the budget for targeted benefit pension plans. The government intends to create a legislative and regulatory framework to impose this pension model on private businesses under federal jurisdiction, including airlines, telecommunications companies and banks.

A few weeks ago, some Air Canada retirees came to see me in my riding office. They are very worried about this Conservative government plan. If it goes through, people who currently collect defined benefits through their pension plan could be subject to this new pension model under which benefits may vary depending on the financial state of the pension plan. I am against that idea.

As I said, many of my constituents worked for banks, telecommunications companies such as Bell Canada and airlines such as Air Canada, and they are very concerned about the government's plan.

I really think the government is making a grave error in trying to impose a model for target benefit plans on private sector companies in federal jurisdiction. As we know, these plans would involve benefits that could vary, depending on the state of the pension plan.

Many of my constituents receive pensions from companies like Air Canada. These pensions are not indexed. They have been receiving these pensions, in many cases, for 20 years. They retired 20 years ago. They have seen their purchasing power erode, and now they are worried that their pension benefits, which they had assumed would be stable, could fluctuate up and down.

I do not know why the government wants to impose this model on private sector companies in federal jurisdiction. They are companies that are quite solid, like banks and telecommunications firms, like Bell. Even the airlines are doing well.

I would note that some provinces are looking at target benefit plans because they make life easier for companies that are in financial trouble and that have pension plan deficits. However, I would note that in the province of Quebec, the government is imposing this model only on firms in the pulp and paper industry, which we know is an industry that is going through hard times. In addition, it imposes the model only on companies in that industry that are subject to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I understand the benefit of this model for a company that is in financial trouble, like a company in the pulp and paper industry, for example, that is in such trouble that it is under some kind of bankruptcy protection, but I do not see the logic of imposing this model on companies like banks, telecommunication companies, and companies like Air Canada that are doing very well. I do not think this is a good initiative on the part of the government, and that is one reason I am voting against this budget.

On the subject of TFSAs, we know that they are good vehicles for saving for retirement. They make a lot of sense, but as I was listening to the government's proposal for increasing the contribution ceiling, I thought back to my constituents. Many of them have teenagers in high school. They are thinking about their children's education. Some of them are struggling with debt, and if they got any extra money, say for example if we had a Liberal government and parents received enhanced child benefit payments because of our very wise and creative plan, what would they do with that money? It would make more sense for them to invest that money in an RESP than in a TFSA, and I will explain why.

If they put the money in an RESP, they get a higher rate of return. They get a 30% rate of return the first year, because they get a cash grant from the federal government, instituted by the Paul Martin government, of 20% on every dollar invested in an RESP, and they get an additional cash grant from the Quebec government of 10%. If parents have a teenager aged 16 or 17 who is about to enter university, and the parents get some extra cash because of the Liberal tax cut, then it makes more economic sense to put it in an RESP than in a TFSA. Even if it were in the RESP for two years, the annual rate of return would be 15%, which I would say is quite good under those circumstances.

These are just some of the thoughts I have had in reaction to this budget, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to address the matter.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

The question now is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 10 and 148.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 10 and 148 defeated.

(Motions Nos. 2, 10 and 148 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 5 to 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 5 to 9.

The question is now on Motion No. 11. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 12.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[An hon. member]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare Motion No. 11 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 12 defeated.

(Motions Nos. 11 and 12 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 13. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 14 to 41.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 14 to 41.

The question is now on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 43.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[An hon. member]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 43 also defeated.

(Motions Nos. 42 and 43 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 47.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 45 to 47.

The question is now on Motion No. 48. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 50 to 55.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[An hon. member]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 50 to 55 also defeated.

(Motions Nos. 48 and 50 to 55 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 56.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare the motion defeated.

(Motion No. 56 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 57. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 58 to 111.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 58 to 111.

The question is on Motion No. 112. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 113, 114 and 149.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 113, 114 and 149 defeated.

(Motions Nos. 112 to 114 and 149 negatived)

The question is on Motion No. 115. A vote on this motion applies to Motions Nos. 117 to 124.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 117 to 124.

The question is on Motion No. 125. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 126.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 126.

The question is on Motion No. 127. A vote on this motion applies also to Motions Nos. 128 to 147.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 128 to 147.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

(The House divided on the Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #437

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 5 to 9.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Conservative members voting no. I would like to add that the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla missed the first vote.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and will be voting no, together with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with proceeding in this manner and I vote yes.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

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

The Bloc is in favour, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and the Green Party votes yes.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish my vote to be recorded as no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #438

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 5 to 9 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 13. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 14 to 41.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to the current vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and we will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and are voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem applying the vote and I will be voting in favour.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to applying the vote and I am voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will vote no.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of this motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to register that I vote in favour of my amendment.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the amendment.

(The House divided on Motion No. 13, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #439

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 13 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 14 to 41 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 45 to 47.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to the current vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees to apply the vote and we are voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and we vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to proceed in this fashion and I am voting yes.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree on applying the vote and I vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to proceed in this way, but I am voting no.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and the Green party votes yes.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #440

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 44 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 45 to 47 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 57. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 58 to 111.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees to apply the vote and we will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and will vote against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party is also in favour of this motion.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 57, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #441

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 57 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 58 to 111 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 115. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 117 to 124.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with the Conservatives members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Shall we proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees to apply the vote and we will vote yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will apply the vote and will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply to vote and will be voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party once again votes for our amendment.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 115, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #442

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 115 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 117 to 124 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 125. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 126.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply the vote and will vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, being a big fan of applying the vote, I will be voting in favour.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I too agree to apply the vote and I will be voting in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against the motion.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion.

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

I am voting yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 125, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #443

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 125 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 126 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 127. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 128 to 147.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find agreement to apply the results from the former vote to the current vote, with Conservative members voting no.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees to apply the vote and is voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals agree to apply, and we are voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

[Scott Andrews, Independent, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am against the motion.

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party is in favour of the motion.

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of the motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 127, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #444

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare Motion No. 127 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 128 to 147 defeated.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #445

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)