Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many different things I could take exception to in terms of what the member has said in his presentation on the bill.

Let me focus on his last answer. He said that the government stands with the seniors and tries to give the impression that they are doing well for our seniors, when in fact the government is actually increasing the age of retirement for our seniors from 65 to 67. That is the government's intention.

We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, many different stakeholders and professionals saying that it is just not warranted; it is not necessary. However, this is something that the government is plowing ahead with.

Instead of being a cheerleader for the PMO and the Prime Minister, I am wondering if the member would be able to clearly indicate to the House how increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67 is going to help seniors, particularly in terms of dealing with issues surrounding poverty and so forth.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member that I am no cheerleader for the PMO. I am telling exactly the facts of what is happening out there in the economy.

Under the member's government, handling the economy was a disaster. That is why the Liberals are sitting at the far end, and if they continue talking like this, they may be on their way out.

Let me say one thing on raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. We have a Canadian pension plan that needs to be viable. It is not only that, but today people are living longer and longer. It is their desire to work. Under the Canada pension plan, people can retire, even at age 60 if they want.

The point is that today people would like to work, and we would like them to work, because they are healthy people. I do not know what the member's problem is.

Most important, we need to address this issue so that the pension is available for future generations as well, not just for the immediate generation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech on the bill by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and I would disagree with him profoundly in virtually everything. Virtually every aspect that he raised about the bill I find great fault with.

I would like to begin by finding great fault with not just the content of the bill but the whole process by which the Conservatives are abusing our system of parliamentary democracy. Under the guise of the budget implementation act, they are introducing what is tantamount to a neo-Conservative wish list, like a catalogue for the Tea Party Republican Party. It is everything they would ever like to do rolled up into one big ball, free from scrutiny and oversight from the opposition parties and from the people of Canada.

As the representatives who represent the majority of Canadians, we will never be able to do justice to a massive tome like this. The Conservatives have stuffed 60 and 70 pieces of legislation into one. They are pieces of legislation that are not even related, things that are fiscal and non-fiscal, things that have to do with the Labour Relations Act, things that have to do with a new Mackenzie gas project.

The scope and the scale of this thing makes it so unwieldy that we simply cannot do a detailed analysis on these pieces of legislation, even though many are broad and sweeping social policy changes that we will have to live with for many years until such time as the New Democratic Party forms the government and we can restore some semblance of order and balance to the nation.

The Conservatives do not have to pack a lunch, because it is sneaking up on them. The more they abuse, undermine, and try to cut a swathe through everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy, the more motivated the general public will be to show these people the door.

I do not have time—and this is the whole point, that none of us have time—to deal in any kind of detail with any of these pieces of legislation rolled up into one. However, I will mention one, just because it offends me so profoundly, and that is the fact that the Conservatives have seen fit, under the guise of a budget implementation bill, to amend the Canada Labour Code to change the definition of what is dangerous work. You tell me, Mr. Speaker, what undermining the health and safety provisions within the Canada Labour Code has to do with the budget implementation act.

I do not know if people have had time to think this through. I can guarantee they have not, because not only are the Conservatives ramming through 70 pieces of legislation at once, but they move closure at every stage of these bills. As a result, we cannot call a sufficient number of witnesses, we cannot give it the debate it deserves in the House of Commons, we cannot test the merits of their argument with informed exchange and information to see that we are passing good laws and good legislation, as per the prayer that the Speaker reads when we open Parliament every day. That is by the wayside.

The Conservatives should explain to me what it has to do with the economy, with jobs, or with good governance generally to gut the Labour Code under that particular definition of what constitutes dangerous work, specifically as it pertains to maternal care. It is doubly offensive to me that an individual no longer has the right to refuse unsafe work if she is a pregnant mother working in circumstances that she believes may be harmful to the unborn child. That reference has been entirely deleted.

The Conservatives not only amend 60 or 70 pieces of legislation at once, they create whole brand new ones within the context of their budget implementation act. They sometimes delete whole pieces of legislation. In their last omnibus bill, they deleted a piece of legislation called the Fair Wages Act. For some reason, the Conservative government is opposed to the concept of fair wages, opposed to setting minimum wages in the construction industry on federally regulated projects.

In whose interest is it to drive down the wages of middle-class Canadian workers? We do not need our government to do that for us. There are enough economic forces out there that can affect our income. We really do not elect a government to drive down our wages, yet the Conservatives saw fit to do so, singing to some tune.

I presume it was the merit shop guy, Terrance Oakey, who seems to have a revolving door to the PMO to dictate what he seems to need in his particular industry sector.

By what pretzel logic could it possibly be argued that it is in the best interests of Canadians to gut the safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code? It is simply beyond me. Regarding the changes to EI, again, if a budget implementation act is about enabling the implementation of the budget, why does it not deal with relevant issues that may in fact stimulate the economy?

I heard my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, talking about enabling small businesses to create more jobs. If the government really believed that, we would be debating legislation that would reduce the business tax for small businesses. The Conservatives argue that they would reduce it from 12% to 11%, but in the socialist paradise of Manitoba, when we were elected, the Conservatives had the small business tax at 11%, and every year thereafter the NDP lowered it by 1%, and another per cent, and another per cent to where—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

They upped the sales tax to 8%.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette might want to tell the MPs assembled here what the small business tax is in the socialist paradise of Manitoba right now—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

It is 8% sales tax in Manitoba and 5% in Saskatchewan.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My colleague from Ottawa Centre knows that it is a big fat goose egg. It is zero. If the Conservatives would walk the talk and put their money where their mouth is and do a favour for small businesses, they would eliminate the small business tax.

It is another illusion. It is a facade.

My colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, I think, supports the idea of eliminating the small business tax. He has seen the benefit in the province of Manitoba, which we call home.

The Conservatives are cutting, hacking, and slashing the big corporate tax rate for businesses that do not need a tax break. The banks and the big oil companies are the only ones that really benefit. It is only profitable businesses that would benefit from having their income tax lowered. A business that is not showing any income and that needs the support gets nothing from it, yet the Conservatives do nothing for the small businessperson.

We could have celebrated. If the Conservatives had wanted to put a 71st detail into this budget implementation act to eliminate the business tax, they would have had the support of the NDP. However, it is disingenuous and it is misleading to lump fiscal details in with non-fiscal details in a bill that is supposed to be limited to just that.

How did we end up dealing with the selection of Supreme Court justices in the context of the budget implementation act? That alone is a subject that warrants a great deal of consideration by Parliament and by committee. We would want to deal with that at great length.

What about the selection process for new economic immigrants? We have an immigration issue finding its way into this bill. There is simply no time.

The Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act is the name of the bill that I was groping for earlier.

I see that I am almost out of time. That will be the whole sum total of time that I am going to have, as the member for Winnipeg Centre, representing 100,000-some Canadians, to comment on or provide scrutiny of, or oversight to, over 70 pieces of legislation. It is a travesty.

I do not want anybody in Canada who might be watching this to think that this is normal. There is nothing normal about this abuse of the democratic process that has found its way into these so-called omnibus bills. It is completely undemocratic and contrary to all of the principles of democracy. It offends the very sensibilities of anyone who considers themselves a democrat.

The New Democratic Party will allow proper oversight and scrutiny of the legislation that we introduce in 2015.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my friend's comments about the socialist paradise of Manitoba. Recently the Manitoba New Democratic government raised the sales tax to 8%, as NDP governments always do.

As a member of Parliament who represents a constituency that borders on Saskatchewan, I know that the sales tax there is 5%. The Saskatchewan competitive advantage continues to grow, thanks to the ineptitude of Manitoba's NDP government.

I would like to ask my friend a question. Does he support the raising of the Manitoba sales tax to 8%? Does he want to see Canada's GST raised to 8%, 9%, or 10%?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk instead about why the bill is dealing with veterans, reducing the number of permanent members from 28 to 25 on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In whose interest is it to reduce the number of representatives on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board? By what convoluted pretzel logic could the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette support a piece of legislation that has such a profoundly negative effect on veterans, of all people?

Another impact for Manitoba specifically, where we have great big beautiful buildings, is that the Conservatives completely changed the mandate of the National Research Council. They laid off hundreds of Canada's top scientists and researchers. Did we debate this in any adequate way? No, we just learned about it when they prorogued Parliament long enough to invent this neo-conservative wish list that is against the best interests of working people in every respect.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that last question and answer moment feels like question period in reverse.

My question is related to the National Research Council, which my hon. colleague from the paradise of Manitoba just brought up. I am interested in whether he would like to comment on the reduction in the number of council members for the National Research Council from 19 to 12. As he may know, the NRC is undergoing some dramatic changes at the moment. It is surprising that only five of these council positions are filled. At this time of dramatic change, I wonder if the NRC really should be consulting more and should have a larger council. In this way it would be able to consult with councillors from both a broad geographic range and from the very diverse range of technical fields that the NRC is involved in.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will probably agree with me that it is absolutely unprecedented for this country's scientists to be forced into a situation of protesting outside Parliament Hill, wearing their white lab coats, to object to the systematic muzzling of scientists in almost every aspect across the board.

One that comes to mind in addition to the National Research Council is the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, bordering the Manitoba border. We finally found a way to stem the damage from cutbacks by the feds when we found the Ontario government was willing to chip in some money, but then just last week, all of the scientists received their pink slips. They were all laid off.

We worked for 18 months to find alternate funding to keep it open, and the Conservatives still got rid of all of those scientists. How is the operation going to be maintained now that all the scientists have been let go?

Conservatives do not just shoot the messenger, they undermine the ability of the messenger to even deliver a message. That is how anti-science they are. It is because science might get in the way of whatever agenda is being served. It is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians when we muzzle scientists, whether it is at the National Research Council or the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to today's debate on Bill C-4. This very important legislation for all of us is the next step in our government's continued effort to support job creation and economic growth in Canada.

Since 2006, our government has been taking concrete action to ensure that Canada's economy remains strong. After all, it was our government that acted in such a fiscally responsible manner so we were able to weather the global economic storm better than most other industrialized nations. I feel as though I should remind the members of the opposition of this fact, as it is a fact they seem to frequently forget. Thankfully, Canadians remember.

Remember when faced with the worst global recession since the Great Depression, our government responded with Canada's economic action plan. This plan included investments in infrastructure and tax relief for families and was instrumental in fuelling growth and putting Canadians back to work. Since then, this has helped create over one million net new jobs, the majority of which are high-wage, full-time, private sector positions. That is the strongest job creation in the G7 by far.

Our unemployment rate is at its lowest level since December 2008, and remains below that of the U.S., a phenomenon that has not been seen in nearly three decades. Indeed, the IMF and OECD both project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead. All of the major credit rating agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA rating for the sixth straight year. The World Economic Forum rated our banking system the world's best. This is a record Canadians can be proud of.

With that said, allow me to share with members one of the most significant factors behind Canada's economic success: keeping taxes low. Unlike the high tax the NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government believes in keeping taxes low and leaving more money where it belongs, in the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and job creating businesses. In fact, since 2006, our government has cut taxes more than 160 times, reducing the overall tax burden to the lowest level in 50 years.

I would like to now talk about the speech and the comments by the previous speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is an icon for the NDP. He represents the NDP's toxic view of the economy. While the Liberals have no policy and no ideas, the NDP policies are purely toxic when it comes to the economy, and the environment as well for that matter. The New Democrats oppose free markets and free trade, two policies that have lifted the world out of economic depression time and time again. The New Democrats have no idea about how to create wealth. They are really good at spending money.

In fact, I saw a cartoon once of an NDP cabinet minister's day-timer. Monday was spend: Tuesday was spend, spend; Wednesday was spend, spend; Thursday was off for a rest; and Friday was spend, spend. That is all the NDP knows how to do. The New Democrats do not understand the concept of a sound business climate either. I hate to break it to my NDP friends, but before one can spend money, one has to earn it. What a revolutionary concept that is. It is through free markets and free trade that we create the wealth so we can support our cherished social programs. I should add that most of Canada's major social programs were instituted by Conservative governments.

I should make the point that the NDP's failed economic policies have been tried around the world. Look at Greece, France, Italy, the city of Detroit, the city of Chicago. High spending, high public sector wages and high tax drove those cities and those countries to economic ruin.

The other dirty little secret of the Liberals and the New Democrats is that they actually want people dependent on government. Through their policies, they worm their way into society and create more and more dependence on governments. That I find utterly shameful.

The situation of Saskatchewan is most instructive. Saskatchewan was stagnant under the previous NDP government. As soon as the Saskatchewan Party took over, instituting sound Conservative policies, the Saskatchewan economy took off. That is a story that Canadians are only beginning to appreciate, that Saskatchewan has gone from a have not province to a net contributor to the equalization program of Canada. If there are any Saskatchewan MPs here, they deserve a round of applause because their government in Saskatchewan has created an economic miracle in Saskatchewan by implementing Conservative economic policies.

For the members opposite, I like to quote the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, who said, “The facts of life are conservative and nobody can dispute that”.

Going back to what we are doing in our budget, a small business' bottom line is significantly impacted by the cost of EI. As it stands right now, employers pay 60% of the current EI system. We, more than any other party, understand that small business is the cornerstone of our economy, creating jobs that support families in our communities. That is why we are freezing EI premiums for the next three years. We are promoting stability and predictability for job creators and workers and we are leaving $660 million in their pockets in 2014 alone. Rather than spending money on payroll taxes, it can be used by small business owners to hire more employees and grow their businesses.

Despite what the opposition would have us believe, this tax relief will help support Canada's continued economic recovery and sustain business-led long-term growth. This is fantastic news for Canada's entrepreneurs, but do not take my word for it. Let us see what other people are saying.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which speaks for the small business community and which the member for Winnipeg Centre spoke about, said the move to freeze EI rates for three years will “keep hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of employers and employees which can only be a positive for the Canadian economy”.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association said:

We congratulate the Government on its support of job growth by reducing the burden on businesses...This move will support stable financial planning for businesses, and therefore job growth.

Lower employment costs will also encourage businesses—and particularly small business—to invest in younger workers, helping to address the critical need to develop the next generation of skilled tradespeople...

That is not all. This is what the Retail Council of Canada said:

The retail sector is Canada’s largest employer and as a result bears the bulk of the burden of paying into the EI system. This freeze on premiums will mean more money for employers to invest in other important areas such as employment, training and infrastructure...As a small business owner, I applaud Minister...for recognizing that even the smallest tax relief goes a long way to helping businesses grow and thrive.

Unlike the opposition, we will not attack job creators with massive tax hikes. While we are focused on fostering growth in our economy, the NDP and Liberals are busy opposing measures that help small business and small business is the engine of growth for our society. Indeed, as a member of Parliament who represents a very large rural constituency composed of dozens and dozens of small communities, small business is what makes my region grow and thrive. I have hundreds of small businesses and I am always struck by the work ethic of these entrepreneurs who day in and day out work to make our communities better places to live.

I really hope the members opposite will change their tune and support efforts to create jobs and growth for Canadians, instead of pushing high tax schemes to kill jobs, like the NDP's infamous $20 billion carbon tax, a multi-billion dollar tax hike on jobs. Indeed, the leader of the Liberals is talking again about a carbon price. If they want to make amends, they can start right now and vote in favour of this bill.

I should note in terms of my own constituency, the Canada-European free trade agreement that was recently negotiated is a huge boon for my community. For example, Manitoba is the largest hog producer in the country. Interestingly, Canada produces some 25 million tonnes of hogs and pork every year. That is about equivalent to the increase in pork consumption worldwide. Europe is a major market for Canadian pork and this is very important for my communities, my producers and the people who process hogs in my constituency.

On this last note, I ask that all members of the House support Bill C-4. It is important that we implement these job creation measures as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the other side. I mean, this is a budget bill, which was an omnibus bill that was not separated. Over and over government continues to table these bills, and this one in particular has items in it that are not even related to the budget. That is extremely shameful.

Now the Conservatives are trying to tell us how good they are fiscally, but we know that is not right, it is not true, because we have the largest deficit in Canadian history under the Conservative government.

To say that people are better off because of the government is shameful. I happened to have met the other day with a veteran. He was saying that he used to get two hearing aids at the same time, but all of a sudden he now being told that he could only get one now and then had to wait six months for another one. How shameful is that at a time when the Conservatives are spending tens of millions of dollars on the economic action plan? Maybe the member could explain that, while Canadians are being denied employment insurance and their on old age security is being reduced. On whose back are they cutting?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that makes me so proud of being part of this Conservative majority government is that everything this government predicted has worked out.

When the recession of 2008 hit, our government did the right thing. It sprang into action and built Canada's economic action plan. We invested in job creation. One particular program that worked exceedingly well was the home renovation tax credit, which created thousands of jobs and helped Canadian home owners fix their homes. When our economy got back on track, we ramped spending down. Those were temporary programs.

Everything our Prime Minister predicted is coming true and next year the balanced budget will come to pass exactly as we predicted. We will be the envy of the world in terms of our fiscal situation.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's speech. It seemed to me to be one of those absolutist Conservative speeches. He is very confident in what he believes in, and good for him. I am also glad he likes to read the cartoons so he knows what the other parties think.

In the spring, the Liberal Party tried to amend the previous budget implementation bill, Bill C-45, to extend the small business hiring credit and increase the maximum threshold from $10,000 to $15,000. I guess we should compliment the government's legislation when it is time to do that. I agree with what the government has done in Bill C-4. It rejected the Liberal amendment earlier this spring, but it has decided to take the Liberal idea and implement it in Bill C-4. I guess the Conservatives thought about things over the summer and decided that what the Liberals were calling for was the right thing to do, and so I commend the government on adopting that Liberal idea.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question there, but I thank my hon. friend for his kind words. Again, in all seriousness, good ideas should be looked at and implemented wherever they are found.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette and talk about his moose hunting expeditions. I credit him for that this year.

I have a very quick question with regard to the importance of balanced budgets to his constituents. It is something our government strove for in terms of seeing Canada's long-term economic prosperity.

We understand we need to be good stewards with our money in Ottawa. Could the member speak on the importance of this to his constituents and how it is an important part of this legislation?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend and, yes, I am a member of the underground moose hunting economy for sure.

In terms of balanced budgets, it is critical for our country. For Canada, it means that no matter what economic storm comes at us, we will be able to react like we did in 2008 with Canada's economic action plan. If a household has paid off all of its credit card bills and mortgage, no matter what happens economically, that household will be able to look after itself, which is the position Canada is in now. Thank goodness for that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the member's speech. It is as though we are living in a parallel universe. The people I have talked to are worried about the fact that funds for social housing are disappearing, that child and family poverty in parts of our country have not gone down, that people are working two and three jobs just to feed their children and that student loan debt is increasing. Municipalities have been calling on the government to invest in infrastructure, whether it is sewer, water or roads.

With respect to the environment, over the last couple of weeks we saw Canada being castigated on the world stage for its grim record on greenhouse gas emission reductions, plus any of the other initiatives we might be taking around prevention and mitigation. Our former leader, the late Jack Layton, used to say that we needed to talk about the fact that it was fine to fix the roof, but it did not do us any good if the foundation was crumbling. I would argue that the foundation in Canada is crumbling under the government's watch.

With regard to Bill C-4, the NDP is opposing it both on process and content. This is just like the three previous omnibus budget bills, C-38, C-45 and C-60.

Bill C-4 would amend 70 pieces of legislation. It contains two entirely new acts, the Mackenzie gas project impacts fund act and the public service labour relations and employment board. In talking about this, I want to refer to the process for one moment. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to thoroughly review legislation that comes before us, to call witnesses and propose amendments. We are not able to do that in this current democratic deficit climate.

I want to quote a couple of people who have commented on the government process with regard to omnibus bills.

In iPolitics, former finance officials Scott Clark and Peter DeVries stated:

Budget vagueness is a troubling trend. Vagueness and obtuseness have featured in successive budgets, with details provided in the omnibus budget bills. The real budget has now become the budget omnibus bill. This undermines the credibility and transparency of the budget and requires much more diligence in assessing budget proposals.

Andrew Coyne stated:

Not only does this make a mockery of the confidence convention—shielding bills that would otherwise be defeatable within a money bill, which is not—it makes it impossible to know what Parliament really intended by any of it. We've no idea whether MPs supported or opposed any particular bill in the bunch, only that they voted for the legislation that contained them. There is no common thread that runs between them, no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet....But there is something quite alarming about Parliament being obliged to rubber-stamp the government's whole legislative agenda at one go.

I could not agree more with Mr. Coyne.

The challenge here is that time after time we have heard the government get up and say that the NDP has voted against X. What it does not say is that it was an omnibus budget bill that would change several different pieces of acts and regulations. Perhaps there were pieces of the legislation that we agreed with but also pieces we could not agree with. Therefore, we do a balancing act. We take a look at the overall public good, then we determine whether we will vote for or against. Unfortunately, with the way the government acts, we largely end up voting against its omnibus budget bills because we do not see them as being in the public good overall.

I want to highlight some of the changes proposed by this legislation. As I mentioned, it will amend or repeal 70 pieces of legislation in over 300 pages. It strips health and safety officers of their powers and puts nearly all of these powers into the hands of the minister. It significantly weakens the ability of employees to refuse work in unsafe conditions. It moves to eliminate binding arbitration as a method to resolve disputes in the public service. It guts Canada's most venerable scientific research institution, the National Research Council. It reduces the number of permanent members on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board. It pushes ahead with the Conservatives' ill-advised $350 million tax hike on labour-sponsored ventured capital funds and allows for three directors of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board to be non-Canadian residents.

Many of the changes that proposed deserved separate legislation so we could have had that kind of thorough review. Instead, we have a bill that was rammed through and presented to three different committees in very limited time frames. Any amendments that were proposed by the official opposition or the opposition parties were rejected out of hand.

That is not good governance. That is what the Conservatives claim they stand for in this country: good governance, accountability, and transparency. None of those three are true.

I just want to touch on the Parliamentary Budget Officer for just one moment, another officer of Parliament who has been under attack by the government. He has been forced to go to court to try to get documents to demonstrate what kinds of savings are being proposed by the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the overall impact of budget 2012, fiscal update 2012, and budget 2013 would be a loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% reduction in GDP. This is a significant decline in economic growth.

That leads me to the smoke and mirrors games played by the Conservatives. An article from November 13, on Global News, indicated that the government had“sat on more than $10 billion in funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect in 2012-13 through a slew of programs in dozens of departments”.

The federal government held on to more than $10 billion it was expected to spend in 2012-13, with almost half coming from two departments, according to recently published financial documents. These were funds Parliament approved and Canadians were told they could expect...including the Senate Ethics Officer, disability and death compensation at Veterans Affairs, and weather and environmental services for Canadians at Environment Canada.

I want to touch on one particular part of this fund, and that is Transport Canada. I do not know where most members live and whether the municipalities where they live are suffering the kinds of infrastructure deficits many of our communities are suffering from. Many of our communities have aging infrastructure, and this is a deficit that is being passed on to future generations, because we have refused consistently over decades to provide the federal contribution to updating and upgrading the infrastructure.

Interestingly, Transport Canada, with Infrastructure Canada, had the most trouble spending its budget.

In 2012-13, that department was responsible for almost $1.6 billion of Transport's overall $2.5 billion lapse, according to the Public Accounts....

Within Infrastructure Canada, a large chunk of the lapse in 2012-13 came from the Building Canada Fund, an $8.8 billion project announced in 2007. The project was set up to support national, regional, and municipal projects related to public transit, green energy and drinking water, among other priorities.

Last year, the two components of the funds—the “major infrastructure” and “community” components—were together slated to spend more than $2.2 billion. Only $1.1 billion made it out the door.

That is shameful. If that is the way the government is going to move toward balancing the budget, it is balancing the budget on the backs of our communities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer suggested, in a review of the supplementary estimates, that the government has been unable to spend approximately $10 billion of the budgetary authorities provided by Parliament over each of the past three years. As such,

Parliamentarians may wish to seek clarification regarding why this level of unspent money remains so high, what measures will be undertaken by departments and agencies to ensure that spending directed by Parliament occurs, and whether all of the $5.4 billion sought in these supplementary estimates is actually required.

That is just one example. I just want to close by saying that child poverty is not even being tackled in this budget. I want to point to the grim record in British Columbia, where child and family poverty has simply not been tackled. There is absolutely a federal government role in this, and I would actually encourage members in this House to support my Bill C-233, which proposes a poverty reduction plan. The federal government can take some leadership.

I have just a couple of numbers here. B.C. had a child poverty rate of 18.6%, the worst rate of any province in Canada using the before-tax, low-income cutoffs of Statistics Canada as the measure of poverty.

By any measure, I think each and every one of us in this House would agree that children should come first and that it is time for the government to actually demonstrate leadership by putting in place programs and services that support our families and our communities.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might have had the opportunity last week to meet with the folks from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

The member spoke at length about the infrastructure challenges Canada faces but neglected to talk about a truly amazing achievement of our government that won wide praise throughout the municipalities in my riding. I would like the member to comment on the response by municipalities in her riding with respect to our dedicated gas-tax-sharing revenue for municipal level infrastructure. In our last budget, we locked that in and have indexed that important sharing with that level of government to address their infrastructure needs in the future.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I have met with municipal councillors and regional districts. It is a little different in British Columbia in that we have regional districts.

I spoke to them about infrastructure spending, and one concern that was raised, as I pointed out in this Global News article, is that the government announces the money, but it actually does not spend it. If it does not spend it, if it does not get the money out the door, it does not actually help the bridges, roads, waste water treatment plants, or water treatment plants.

If the government is going to announce infrastructure money, it should make sure there is an adequate process in place to submit proposals in a timely manner, adequately assess them in a timely manner, and then cut the cheques. That is what needs to happen. It is fine to announce the dollars, but they need to be spent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is about how the bill does not necessarily deal with budget issues.

This is of critical importance, because we have seen an assault on democracy in the House of Commons ever since we have had a Conservative majority government. It is a different approach of trying to bring legislation in through the back door by using a budget bill. It is a very sneaky way of doing it, but, most importantly, it denies the opportunity for members of Parliament to provide due diligence. It prevents bills that should be stand-alone bills from going to committee and having third reading and so forth, thereby, I believe, ultimately not allowing for the proper attention to be given to what should be a number of pieces of legislation. That is why Bill C-4 is such a destructive force on democracy in Canada.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, we are seeing an erosion of the trust of Canadian citizens in the process. As I mentioned, when 70 different pieces of legislation and regulations are jammed together into one omnibus bill, it does not allow adequate oversight.

If the government actually had confidence in the legislation it was proposing, it would propose stand-alone legislation and allow us the opportunity to bring witnesses forward, but it limits the time, limits the number of witnesses, and limits the ability to have oversight. It makes one wonder if it is actually afraid to hear criticism and afraid to have people turn their attention to the bill.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a lot of emails from my constituents with regard to this particular bill. One was from Murray Gore, who wanted me to ask the question of why the government is going about it the way it is. He wrote:

This bill would water down the definition of “danger” in Part II of the Canada Labour Code to the point it will become the weakest law in the country regulating the right of workers to refuse dangerous work without reprisals from their employers. It will lead to more workplace deaths and injuries in federally regulated industries.

My question to my colleague is this. People are very concerned, especially workers who are being forced to work in dangerous places. Can the member comment on that?