Debates of Oct. 17th, 2011

Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

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

However, I do not share his enthusiasm regarding the fact that everything is fine. We hear that quite often: All is well. Things are very good.

However, we seem to forget that there is a slowdown, especially in Canada, in terms of growth. We especially seem to forget that there are 1.4 million people who are without jobs here in Canada, and if we look at people who are not looking for jobs and who are actually just out of it, we are talking about 1.7 million people. We are talking about 17.2% unemployment for youth.

Would the member explain how he can say things are going so well when right now there is a big difference between the rich and the poor, and the difference is getting bigger, as the IMF will state?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we had not taken any economic action, clearly this problem would be far bigger than it is. We have created over 650,000 new jobs, and the opportunities are growing month over month. Last month 61,000 new jobs were created, and we will be continuing to create jobs despite the slowdown that is going on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend I was over at Maples Community Centre with a group of seniors. One of the discussion items was with regard to pension incomes. The feeling shared among opposition members is that we are not providing enough for our seniors and that they need to have more financial support. Surely the member recognizes that we are not providing enough financial support to our seniors.

Would he give some sort of indication as to what he believes would be a move, going forward, in terms of how we could provide an additional supplement for our seniors so that it would be easier for them to live?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has already done many things for seniors. We have actually introduced higher GIS payments. We have introduced income-splitting and a number of other measures that are already in place and helping them.

There will never ben enough money for everybody, but certainly this government has done more for our seniors than almost any other government.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I look at how things were in 2008 and I look at how things are in 2011. Certainly we do have some concerns as we look at the global economy. However, we take some great comfort in terms of where Canada is and our position in the world. I can look at the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, where the headlines today were focused on the increased shipments to China of our forestry products, and we see the mills reopening.

Perhaps I could ask the member to reflect on how things have changed in his riding over the last couple of years through economic action plan part one, and how phase two would actually help the constituents of his riding.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding it is clearly having a big impact. Just recently I spoke in the House about a new business that was opening up, and 40 new jobs have been created by that business in my riding. It is a great step forward. The assistance that we are giving to small businesses, which is where a lot of the jobs are being created, is having a big effect in my riding.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a final quick question regarding investment in infrastructure.

When the finance minister says that the benefit of investing in infrastructure is five times greater than through reducing corporate taxes, could the member explain why he still supports corporate tax cuts?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the tax cuts, this government has made gas tax money to the tune of $2 billion available to local cities and corporations to support that. That is a great investment in our infrastructure.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government keeps repeating that it has a stable majority, but it conveniently forgets that over 60% of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. In the Pontiac, 70% of voters did not vote for them. The government has a fundamental, even moral, responsibility to listen to the majority of Canadians and the majority of my constituents. The government must take time to listen to the Canadian public and to add some key elements to its budget.

This is even more surprising because today we need only look out the windows at the demonstrations as part of the Occupy Ottawa, Occupy Montreal and Occupy Toronto movements to see that things are not going as well as the government claims.

These demonstrations are justified because the government is doing nothing—absolutely nothing—to correct the increasingly glaring inequality in Canada. Just because Canada's economy is doing better than that of the United States or Europe, that does not mean that we are doing well, especially if we look at the facts. For example, the youth unemployment rate is increasing, not decreasing, and every time the stock market plunges, families lose an even larger chunk of their retirement savings. Furthermore, the cost of living is going up steadily, and families are struggling more and more to make ends meet. Yes, only the privileged seem to benefit from Conservative economics.

The growing gap between rich and poor in Canada is reaching crisis proportions. Between 1999 and 2007, one-third of income growth was among the richest Canadians, those with average incomes of $400,000 or more, who represent just 1% of the population. At the same time, the IMF published a study concluding that more equitable distribution of income equates to longer and more stable periods of economic growth. This government continues to maintain its out-of-touch approach, and Canadian families must work even harder. It is time to take action to ensure that the interests of families come first.

The entire NDP team and I are listening to Canadians and continue to work in Parliament to address the priorities of all Canadians. However, I also agree that opposing without proposing is not particularly useful. For that reason, the NDP has come up with concrete measures to address inequality in this country. Take, for example, the proposal to implement a family caregiver tax credit for those caring for an infirm dependent family member.

The family caregiver tax credit is not enough to support those who take leave to look after a sick relative. The problem with the tax credits proposed by the government is that the caregiver must have sufficient income to claim the credit. Since 65% of households with a caregiver have a combined income of less than $45,000 and 23% have less than $20,000, most caregivers cannot benefit from the credits proposed by the government. Changing these tax credits to a family caregiver tax credit would provide direct support that is sorely needed by most family caregivers, who cannot claim the tax credit. Many stakeholders are proposing that the government use the child disability benefit as a model. Family caregivers would receive a monthly non-taxable amount to pay for expenses incurred while caring for someone. The advantage of the credit is that it would primarily help low- and middle-income caregivers. That is a tangible solution for Canadians.

With the Conservatives in power, less than 5% of the annual budget of $190 million for sickness and compassionate care benefits has been disbursed since 2004, helping just 6,000 Canadians.

The New Democrats also want to make the compassionate care benefits portion of the employment insurance program more flexible and generous to enable claimants to take up to six months of leave to care for dying parents, as opposed to the six weeks that are currently allowed. These are our parents. This is another concrete proposal that targets most Canadians in this situation.

If I could, I would like to continue speaking about health, since this is a very important issue in my region.

I would like to quote from the report of the Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de l'Outaouais:

However, it has become more difficult for the Outaouais region to maintain these hard-won gains given factors such as demographic growth and availability of workers. Current coverage of obstetric services is a striking example. Nevertheless, these issues, which affect basic services, must be analyzed as temporary situations, and the agency must provide sustainable solutions for the region.

The reality that this government does not seem to want to address or even recognize—as though hiding its head in the sand were a viable option—is that 5 million Canadians do not even have access to a family doctor and 73% of Canadians without a family doctor rely on emergency rooms or walk-in clinics for front-line medical care. In a country where universal health care is recognized as a fundamental principle, this is shameful.

Now, because of this situation, Canada ranks 26th out of 30 industrialized countries. The Conservatives like to say that Canada is in first place but, when it comes to health care, Canada is in 26th place because of this government.

Let us now turn to jobs. The Conservatives claim that the measures in their budget will stimulate the economy and create jobs, but we know that the same measures were used in the United States without success. In Texas, where the right reigns, the Republican government is doing the opposite of this government.

It is true that job creation is fundamental. The Outaouais, my region, lost 6,200 jobs in 2009, making it the region the second-most affected by job loss in Quebec. In the forestry sector, in October 2008, the Smurfit-Stone company lost nearly 600 jobs, as well as indirect jobs involving transporting wood and all the rest. That same year, Maibec, White Birch Paper and AbitibiBowater had to cut jobs. Again, there is nothing in this budget to help this industry in crisis in Quebec and its workers.

On the contrary, the government is investing even more in the major oil companies and giving tax cuts to the wealthiest. What is the government doing to help Quebec's forestry workers? The answer is simple: not enough.

The Outaouais region has a split personality. In Gatineau and the Collines-de-l'Outaouais, the labour force participation rate is on the rise and is one of the best in Quebec. In the City of Gatineau, the average income is $52,000, which is not bad. However, when you leave the city, in the Vallée-de-la-Gatineau regional municipality, the average income is only $32,395. In the Pontiac, it is only $33,859. This difference is attributed to the proximity of the public service to the first two municipalities. According to Service Canada, no growth in the forestry sector is expected between 2010 and 2012.

Add all that to the significant cuts planned for the public service, and one has to wonder if the two municipalities that have been spared thus far will experience the same kind of job losses. Government cuts and investments do not take urban or rural factors into consideration, nor do they take into account this country's industries in crisis. Basically, this plan is not in tune with the daily reality Canadians are facing. If that were the case, it would take a more serious stance on this country's growing unemployment rate. Today, approximately 1.4 million Canadians are officially unemployed. If we include discouraged and underemployed workers, that number rises to nearly 2 million. The unemployment rate has risen to 7.3%, and the proportion of part-time workers and those looking for full-time work has increased very rapidly.

High-quality, full-time jobs that can support families—not just the insecure jobs that the government constantly brags about having created—are very difficult to find in many regions of the country, particularly my region.

My party's position is clear. The NDP is determined to put the priorities of Canadian families first. This involves immediately passing measures to improve health care, stimulate job creation and guarantee stable retirement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference on two occasions to health care. I agree in terms of the importance of that universal health care to which he makes reference. I would go further in just how important it is that we start to talk more about the health care accord that we hope will be put into place by 2014.

What is his party's position in regard to the ability to use the Canada Health Act to ensure we have basic standards of health care delivery that are relatively equal from coast to coast, as opposed to just giving tax points or money for health care transfers? Would he support the important role that we, as a legislature, have to ensure that there is good quality health care and that there is accountability for those dollars that are spent?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I am happy that my colleague is interested in this issue that is important to me and my riding.

My answer is yes. Essentially, the NDP believes that the principle of universality is fundamental. However, we must also respect provincial jurisdictions. The reality is that larger investments, especially for hiring doctors and nurses, are essential to help this country move forward.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, my ears perked up at the conversation around health care.

We were all back in our ridings this last week. As I travelled into my rural communities, my constituents were looking at the movement we made in terms of forgiving loans for students as being very positive and they were starting to see very positive results.

They talked about the 6% that we would maintain on transfers. There are many positive things happening in health care.

Would the member perhaps like to reflect on really provincial jurisdiction as being very important to respect, but also how important these movements are to ensure physicians are available and health transfers continue to be protected?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Like her, I represent a rural riding. The comments I have heard from my constituents are that the government's measures make certain things possible. She spoke in English, so my thoughts are in English.

Loan forgiveness is not enough to create incentives for doctors and nurses to stay in rural areas. It is not as easy as saying that we will forgive a loan.

There are a lot of reasons why people leave rural areas and why young people in particular leave rural areas. The member should know it as well as I do. It has to do with devitalization of the area or crisis in certain industries.

There is a need for greater incentives to keep trained doctors and nurses in rural areas. One solution is to actually train them in the area they were born.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

He spoke about what is going on with Occupy Wall Street and the movement that is now sweeping across Canada: Occupy Halifax, Occupy Montreal and Occupy Toronto, for example. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening.

I would like my colleague to tell me what the current budget proposes or what the government is doing to close the gap between the rich and the poor.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Pontiac has 30 seconds to respond.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

The answer is very simple: very little. Furthermore, it will basically only create further inequality. This budget does not present any solutions.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it really is an honour for me to rise here today to speak to the budget implementation act.

We have heard some excellent speeches today about the government's commitment to the well-being of Canadians in the context of the bill.

Three themes come through loud and clear as we look at the bill. First, our government, especially the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, have listened to Canadians. Second, hearing what Canadians want, our government has committed to put money back in their pockets, to promote jobs and economic growth. Third, our government proposes to lay the foundation for all Canadians to become stronger, healthier and better off.

We Canadians enjoy one of the most stable and strongest democracies in the world, a democracy where our people care and a democracy where our leaders listen. The government has consulted extensively across the country. In fact, on January 12, 2009, the Minister of Finance and I arranged for him to consult at our very own Park Royal consumer centre in West Vancouver, part of the riding I so proudly represent. Over 400 people came, some from great distances from across the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, to lend the minister their perspectives for our federal budget. The minister was welcomed with a standing ovation. Members of my community and local leaders have in recent months, and over the past three years, shared with me what they believe should be included in the government's low tax plan for jobs and growth.

The Minister of Finance, my team and I have spoken to a large and diverse range of community groups, local municipalities, first nations, heads of cultural demographic and interest groups. Together we have identified for each group three priorities and three events that most matter to them. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and our government have listened.

The economic action plan, the low tax plan for jobs and growth, responds directly to what Canadians across the country want. A big part of that is putting money back into the pockets of Canadians. Our government proposes to put money back into their pockets by better supporting families, balancing tax measures and by improving infrastructure, the Canadian business environment and Canada's focus on clean energy.

As a government that stands up for families, I am pleased to see the introduction of the family caregiver tax credit for caregivers of infirm dependent relatives. This will enable other Canadian families to care for elderly mothers and fathers in the way our family did. I have seen the benefit to families first hand of enabling them to care for frail or sick dependents at home. In my own case, our family was able to work closely with hospital workers, especially palliative care nurses, occupational health nurses and others to enable us to care for my mother until she passed away in May, 2008. Her quality of life was the best it could be, surrounded by her son, her grandchildren and even the family dog for as long as possible.

Do not just take my word for it. The Canadian Caregiver Coalition has said:

The measures announced in the budget are an important acknowledgement of the vital role of family caregivers. The announcement of a Family Caregiver Tax Credit demonstrates the federal government's commitment to families and the caregiving responsibilities that they assume.

Another major way the government proposes to support families is in repealing mandatory retirement regulations. As the Canadian Taxpayers Federation notes, “People have a right to determine how long they work, and this is a major step towards eliminating poverty for seniors”.

Charitable organizations in Canada are also world leaders. They encourage people to volunteer their time and money to help the needy in Canada and abroad. I have been warmed and inspired by the strength of the volunteer spirit I see demonstrated in Powell River, the Sunshine Coast, Bowen Island, West Vancouver and North Vancouver, Squamish and Whistler, where I met with constituents over recent weeks in my ride the riding bicycle tour of the majestic riding that I represent.

Many people in the North Shore support Food for the Hungry, for instance, an organization that delivers food and services to needy people overseas. It is an organization I had the honour to chair before becoming an MP. Another great organization in our riding is Linwood House, which assists marginalized women in the downtown east side. Organizations like these will also benefit from the bill, as it strengthens the tax base for charitable donations.

Finally, the government proposes to put money back into Canadian's pockets by investing in clean energy, infrastructure and business. One of the many areas in which people in my riding lead the world is in clean energy. We have seen jobs created and the economy stimulated through independent power projects in many areas of the riding I represent, in Powell River, Squamish, and elsewhere. Steve Davis is one individual, a resident of West Vancouver, who has done much to promote clean energy generation.

A company in the same field, formerly known as Plutonic Power now Alterra Power Corp., has blazed environmentally friendly trails in the Powell River area, creating jobs for aboriginals and other people. So Canadians will be glad to hear that this budget implementation act extends eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation and conservation equipment.

Our government also proposes to invest in infrastructure. While our government now strives for deficit and debt control, we are mindful of the need we are fulfilling with infrastructure improvements. Part 9 of the bill provides for payments to provinces, territories and municipalities, first nations and other entities for municipal infrastructure improvements. In late March of this year the Federation of Canadian Municipalities noted that budget 2011 delivered a vital commitment to cities and communities to develop a new long-term federal infrastructure plan. We will keep this momentum going.

Our government also proposes to invest in Canadian industry. Many captains of the mining industry reside in the riding I represent, like Ian Telfer and Robert Gallagher. Also in our riding is the B.C. Museum of Mining, an excellent institution that not only preserves the history of our province's pioneers but also helps people understand the importance of the mining industry to jobs and prosperity in B.C. today. I am therefore proud to say that this bill would extend eligibility for the mineral exploration tax credit by one year to flow-through share agreements entered into before March 31, 2012. This is an important way that our government proposes to invest in Canadian industry.

Our government has listened to Canadians, and in response proposes to put money back into their pockets by supporting families, by balancing tax measures, and by investing in clean energy, infrastructure and industry. I dare say our government has listened well and made some very fine proposals.

Finally, besides telling our government to put money back into their pockets, Canadians have told us to lay the foundations for our continued security, health and well-being.

That is why the bill introduces a volunteer firefighters tax credit to allow eligible volunteer firefighters to claim a 15% non-refundable tax credit up to $3,000.

One of the most valiant persons one will meet in Canadian communities is the volunteer firefighter. I have worked with career and volunteer firefighters in the riding I represent to ensure that, to the best of our ability, our government is supporting them.

In direct response to a meeting held in the Lions Bay part of my riding with volunteer firefighters led by Fire Chief Andrew Oliver, I wrote the Minister of Finance requesting that a volunteer firefighter's tax credit be created and along with many other Canadians calling for that tax credit. We found it in this budget and we are happy. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has said that it strongly applauds the Conservative government's introduction of a $3,000 credit. How happy Canadians are that our Minister of Finance, known as the greatest in the world, wisely recognized these heroes and provided for our continued security in this budget implementation bill.

Our government proposes to support our continued well-being by investing further in Canadians. In our ridings we have an enormous number of artists, musicians, sculptors and others who promote Canadian culture with their every word and deed. Names like Sarah McLachlan, Randy Bachman, Joni Mitchell, Shari Ulrich and Michael Tickner are just a handful of names of such groundbreaking cultural icons.

What a great breakthrough for our Conservative government to introduce the children's arts tax credit up to $500 per child for eligible fees associated with children's artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities. We cannot wait to see the next generation of artists develop, partly in response to this initiative.

This bill would accomplish what Canadians asked us to do, to provide for their continued security, health and well-being. On behalf of the innovative, hard-working and entrepreneurial people of the riding I represent, and on behalf of all Canadians, I am proud to support this bill, our government and our great country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the tax credit for caregivers and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters. This is an issue we have discussed quite a bit. By talking about the caregiver element of it, we can actually get to the nub of the issue by saying that if someone is providing a healthy amount of caregiving in his or her home, that is less time for the individual in the workplace.

My question surrounds this. There are two types of tax credits here to consider. There is one that is refundable and one that is non-refundable. An individual would get the non-refundable tax credit but that credit is income tested. A person must make above a certain amount of income to get the full realization of that benefit. If it is a refundable tax credit, an individual can receive the full amount. So if someone does not make any money, that person can still receive a cheque or refundable tax credit for the services provided. That goes just as well for volunteer firefighters but it is particularly acute for caregivers.

I am wondering why this is a particular non-refundable tax credit. Should it not be a refundable tax credit for the vulnerable?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a saying that no good deed goes unpunished and I suppose that one could welcome great compliments for a tax credit that would encourage people to be liberated from their work at home and that would help families take care of an infirm person. One might therefore expect that members across the House would not only support that measure but support the act as they vote this evening, and I hope they will. However, sometimes there is a tendency in public life for us to look at the glass as being half empty rather than half full and to say that it was a good thing but wonder why we did not do an even better thing.

As our government tries to control deficits and debts, we will be looking at these tax credits and other measures that would encourage Canadians to do the right thing to strengthen families, but we are also ensuring that what we can do is sustainable for the mid-term and the long-term.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member, I had the opportunity to also look at the summary that is outlined in Bill C-13. I would like the member to respond a bit more about the tax credit advantages.

In the summary we talk about the tax credit for children in artistic, cultural and recreational programs. We talk about tax credits for students in post-secondary education. There are different tax credits or treatment for accelerated capital cost allowance, treatment for investments in machinery and equipment, and in the mining sector.

Could the member explain a bit more about the benefit of these tax advantages and how they empower Canadians and job creators in making our economy stronger?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the tax credits would be a specific inducement to get people to do the right thing. We as a party and government consulted widely across the country. As the Minister of State knows, as he was directly involved in those consultations, Canadians asked us to do certain things. Canadians asked us to make it easier, for instance, for someone to stay at home and care for an infirm relative.

Canadians said that they liked what we had done with the sports tax credit in the previous budget. They asked that the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance provide a similar inducement on the arts side. What about volunteer firefighters, these incredibly gallant people, supported by everyone in this House? What could we do to make it easier for them to do what they do, which is get up in the middle of the night? They are not paid, but perhaps if they could receive a tax credit then that would at least acknowledge the enormous benefit they confer upon all Canadians.

Our government listened and it brought in these specific tax credits which would have great results.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking as the vote is quickly approaching. I have been a parliamentarian for about 20 years now and never before have I seen a government take such strong action to prevent members in a chamber from being able to participate fully in what is one of the most important bills that we will debate in the House. This is a bill that allows us to talk about our priorities, what it is we would like to see, and where we could make a difference. I look at this bill as one of the major pieces of legislation that needs to be debated.

We have to remember that this is a thick bill. I am not sure exactly how many pages are in the bill itself as I do not have it in front of me, but it is a thick bill. The government brought it forward for second reading and then a couple of hours later brought in time allocation. By bringing in time allocation, it has limited the ability of the chamber to have appropriate debate and discussion, questions and answers on one of the most important bills we will deal with in any given session.

This is a change in attitude by the government and it is because it has a majority now. It feels it can do whatever it wants. There is an issue that is very important to me, in fact I would suggest is important to all Canadians, but has a very significant impact in the Prairies, and that is the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason I bring it up at this point in my comments is because it is a reflection of the attitude of the government. As I say, we have a government that brought in time allocation within hours of bringing the bill forward. Then we have the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

The government is obligated in law to bring forward a plebiscite when it makes any sorts of changes to the degree it is proposing to make. It has an obligation to do that and it has chosen not to do it. The Canadian Wheat Board itself took on the responsibility that the government had and conducted a plebiscite. In that plebiscite there were tens of thousands of prairie grain and barley farmers who voted and sent a very clear message to the government. The message was very clear. It was to keep the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not want the government to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is about as clear as it can get.

I raised the issue in question period and questioned the Prime Minister and I heard the Prime Minister's response to the plebiscite and to the prairie farmers who took the time to vote, the prairie farmers he claims to represent. His response to the plebiscite is that it does not count, it does not mean anything. In fact, he went out of his way to discredit the way in which that plebiscite was conducted. He does not like the results.

The other day we heard the Prime Minister say that it does not really matter what prairie farmers want, that the government is getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board whether they like it or not. I am going to suggest that attitude is going to hurt the government. It is going to hurt the government because a majority of prairie wheat farmers, and we are talking well over 20,000 farmers, did not want the government to get rid of the CWB. Its actions to date have been disgraceful. To completely ignore what it is that Canadians and prairie farmers—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must admit that as my friend across the way was going on I drifted in and out of attention to what he said. However, it seems to me that we are here today to debate the budget implementation act and what he is talking about is totally irrelevant to it. I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the member across the way to maintain relevance to the debate at hand and stop his comments on irrelevant matters such as the Wheat Board.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I will give some latitude to the member to come back to the bill at hand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite does not like what he is hearing but I can assure the member that it is completely relevant to the debate. Had he been listening in terms of the comments and looking at the book, and I can appreciate it is a fairly thick book, he would find that there are many expenditures that deal with our agricultural community. The actions of the government and the profound impact that it would have on the Prairie farmer is worthy of debating today. I suggest that in time the government will regret taking the actions that it has decided to take on the Prairie farmers.

The title of Bill C-13 is “keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act”. I have had the opportunity to question members and one of the things I raise constantly is the fact that back in August 2008 there were actually 14,631,300 jobs. Today, there are 14,106,100 jobs. We all know that statistics can be used for all sorts of arguments but the point I am trying to get at is that over the years we have lost half a million full-time jobs.

Let there be no doubt that the biggest concerns Canadians have today is the economy and the need for jobs. I believe that this budget document could have done a lot more in terms of being able to create the jobs that Canadians want to see. With a little more imagination, we could have seen a budget that was fairer and that could have generated the type of jobs that Canadians believe government has a role to play in terms of providing the necessary incentives to have an impact on providing those jobs.

In fact, one of the questions I posed to one of my New Democrat colleagues was on the whole issue of housing. It is an area in which I believe the government could do so much more in terms of providing more incentives to improve our housing stock and so forth.

With so little time to speak, I want to pick up on a couple of other very important issues.

The health care accord is something that is of critical importance. Having been in a provincial legislature for a number of years, I can say that the greatest challenge a province has is that percentage of the budget, the need to deal with it, the need to provide funding and the need to look at future federal budgets. The federal government has a role to play in ensuring that there is a basic standard of health care services from coast to coast to coast. However, there is concern in terms of the government not taking the necessary action to make a difference.

I have raised the issue of seniors. Far too many seniors in Winnipeg North and everywhere else in our country are having a difficult time meeting their basic economic requirements. We need to do more to provide that support to our seniors. I would have liked to have seen more going toward senior pensions and the guaranteed annual income portion of it.