Debates of June 12th, 2012

Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act

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

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with my NDP colleague.

In fact, for the past several years, Saguenay has seen an exodus of its population—especially the youth population—for many reasons. Ultimately, the main reason for the exodus is employment. People are moving to urban centres like Quebec City and Montreal, which is causing a demographic imbalance in my riding.

The budget proposes changes to employment insurance. Yet seasonal workers are good workers. For instance, people who take care of snow removal cannot simply look for another job in the summer, because there is no snow. People who work in the forestry sector and those who plant trees or do landscaping cannot be guaranteed work in the winter.

In order to win more votes, the government decided to focus all its efforts on urban centres, and now the regions are paying the price. This will be terrible for Atlantic Canada. It is a slap in the face to the people of the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and rural areas across Canada.

What I would like to tell the government is simply to be reasonable and govern for all Canadians, instead of discriminating against some Canadians.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the previous question and answer was related to seasonal workers, and I agree with the member's answer.

However, there is another side to the equation, and that is the seasonal industries. In my province agriculture, tourism and fisheries are all seasonal industries. Those are our main industries, and if they do not have that seasonal supply of workers, the businesses themselves are going to be in trouble.

I wonder if the member could comment on the impact the draconian employment insurance changes in this bill will have on businesses in those regions.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with the Liberal member.

As I mentioned a little earlier, my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean is a beautiful region and tourism is very important there. As my Liberal colleague mentioned, every year, the tourism industry needs workers to keep the regional economy going.

What poses a problem is the fact that these people, who periodically need to turn to employment insurance, will be penalized outside of the tourist season. They will be forced to accept a job outside the riding or the region, otherwise their EI benefits will be cut off. This will put people in a very difficult position, because they may be forced to leave the seasonal tourism industry.

Indeed, the regional tourism industry is very strong, in both winter and summer, but as we all know, two different companies will not hire the same people. Once again, we see that the Conservative budget was poorly conceived and that the government is abandoning the regions.

Clearly the height of hypocrisy, the Conservatives' slogan during the election campaign was “our region in power”.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House this evening to outline the positive impact that the implementation of budget 2012-13, our government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, would have on my riding of Sault Ste. Marie specifically and Canada as a whole.

First, I would be remiss if I did not rectify some of the misinformation that is coming from the opposition benches with regard to this budget. I would like to address an opposition day motion that claimed this government has failed to learn the painful lessons of Walkerton, which prove that cuts to essential government services, protecting the health and safety of Canadians, are reckless and can cause Canadians to lose their lives. This was speaking to food inspections and was an unfounded claim based on political fearmongering and not on the facts. These are the facts: 70% of all savings identified were found by increasing operational efficiency. Our government has maintained federal meat inspections and we have even hired 733 new food inspectors since 2005, 170 of whom were meat inspectors.

Our Conservative government refuses to follow in the footsteps of past governments to balance the budget by massively cutting health transfers to the provinces. Instead, we have embarked on a plan that continues to keep Canadians safe while maintaining a constant vigilance over governmental efficiencies.

It is in fact the opposition members who threaten the safety of Canadians by continually opposing our safe streets and communities act. They claim that the price is too high and that increasing spending on the justice system is not worth it. In response I can say only this: a Conservative government will not shy away from protecting Canadians from criminals.

That being said, these so-called cost increases have not occurred. The opposition erroneously claimed that we would have to build new prisons to house the sure influx of criminals at a tremendous cost to taxpayers. In fact, we have just announced the closure of two outdated prisons, and there are no new prisons planned because they are not required.

Another accusation put forward by the opposition is that while we may be working toward a balanced budget, we are doing it on the backs of Canadian seniors. Of course, they will not discuss, nor vote in favour of, all the great things the government has done for seniors, including lowering the GST twice, increasing the age credit amount by $2,000, introducing pension income splitting, doubling the pension income credit to $2,000, introducing the largest GIS increase in over 25 years, not to mention establishing the tax free savings account, which is particularly beneficial to seniors as they plan for their future.

We are also introducing the new pooled registered pension plans to better help workers save and build their retirement income. To suggest this government does not respect our seniors is preposterous. Our government has removed over 380,000 seniors from the tax rolls.

The opposition instead attacks the need to increase OAS from 65 to 67 years to ensure the sustainability of OAS for future seniors, including my children. To simply do nothing, which is exactly what the opposition wants to do, would be irresponsible. Canadians are living longer and healthier lives. This is not the 1970s when life expectancies were 69 for men and 76 for women. They are now 81 and 86 respectively. Longer lives are a blessing, but they come with the responsibility for government to ensure the pension system is available for future generations. If the OAS program stays on its present course, it will become unsustainable. Currently four people are working to support every senior at a cost to the system of $38 billion per year. Twenty years from now, two people will be working to support every senior, and the cost to support OAS at that time will be $108 billion, due to more seniors accessing OAS. This is the simple math.

The opposition parties would have none of this, though. They are more interested in political pandering than the future of Canada. They would rather buy votes with unsustainable programs than face the realities of an aging population.

I, however, have more faith in Canadians. I believe that they have looked to the future and they want a government that will take action to protect that future. We have not forced this policy on our senior citizens without adequate notice. Current seniors will not be impacted at all, nor will anybody who is now over the age of 54. The change in OAS will not begin to take effect until 2023 and will be phased in over a six-year period until 2029.

This Conservative government has taken a proactive step to ensure that OAS is available to future generations. We have done it with an eye to the future to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians. We are working, and will continue to work, in order to build a better future for all Canadians. This is not just a government of today but a government of and for the future.

As the representative for Sault Ste. Marie, and having travelled extensively throughout northern Ontario, one of the largest concerns is skilled labour shortages. Even with a higher than average unemployment rate, our businesses still struggle to find skilled labour. I am proud of the reforms that Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is bringing to our immigration system. These policy initiatives will allow foreign skilled workers to have streamlined access to our immigration system to help alleviate the skilled labour shortage and enable our businesses to prosper to the benefit of all Canadians.

As I campaigned in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie soliciting feedback on the next budget, the number one concern of two of my major manufacturing employers was the lack of skilled labour. I brought these concerns forward to the best Minister of Finance in the world. I am proud to say he listened. This is innovative thinking on the part of our government to deal with the problems of today. An effective immigration policy is a vital part of this government's overall plan to see the Canadian economy not only grow but thrive. If we keep on the present course, we will thrive and prosper.

Canada has weathered the storm of the economic recession better than any other G7 country with the creation of 760,000 net new jobs since 2009. We must not allow these facts to fill us with false pride. While we are strong, the world economy is still extremely fragile. In this global economy, we must continue to diversify and create wealth and stability by taking responsible steps to grow the economy without sacrificing the environment and the health and safety of Canadians. Budget 2012-13 does just that.

I am proud of the job that this government has done and is doing. I am especially proud of the fact that we will act upon constructive criticism, as demonstrated by our response to the Jenkins report in October 2011, which spoke to innovation being the wealth creator in the new economic order. I complete agree with Mr. Jenkins. Canadians live in a country rich in natural resources, but this alone will not simulate growth without innovation. It was innovation that gave Albertans, and by extension Canada, access to the wealth of the oil sands. It is innovation that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the mining sector. It will be innovation that creates wealth for future generations. With the importance of innovation being brought to light by the finding of the Jenkins report, this Conservative government took action. Within a few short months we organized a comprehensive strategy to invest $1.1 billion in research and development and made available $500 million for venture capital to leverage additional funds by the private sector.

Also in support of innovation in science and technology, our government is investing $37 million annually in Canada's granting councils, $110 million per year in the National Research Council to double support to small business through the industrial research assistance program, $95 million per year over three years and $40 million per year ongoing to make the Canadian innovation commercialization program permanent. There is more. There is $14 million provided to expand the industrial research and development internship program in order to place more PhD students into practical research and business.

I have seen the impact of government resources allocated to innovation in my local community. Algoma University has an entire department dedicated to the advancement and implementation of human knowledge. In Sault Ste. Marie we have made a concerted effort to invest in diversifying our economy through investment and R and D. The community, in partnership with FedNor, has supported an organization called the Sault Ste. Marie Innovation Centre. This program has attracted over $20 million to the local economy in projects, programs and investments. It has created 500 jobs in the private sector, developed research positions on health information and invasive species, and created an internationally awarded Community Geomatics Centre that now employs 20 staff and licenses technology to provide private sector companies—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding, industries are shutting down and it is very hard for people to find good jobs in the region they grew up in.

Communities are losing their young people, and now there are employment insurance measures in Bill C-38 that will make it even harder for people to stay in their home regions and find seasonal work.

What does the member have to say to those people?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my community, industries are not closing. This government is investing in low corporate tax policies which are allowing our businesses to be competitive in the global environment. Believe me, two of our major employers, Essar Steel Algoma which has 3,200 employees and Tenaris Tubes which has 700 employees, are supportive of our government's low-tax policies for job creation. That is what is important. This government is focusing on job creation and innovation. That is in fact what this budget focuses on: job creation and innovation and moving this great country forward.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I believe Algoma Steel is where it is today as a result of the guy who happens to be our interim leader, whom that party over there loves to attack. In a different time, it was that individual who saved the plant.

I happened to be in Sault Ste. Marie a couple of weeks ago, and there is not satisfaction up there about Bill C-38. They are very concerned about it, and they are concerned about it in their seasonal industries.

However, the point I want to make relates to the member's comments on seniors, where he is absolutely wrong. For people who are 54 years old and saving two cents on a cup of coffee with the GST cuts so they lose their pension of $30,000 over two years, if they are in a low-income group and have to go on provincial welfare, is that doing something for future seniors? I do not think so, and the reason the government is making that—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is so nice to respond to the member opposite when he is not yelling at us across the room during question period. He is absolutely one of the loudest members I have ever heard.

In terms of seniors in Sault Ste. Marie, I held public consultations prior to this budget. I went throughout my riding in Goulais River, Echo Bay and Bruce Mines. I presented in front of city council in Sault Ste. Marie. I offered opportunities for all members of my riding, including seniors, to have input on the budget. That input was brought forward to the Minister of Finance and it was listened to. I am very proud of our government, and I am just so proud to be a Conservative.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie.

We listened across the way just a short while ago about how huge this budget is and the tremendous size. The member was holding up a book and said it was bigger than a telephone book. I wonder if the member might make a comment on that.

Also, I wonder if he could tell us a bit more about the innovation centres and the tremendous investment that this government, through this budget, would make and has made in the past through research and development, the engine that will drive this economy well into the future.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget we are dealing with now is, I believe, 495 pages, of which I have read every page. I am a CGA by trade and I kind of like numbers. However, this is small in comparison.

Budget 2011, Bill 1, the royal assent version had 880 pages. Bill C-13 in 2011, Bill 2, the royal assent version had 644 pages. Bill C-10, budget 2009, the royal assent version—

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I apologize, but I believe the record needs to be clear. I am not sure what 495-page document the member is speaking of, but the budget implementation bill has 425 pages.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sure the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie appreciates that, but clearing the record is usually not considered a point of order.

The hon. member is out of time for questions and comments, so we will move on. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to express the opposition of the people of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to the Conservatives' Trojan Horse bill.

Since the budget and this bill were introduced, I have received dozens, if not hundreds, of messages opposing Bill C-38 and asking me to pass along their messages. I had the opportunity to participate in consultations organized by the official opposition in Ottawa and Regina, where I heard from many groups, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec, researchers, university professors and citizens, who are opposed to both the form and substance of the bill.

Let us talk about the form of Bill C-38. This bill is supposed to be a budget implementation bill, but it includes a number of reforms that were never mentioned in the latest budget. The government is using the budget implementation as a pretext for implementing its ill-advised reforms, for which it was never elected.

Many of my colleagues have pointed out that increasing the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67 was not proposed to Canadians during the last election campaign. This government even promised not to touch pensions.

When the Minister of Finance said today that old age security and pensions are different, he was getting into semantics. Canadians did not have the opportunity to debate this issue during the election campaign, even though there were discussions between the minister and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development before the last Parliament was dissolved. As such, this situation is an affront to democracy.

The other problem with this bill is its omnibus form. Including so many reforms that affect the environment and the fisheries and that will have such a great impact on communities without consulting those communities or experts is dangerous. Quickly throwing together an employment insurance reform is also problematic, particularly when the minister cannot name a single person or group that she consulted. These actions all constitute a significant abuse of democracy.

This bill will also affect women. The first thing that comes to mind is that women will be especially affected by the increase in the age of eligibility for old age security. Women depend on this program more than men, and this measure condemns thousands of seniors to a life of poverty.

It is estimated that this measure will triple the poverty rate among female seniors. This bill also amends the Employment Equity Act so that it no longer applies to federal contracts, which will affect a number of groups, including women. I will never understand the logic behind this measure. Do I understand correctly that profit is now more important than equality?

Such reasoning is shameful. We need to put people first. That is what motivates me to question the cuts that will have an impact on food safety. This bill will make a number of changes, including decreasing the number of food inspector positions to the same level as before the listeriosis crisis in 2008. What is more, this bill also amends the Seeds Act to give the president of the Canada Food Inspection Agency the power to issue licences to persons authorizing them to perform activities related to controlling or assuring the quality of seeds or seed crops.

Again, this part of the bill is problematic.

These changes were made without any studies and without any serious consultation. Food inspection and food safety for Canadians should be a sector where public interest comes first.

The statistics and the many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health are clear: countless diseases and deaths are linked to food. Sometimes, they result from direct poisoning—salmonella, for example—but it is mostly because of what the food contains.

Bill C-38 also includes changes whereby the nutritional value listed on the labels will no longer be verified. The government is not giving Canadians the tools and ability to make informed choices in terms of health.

Health is another theme of this bill. One of the aspects of the budget that has people talking—and that also shocked the provincial and territorial governments—is the unilateral decision by the federal government to reduce health transfers starting in 2016. The Prime Minister himself had promised, during the leaders debate, not to reduce health transfers below the current 6% level.

After 50 years of public health insurance, our system is facing a number of challenges. Now we have to deal with an epidemic of chronic illnesses and conditions that require follow-up. We have to ensure that our health care system meets the public's needs today.

The government's decision is equivalent to eliminating the deficit at the expense of the provinces and depriving them of $31 billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

What is more, this government is being inconsistent. On one hand, it is saying that we have to control health costs. On the other hand, it is refusing to legislate to reduce the level of sodium and trans fats in food and it is cutting food inspection and monitoring. Those are decisions that are going to cost our health care system billions of dollars in the long run.

Let us be serious and let us be consistent. We do not have to penalize the public and the patients in order to reduce health care expenses. Let us work on prevention. Let us regulate the amount of sodium and trans fats in food, in order to make it easier for people to get healthy food. Let us work with the provincial and territorial governments to make home care available and to make prescription drugs accessible for everyone. If we want to control health care costs, we must also ensure that the money is well managed and well spent.

That is why I am surprised that this government has decided that the Auditor General should no longer have the authority to audit the spending of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We collectively invest a billion dollars every year in research, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. That is a significant amount of money that the Auditor General should look at if he deems it necessary.

Lastly, increasing the age of eligibility for old age security will have consequences for health care. Dr. John Haggie, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said:

We are greatly concerned about the move to raise the age of eligibility for Old Age Security. Many seniors have low incomes and delaying this relatively modest payment by two years is certain to have a negative impact...Gnawing away at Canada’s social safety net will no doubt force hard choices on some of tomorrow’s seniors... the choice between whether to buy groceries or to buy their medicine...People who skip their meds, or lack a nutritious diet or enough heat in their homes, will be sicker. In the end, this will put a greater burden on our health care system.

This is a bad bill. It implements a budget that is bad for the Canadian economy and workers. It is bad for women. It is bad for democracy. It is mediocre for the health of Canadians and for the public health care system.

That is why I am going to vote against this bill. That is why it should have been split and examined more carefully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge my colleague on some of the facts in her speech.

She talked about health care “cuts” in the budget. The fact is that when we started, we transferred $19 billion to the provinces. With the agreements we have in place, that will be going up to $40 billion. According to something called mathematics, when a program is continually added to and augmented, that is not called a “cut”. I would like to ask her if she realizes that the 2004 accord does end in 2014, that each year there is going to be more and more money given to the provinces for their health care needs and that we have continued it with a minimum of 3% each year after that until the end of the agreement.

I would like her to explain to the House of Commons how this NDP math works. Clearly there is an augmentation every single year, and she is able to call that a “cut”. Could she explain that to the Canadian people?

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

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

We work together on the Standing Committee on Health. He knows very well that, starting in 2016, his government's increase will not be applied in the same way it is today.

As for the math, I would say to him that the Conservatives did the calculations and are not giving the real figures. Afterwards, there will be a difference because transfers will be based on GDP.

We know that our health care system is already fragile. If we factor in Canadians' longevity, the burden will be even greater. The government should think about that now instead of making cuts.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently attended an inaugural CARP meeting in Etobicoke, where over 300 people attended who were worried about OAS and health issues.

I would like to ask the member this: if the government really believes our aging population is a problem, why does it not recognize, for example, that dementia is an increasing concern in terms of health care and health economics? In 25 years, we will be looking at costs of $153 billion and someone being diagnosed once every two minutes. The reason for not acting, I think, is that developing and implementing a nationwide dementia plan would be a cost.

Does the government want to save money on the backs of Canadians to break its record deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague.

I had the opportunity to work with her on the Standing Committee on Health and I noticed that we have the same concerns about Canadians' health. I will repeat what she said at the end of her question.

Everyone knows that living longer leads to many problems, including dementia, as my colleague mentioned. Unfortunately, our colleagues opposite do not trust scientists or statistics. They simply apply their ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleague a question.

At the end of the year, the Minister of Finance decided, without the consensus of the provincial premiers, to radically change how health transfers are made. Federal transfers to the provinces will decrease. In fact, last year, the federal government paid 20% and the provinces paid 80% of every health care bill.

If we look at the figures, we clearly see that the federal contribution is dropping from 6% to 3%. In the end, the provinces will have to spend more on health care and, in some cases, people will have to pay, which will create a two-tier system in Canada. Personally, I like my free universal health care system.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has only 30 seconds remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Health, for his question. I really appreciate it.

His question demonstrates that the NDP is very concerned about the unilateral decision taken by the government without consulting the provinces and territories. As he said, our health care system is already in critical condition. It is on life support. The government's decision to reduce transfers could put the whole system in a coma—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt the hon. member because her time is up. Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here to discuss some of the highlights of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, and to speak against the NDP and other opposition amendments that are focused on delaying the passage of the bill.

As our economic record shows, Canada has performed well in the face of global economic uncertainty. Both the IMF and the OECD forecast that we will have among the strongest economic growth in the G7 over this year and the next.

This resilient performance did not happen by accident. It is the fruit of hard labour, solid economic principles, and consistent implementation of a plan that works: Canada's economic action plan.

Economic action plan 2012 sets out a comprehensive agenda to bolster Canada's fundamental strengths and addresses the important challenges confronting the economy over the long term. Our economy's strength provides an opportunity for our government to take significant actions today that will position Canada for a secure and prosperous future.

So far, Canada has had every reason to be proud of its successes. Since our government introduced the economic action plan in 2009 to respond to the global economic recession, Canada has created nearly 760,000 net new jobs, which is the best record in the G7.

Nevertheless, the global economy remains fragile, especially in Europe, and too many Canadians are still looking for work. That is why, in this uncertain economic climate, our government is staying focused on our low-tax plan for jobs and growth, a plan that is focused and works toward serving Canadians well. To this end, economic action plan 2012 focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, innovation, investment, education skills and communities.

Through my remarks today, I would like to highlight some of the measures our government is proposing to keep the labour market healthy and prosperous.

My first point today will focus on employment insurance. EI is Canada's single largest labour market program. It provides temporary income replacement to help individuals and their families, as well as training and other labour market supports to help Canadians return to employment.

Bill C-38 makes targeted changes to make EI a more efficient program that promotes job creation, removes disincentives to work, supports unemployed Canadians and quickly connects Canadians to jobs that improve their quality of life and Canada's economy.

To outline these important measures, I will break this down into some details.

Our government is committed to helping Canadians who are looking for work. That is why our government will invest $74 million in a new national EI pilot project to ensure claimants are not discouraged from accepting work while still receiving EI benefits. This new pilot project, the working while on claim pilot project, will cut the current earnings clawback in half, to 50% of earnings, and apply it to all earnings while on claim. This will ensure EI claimants always benefit from accepting work by allowing them to keep more of what they earn while still on employment insurance.

Second, matching workers with available jobs is critical to supporting economic growth and productivity. Economic action plan 2012 will invest $21 million to enhance the content and timeliness of job and labour market information that is provided to Canadians looking for work. Along with providing relevant and timely job information, we will strengthen and clarify what is required of claimants who are receiving regular EI benefits and looking for work.

Third, our government recognizes that Canadians want stable and predictable EI premium rates and a transparent rate-setting mechanism. Our government would ensure predictability and stability in the EI premium rate. Over the next few years, we will limit annual rate increases to 5¢ until the EI operating account is balanced. Once the account has been returned to balance, the EI premium rate will be set annually on a seven-year break-even rate to ensure that EI premiums are no higher than needed to pay for the EI program. After the seven-year rate is set, annual adjustments to the rate will also be limited to 5¢.

Overall, these changes to employment insurance have been widely welcomed, especially from small business.

Indeed, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said:

Since the recession, skills and labour shortages have re-emerged as a major concern for Canada’s small business community. We believe the changes to defining suitable employment, based on how frequently EI is claimed, will help to remove disincentives to work and hopefully make it easier for small firms to find the people they need.

Another way we propose to help meet Canadian labour market needs is to solidify our immigration system. Economic action plan 2012 helps set the stage for strengthening our immigration system into one that is targeted, fast and efficient, and can sustain Canada's economic growth and deliver prosperity for the future. Canada needs immigrants who are ready, willing and able to fully integrate into Canada's labour market, particularly when there are essential skills shortages.

Economic action plan 2012 reinforces the government's commitment to move toward a more economically focused immigration system with the following three measures.

First, we will improve the responsiveness of Canada's immigration system by immediately directing our efforts toward addressing modern labour market realities.

Second, we will work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to support further improvements to foreign credential recognition and to identify the next stages of target occupations beyond 2012. This will help more highly skilled newcomers find work related to their training, allowing them to quickly contribute to Canada's economy.

Third, we will continue to consider additional measures to strengthen and improve the temporary foreign workers program. This will help support our economic recovery and growth by better aligning the program with labour market demands.

Reaction to these changes has been very positive. In the words of the Canadian Construction Association:

The reforms promised by the budget to...immigration will ensure the country is well placed to take advantage of the more than $500 billion in major economic projects expected in Canada over the next ten years.

When it comes to creating a labour market that is strong and efficient, our government continues to take responsible action that meets our changing circumstances. Canadians gave us a strong mandate to stay focused on the economy and that is exactly what we have done and continue to do. We have a record to prove it.

Since July 2009, employment has increased by nearly 760,000 net new jobs, the strongest job growth among G7 countries over the economic recovery. More than 90% of these jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions and 80% are in high wage industries and in the private sector. While these are positive signs, Canada cannot rest on its record of success. We need to keep focused on the economy and on creating high quality jobs.

That is why I urge members of the House to pass Bill C-38 without delay because it will help create jobs for Canadians, and that is the right thing to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and it astounded me that not once did she mention anything about affordable housing. That is because there is nothing in the bill about affordable housing, which is really quite shocking.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary is aware that one-third of existing social housing units are at risk of the expiry under the federal social housing operating agreement, which is a potential loss of 200,000 social housing units in Canada. As a result of her government's inaction and the fact that there is nothing in the budget about affordable housing or social housing, existing social housing is now at risk. Why did she not comment on that in her budget speech? Why is the government so blind to the whole question of housing and what is at risk?