Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member and I are both from British Columbia, and although they were not federally regulated industries, we saw a spike in deaths a few years back in the logging sector. There was some attention brought to bear, and through working with the workers, WorkSafeBC, and the employers, there were some changes made.

What we see here is a regressive step. What we should be doing with federally regulated employment is strengthening workplace safety to ensure that workers have the supports in place that ensure they can go to work and go home safely. It is also a benefit to employers. There are all kinds of things that happen in a workplace when there is an accident.

This is a very unfortunate move on the government's part. The government claims to stand up for working families, but it is hard to believe that statement when it does these things that do not protect the workers and do not protect the workplace.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-4. It is a real privilege for me, not only to speak to it but also to tell my colleagues on the other side that there is good news within this piece of legislation. It is good news on a number of fronts. It is good news for Canadian families. It is good news for Canadian workers.

We have a lot of naysayers on the other side of the House, people who criticize the work that our government has done. There have been a lot of folks saying that more should be done. It is interesting. They want to see a smaller bill. Then they want to include a whole number of additional measures within the bill. It is always a contradiction when we are dealing with the other side.

We listen to the complaints from the other side, but there are some folks who have some expertise when it comes to finance and when it comes to world finance. I think it is important that we listen to them.

We know that there are organizations, such as the OECD and the IMF, that have passed judgment on our government's work and on the efforts that we have undertaken to protect Canada's economy. They have, again and again, praised, not only our government's initiatives, but our finance minister, who has brought forward these initiatives.

We know that there are folks around the world who are watching what Canada is doing and who are seeking to replicate it in their countries, as well.

We are seeing significant benefits as a Canadian population, things that are hitting home in communities across this country. When we look at what has resulted from the work that our government has done following the great recession, we know that there are over a million net new jobs that have been created as a result of the efforts of our government. Specifically, within that million jobs that have been created, over 90% of them are full-time jobs and 80% of those are in the private sector. Therefore, our government's initiatives to bring forward changes have freed up business to create jobs, to create opportunity.

We often talk about these big numbers that often just flow off our tongues but do not really have an impact, I do not think. However, every job is meaningful because it impacts the person who has that job.

Most important, at this Christmas time, we know that many of these jobs that have been created impact families. Families, of course, are one of the most important building blocks of our communities. Having a job makes a world of difference, especially as we approach this Christmas time. To know that our employment rate keeps rising, that the unemployment rate keeps dropping, that more and more families have the necessary means to get what they need to have in order to support their families is great news. It is something that I wish the opposition would spend more time recognizing and spend more time giving credit for. Because I think that we, as parliamentarians, need to be concerned, first and foremost, about ensuring that families have jobs to ensure that families are supported in those mechanisms. This bill would go a great distance to continue that great effort.

I think it is important to reflect on the past. I think it is important to recognize that Canada's track record, when it comes to the economy and making these changes, did not just start yesterday. Many of these changes and these initiatives we have undertaken started nearly eight years ago when our government first got into office. We started to prepare for the possibility of a rainy day.

In the first number of years of our government, we paid off $37 billion of debt. That was surplus. We recognized it was important to reduce the debt of our country, so we paid off $37 billion of the Canadian debt. Any family knows that in order to prepare for a rainy day, if money comes in from a windfall or from any mechanism, the most important thing to do is to pay off any debt. That is exactly what Canada did.

As a result, Canada was praised during the great recession. First, we were prepared for the possibility of that, better prepared than any other of the G8 countries. We also saw that Canada was able, then, to put money into the economy. We were able to support initiatives across this country to help reduce the impact of the global economic recession.

Obviously it was something that was beyond the borders of this country that caused the great recession, but people across this country were feeling the impact of the recession. Therefore, to immediately start flowing out money in an initiative to support local communities and job creation was absolutely essential.

It is important to note that in 2012, the great recession had come and many governments had put a lot of money into their economies to support initiatives to lessen the impact of the recession. Canada had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 34.6%. That was the lowest in the G7 and the second lowest was Germany. It had 57.2%, so a significantly higher debt-to-GDP ratio.

To give some scope of what this meant in terms of our fellow members of the G7, the average debt-to-GDP ratio within the G7 was 90.4%. If members compare 90.4% to Canada's 34.6%, they will recognize, as all Canadians have recognized, that Canada was in a better spot than most other countries. However, Canada has continued to lead, because we will be the first within the G7 to move from a country that continues to run deficits to being a deficit-free country.

Our Minister of Finance has continued to lead and ensure that Canada reaches that point of being deficit-free in the coming months. No other country can boast that. No other country can boast the debt-to-GDP ratio. However, we are not going to sit here and boast. We are going to continue to do the work that is necessary to ensure that we never fall back, that we never fall behind.

We hear many calls from the opposition benches to engage in risky spending schemes. They say it is just a billion here or several billion there. The NDP had plans to bring forward a $20 billion carbon tax and we know that the Liberals have all kinds of interesting plans, including their efforts to raise the GST. We know on this side that it is important for a government to remain constrained to the dollars that come in, not simply to drag in more money from Canadians.

We believe it is important to continue to support families. It is important that families are not taxed to death. As a matter of fact, as a father of three young kids, I had an interesting conversation the other day. My daughter, who is seven years old, told me she does not think Santa Claus is real. She thinks that Santa Claus is her mother and I. It was awkward but I told her that mom and dad help out Santa Claus.

Families across this country are finding it easier to help out Santa Claus because the average family of four is getting $3,200 back that they were not getting eight years ago. As families prepare for Christmas, they recognize that our government has put over $3,200 back into their pockets so that they can support their families and can continue to help out Santa Claus at this time of the year.

The budget bill is our effort to continue to have an environment in Canada where we have opportunity, hope, prosperity and jobs for all Canadians. More importantly, when it comes down to the family level, it means more prosperity and more ability for families to support those who are most important in their lives, such as their kids, and to contribute to the local communities we live in.

I think it is important at this time of giving for the opposition to recognize that the bill is an important step forward to ensure not only that Canadians have jobs, but what that means at the family level as well.

Bill C-4—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-4, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about how the Conservatives are putting money into families. He talked about his three children. I have two children, too.

The Conservatives' record speaks for itself. They have accumulated over $100 billion in debt that my kids and his kids will have to pay. That is their record.

My question to the member is this. Who will pay for the mismanagement of the Conservatives that has taken place over the last six years?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize what the Liberal and the NDP plans are in contrast to what the Conservative plan is.

I have been here for the last nearly eight years. There has never been an initiative brought forward by the opposition benches that would reduce taxes or that would work to pay down debt. We have seen consistently, time and time again, that any time our government has engaged in any spending plan, the opposition benches call for those spending plans to be more robust. They want to spend more. They want to take out more debt, and they want to ensure that future generations are saddled with that debt.

Our government has put into each family, the average family of four, $3,200 per year in tax savings. This is important. This is real money. The opposition has voted against every single initiative that would see dollars go back into the hands of families. That is unfortunate.

The opposition has also called for higher debt and more debt for future generations. I will stand on this side of the House and defend our initiatives to reduce debt so that future generations do not have to pay for the decisions and the desires of the other side.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit much, saying not more debt when the government inherited a billion dollar surplus and turned it into a billion dollar deficit, on an annual basis. I take exception to that. The hon. member talked about jobs and he talked about plans, but then there is reality.

There was an interesting story in the Hill Times last week. A comparison was done. This is a reality check for the member. It is 93 months since the Conservative government has been in office. The number of Canadians with full-time jobs increased roughly 8.9%. That is 93 months. Compare that to the Paul Martin-Jean Chrétien governments, in the 93 months prior to 2006, full-time jobs increased by 17.1% overall. The reality speaks for itself.

My question related to the budget is this. Why do the Conservatives have to sneak so much other legislation into the budget legislation in order to get their legislative agenda passed? Why not give it the respect it is entitled to and introduce separate pieces of legislation on the very important issues that are being presented in this particular budget?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government, the Martin government, was well known for not getting anything done. Our government recognizes that Canadians want stuff done, so it brings forward initiatives like those found in the bill.

My colleague from the Liberal Party claims they created more jobs. He references the Hill Times. I will reference organizations like the OECD and the IMF. Those are somewhat more legitimate on economic issues. They have praised Canada consistently. What Canada has done following the greatest recession outside of the Great Depression is remarkable in comparison to any other G8 country.

If my hon. colleague has any advice when it comes to reducing taxes for Canadian families or reducing the debt, I would like to hear it, because that would be the first time we have heard any advice on those two measures from a member of the Liberal Party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to this bill. Ultimately, I am disappointed. Just before we had the questions and answers, we had the government House leader stand in his place and once again bring in this tradition of time allocation and preventing debate in the House of Commons, which I would attribute to the Conservative reform majority government mentality.

It is somewhat disappointing that the government only sees one way to pass through its legislation, and that is through time constraints. There has been an assault on democracy by the majority Conservative government like no other in the history of our nation.

What we are debating today is Bill C-4, which deals with a wide variety of other pieces of legislation that have very little to do with the budget. We are talking about changes to the Supreme Court. We are talking about changes to the Labour Code. We are talking about changes to immigration. We could argue that all of these should be stand-alone pieces of legislation. We should be highlighting this aspect of the debate today on Bill C-4.

In the last three budgets and budget supplementary documents that we have seen, the bills we have been presented with have been massive pieces of legislation. The government has used the budget to try to get past numerous other aspects of law that should have been stand-alone pieces of legislation. The Conservatives know that.

I have a quote. It is from someone who would have been the leader of the Reform Party at the time, and now he is the Prime Minister of Canada. How quickly things have changed. I will quote what he said in the days when he was in the opposition. He said:

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

That is a direct quote. He asked the government members in particular to worry about the implications of the omnibus bills for democracy and the functionality of Parliament.

That bill was but 100 pages. It was nowhere near as profoundly huge as the three budget bills that the Conservative government has brought forward. The arguments that the then-Reform Party leader was using back then apply today. The government chooses to continue on.

I have heard other members talk about “the tradition of the House”. This is no tradition of the House. If anything, full credit goes to the PMO. Is this the only way that the PMO feels it can pass legislation?

When we talk about other forms of bills that the ministers are allowed to introduce in a proper fashion, what do we see? Time allocation. The Conservative government has brought in over 50 motions of time allocation. What does that mean? It means that there have been 25 hours of House business just on bell ringing alone, not to mention the half hour debates and questions and answers that precede the votes themselves, and the voting time that follows. Imagine the hours and hours that have been wasted because of the Conservative government's determination that the only way to pass legislation here is to bring in time allocation.

The Conservatives have failed, and they have failed miserably, in that the government House leader is unable to sit down with opposition House leaders and come up with agreements on how and when bills, whether they are budget bills or not, should be passed.

I have been a parliamentarian for over 20 years. I have sat down with government opposition leaders, albeit at a different level, and with government House leaders and opposition House leaders in the past, and I have seen the way it should work.

This Conservative majority has demonstrated no willingness to make that happen. Today we are talking about a budget bill. The Conservatives are giving their standard lines. They get the gold star. The PM's office must have someone who is assigned the responsibility of handing out the gold stars every time members go to those speaking lines, that spin, about jobs and prosperity.

Let us remember those commercials and the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of tax dollars spent to promote the government's bills. At the end of the day, Conservatives can be critical of The Hill Times or the stories that show the reality that the government has not done as well as it proclaims it has in regard to job creation.

How many times have we heard the government say that it is going to have surplus budgets? Reality is quite different. The Conservatives took a surplus budget, and this was before the recession kicked in, and they squandered that surplus budget. They turned it into a deficit budget. It did not take them long. They do not have a history of getting Canada's books out of budget situations. In fact, it is quite the opposite. When has there been a Conservative prime minister who was actually able to take a deficit and turn it into a surplus?

Members talk about social programs and say that it was the Conservatives who brought in the social programs. Whether it is Canada's pension program, the OAS, or the guaranteed supplement programs, those are all Liberal creations. They are the ones who brought them forward. Whether it is health care or unemployment insurance, it was the Liberal Party of Canada that brought them forward. We recognized the value of social programs, even if it meant working with other levels of government, which is something the current government is not very good at.

There were even constitutional issues that had to be overcome to bring in employment insurance programs. It was not easy. However, we will find that there are a number of programs today because of the way Liberal governments in the past ensured that the values Canadians hold so dearly were acted upon.

We are concerned about the state of finances. The member talks about tax breaks. The Liberal Party of Canada has been arguing for tax breaks. I do not know where the member is coming from. There have been over one thousand tariff increases. It has been the Liberal Party, day in and day out, talking about those tariffs and some of the taxes put on Canadians.

What about small businesses? Small businesses are the ones generating the economic activity that is creating employment in Canada. The best social program is a job. We should be doing more. We are glad, to a certain degree, that the Conservatives have taken us up on some of the small business tax breaks we have suggested. However, they were Liberal ideas.

When the members stand to speak to Bill C-4, they are limited. The government House leader has indicated that tomorrow we can anticipate whether we are going to get another hour of debate to complement the few hours we have already had, even though we have 308 members of Parliament. However, there is a huge bill before us, and it is not possible to address all the different issues in the bill. That is the reason I find it so difficult to even consider. We have to take it in its entirety when it comes to voting on the bill.

This bill is an assault on democracy. It does not do what it could do in terms of economic activity, in terms of addressing the middle class.

It is going to be the Liberal Party of Canada going forward that is going to be there for the middle class. We believe, at the end of the day, that we need to make a difference and provide hope. That is something we are prepared to do well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, this member was gracious enough to stand up and ask me a question when I gave a speech earlier in the House, so I want to return the favour.

The member talks about the Conservatives squandering a surplus. This is Liberal revisionism. I want to ask the member a question. We paid down $37 billion—let me repeat that number: $37 billion—on our national debt from 2006, 2007 and 2008.

By what definition could this member possibly suggest that paying down $37 billion, to the lowest level of national debt in 25 years in the pre-recession period, is squandering a surplus?

Furthermore, I would like to know if the member would have balanced the budget, which will be balanced very soon, in fact by 2015, by slashing transfers to the provinces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, all we have to do is look at the books of the Minister of Finance. It is very clear that when the Conservatives inherited the Liberal Party's books, Paul Martin's finances, there was actually a surplus.

Well before the recession hit, we were in a deficit situation. That is in fact the reality. Even the government's financial documents will clearly show that. The member seems to be in denial on the issue, but that is in fact the reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that the Liberal member talks about the fact that they represent and fight for the middle-income families. This was a government that basically put in place the 2% funding cap on first nations education. We saw the demise of a lot of funds under the EI program.

How could he as a member of Parliament answer that? Did the government actually do that? Did it impose a 2% funding cap? Did the government actually take away a lot of the funding in the EI program? Did it, in turn, put through omnibus budget bills?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member is what we call cherry-picking certain issues. I could respond by doing likewise. I have been accused of doing a bit of cherry-picking myself at times. I acknowledge that.

I can say that it was the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party that killed the Kelowna accord. That would have done more for the first nations than any other negotiated agreement. It was the NDP deciding to get rid of the Liberals and voting with the Conservatives.

What about child care? How many people of the middle class would have benefited from an enhanced child care program, something that was there and was being put into place? Again, the New Democrats voted against that in support of the Conservatives.

Even when we come up with good solid social programs, quite often what we find is that the New Democrats, for some bizarre reason, do not like to support good, solid social Liberal ideas and will vote with the Conservative Party. It is somewhat mind-boggling when I see that.

I would ask that particular member, when she gets the opportunity, to maybe address those two major shortcomings of her party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that we now have what appears to be a new practice that did not exist under previous administrations, being two omnibus budget bills a year.

That is what happened in 2012, with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, and that is what is happening this year with Bill C-60 and Bill C-4. It means that every single budget is followed by a omnibus bill, which in the last two years has comprised 800 to 900 pages each time, of multiple separate acts. The Canadian Bar Association made the point on Bill C-4 that this reduces the ability to have proper hearings and scrutiny on each of the component parts of the legislation, and it violates parliamentary practice.

I wonder if my colleague from Winnipeg North would agree.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the member's comment and maybe add to it.

We need to recognize that had this been a stand-alone bill, it would have come into the House, there would have been a second reading for good debate, there would have been a standing committee to allow stakeholders and Canadians to contribute, there would have been a third reading debate and then there would have been votes wrapped all over that.

We are talking well over 100 pieces of legislation combined.That is a four year legislative agenda in many ways that has been lost because of the government using these budget omnibus bills.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Fleetwood—Port Kells to participate in the debate on Bill C-4, the economic action plan 2013 act no. 2.

The proposed act will implement key measures from economic action plan 2013 as well as certain previously announced tax measures to help create jobs, stimulate economic growth and secure Canada's long-term prosperity.

Our government remains focused on the number one priority of my constituents and of people right across Canada, which is jobs. The measures contained in Bill C-4 reflect that priority and include support for job creators such as: extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses, which would benefit an estimated 560,000 employers; freezing employment insurance premium rates for three years, leaving $660 million in the pockets of jobs creators and workers in 2014 alone; increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexing the new limit to inflation; expanding the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases for waste; measures to close tax loopholes and combat tax evasion; modernizing the Canada student loans program by moving to electronic service delivery; improving the efficiency of the temporary foreign worker program by expanding electronic service delivery; and phasing out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit.

As our government has made clear, while Canada leads the G7 with more than one million jobs created since the depth of the global economic recession, we are not immune from the challenges beyond our borders. We cannot afford to become complacent.

By implementing the measures from economic action plan 2013, our government is helping to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians and grow Canada's economy.

Canada's economic action plan 2013 demonstrates our government's continued strong support for British Columbia through record federal transfer support for hospitals, schools and other critical services. Totalling over $5.9 billion in 2013-14, this transfer support represents an increase of nearly $2 billion since the former federal Liberal government.

Already there has been unprecedented federal investment in B.C.'s Lower Mainland, in Surrey and into British Columbia communities under this Conservative government impacting nearly every aspect of the lives of hard-working families.

We are making a real difference in the everyday lives of Surrey residents. In total, our government has spent over $1.56 billion on local projects since 2006. This includes the new RCMP headquarters, the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the new Surrey Library, among others.

I have personally made dozens of federal funding announcements totalling over $40 million. Some are the result of the economic action plan, while others are through the Pacific gateway project of the building Canada fund.

Regardless of where the money comes from, it is resulting in local jobs, local opportunities and local facilities for my constituents and Surrey residents. It is all about helping hard-working families, helping the unemployed, seniors and youth in our communities.

In recent months, I have had the pleasure of delivering over $250,000 for the Surrey YMCA, over $110,000 for the Surrey Sport and Leisure Complex, nearly $180,000 for the Newton Wave Pool, over $200,000 to improve water quality at four Surrey community facilities, $350,000 to aid Sophie's Place and protect child victims of crime and nearly $400,000 for 42 projects to allow for the summer employment of students.

It is all about improving our communities, creating jobs, and stimulating the economy. Bill C-4 contains measures that would not only create jobs but would also keep government spending in check so that we can return the budget to balance.

Budget 2013 has our government on track to balance the budget, on schedule, in 2015-16. From 2006 to 2008, our government paid down almost $37 billion in debt, bringing Canada's federal debt-to-GDP ratio to its lowest level in nearly 30 years. This placed Canada in a very strong position to weather the global recession. When the recession hit, we made a deliberate decision to run temporary deficits to protect the Canadian economy, and that plan worked, with over one million net new jobs created since July 2009.

At the same time, we committed to return to balanced budgets over the medium term. We ended temporary stimulus as planned. We controlled government spending. We eliminated wasteful and inefficient spending.

Budget 2013 announces further saving measures that will total $2 billion by 2015-16, including examining spending to ensure that government operations are managed efficiently, reducing travel costs, standardizing government information technology, closing tax loopholes, and improving the Canada Revenue Agency's compliance program to reduce tax evasion.

Canada's fiscal position remains the envy of the G7. Economic action plan 2013 reinforces our position and ensures that our economy is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

As recently confirmed in the government's annual financial report, we are right on track to return to budget surplus. That is good news. In fact, the deficit last year fell to $18.9 billion, down by more than one-quarter from the deficit in 2011-12 and down by nearly two-thirds from 2009-10.

Our government is acting prudently and decisively to ensure that Canada's economy creates good jobs and sustains a high quality of life for Canadian families. With economic action plan 2013, our government remains squarely focused on the number one priority of Canadians, with a forward-looking plan to create jobs and to grow the economy in British Columbia and across Canada.

Under our plan, Canada will also return to balanced budgets in 2015, and federal taxes will remain at the lowest level in 50 years.

Budget 2013 builds on our government's solid record of achievement, a record that includes unprecedented funding for Surrey infrastructure, lowering taxes over 160 times, and lowering the average family's tax bill by over $3,220. It is a good budget for Canada. It is a good budget for British Columbia, for Surrey, and, of course, for my riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the last number of years an increase in seniors' poverty in Canada. We saw in the report from the OECD just last week that seniors' poverty under the current government has actually gone up.

I would like her comments on how she sees this budget helping seniors when there are cuts to programs to help seniors, and veterans in particular, and when the forecast is to increase the age of eligibility for OAS.

Finally, most seniors are finding it really difficult to get the basics met, in particular with the cost of medicine. There is nothing in this bill on helping with the cost of everyday life for seniors for things like health care. I would ask her to comment on that, the OECD report, the fact that seniors are being squeezed, and the fact that the government is looking at increasing eligibility for OAS.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would let the member know that our government does understand the importance of seniors' needs. That being said, our government also understands the importance of a strong economy and balancing the budget, and the Conservative government has always worked hard to grow the economy and support and create jobs to help Canadians across the country prosper with the help of our economic action plan. Canada has emerged out of the global economic recession with one of the strongest economies and the highest job-creation record among the G7 countries. That is something to be very proud of, and I am proud to be part of this government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the economic action plan on a couple of occasions, which is great. I am sure the PMO will be glad to hear that.

The question I have is in regard to the labour standards that are being proposed to be changed. Does the member have any thoughts that she would like to share with the House on that aspect of the bill?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of Canadian workers and of course employers. This includes Canadian health and safety regulations that are both supportive and very clear so that workers and employers do not abuse them.

Over the last 10 years, more than 80% of refusals to work have been determined to be situations of no danger, even after appeals. By clarifying the definition of “danger” with the amendment to the Canadian Labour Code in Bill C-4, workers and of course employers would be better able to deal with health and safety issues under the internal responsibility system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells that there are many measures in this budget that I would want to support: things that go after tax cheaters, technical amendments, changes to the lifetime capital gains. There are things there that actually relate to budgets and could be voted on.

Would the member not agree that it would have been preferable for the House to have those parts that are not related to the budget, such as changes to the Canada Labour Code health and safety provisions and changes to the Immigration Act, dealt with properly and separately so that we could assess them on their own merit after proper review and study?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member was not paying much attention to the speech that I delivered earlier or she would not be asking that question.

Our government is on the right track. Since 2006 our Conservative government has worked hard to ensure that taxpayer money is used very effectively and efficiently. Due to our fiscal responsibility and debt-reduction measures, our government is on its way to balancing the budget in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am pleased to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents.

What is less pleasant is the fact that in just two and a half years, this is the third time I have spoken to an omnibus bill. It has been a different bill each time, unfortunately. I think this situation illustrates the recurring problem that keeps resurfacing with this government.

It is also difficult, as the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said earlier this afternoon, to choose a topic to discuss. I will try my best because my constituents have concerns about many of the provisions in the bill.

The first, and the most interesting, is the issue of Supreme Court justices. Of all the things that have nothing to do with a budget implementation bill, I think that the easiest one to focus on is the proposed changes to the process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

It is even more problematic in this case because it seems to be a response to a process that the government bungled from the outset. We saw how difficult this process was, particularly after Justice Nadon appeared before the committee. Then we have the Minister of Justice saying that he wants to propose these changes.

I think that it is important to take this opportunity to point out that the hon. member for Gatineau sought the unanimous consent of the House—which was obviously refused—to move a motion outlining the federal government's legal and constitutional requirements regarding the selection of Supreme Court judges and, in this case in particular, justices from Quebec. The process must be followed and the criteria must be met, but it does not seem that that was the case.

Not only did the Conservatives fail to abide by these criteria, but now they are proposing changes to them. What is more, the Conservatives decided to include these changes in a budget implementation bill, which is completely ridiculous and absurd.

All of the points I just made show a blatant lack of respect for Quebeckers, particularly the people in my riding. This is something that we strongly disagree with. It is one of the main problems with the bill. It is an issue that many of my constituents have raised since Bill C-4 was introduced in this House.

Another problem that affects Quebec in particular, since it is something unique to Quebec, is the labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. The Conservatives plan to do away with the tax credit in this budget implementation bill.

Let me be clear. Although these funds are called workers' funds, they are an important economic driver not just for workers but also for businesses and the community.

I would like to speak about a very relevant example in my riding of Chambly—Borduas. This summer, as usual, I attended the launch of entrepreneurial projects by young people from the Maison des jeunes des quatre fenêtres youth centre in Mont-Saint-Hilaire.

Throughout the summer, these young people start and run a business. They sign contracts, manage budgets and look for work within the community, whether it be mowing lawns, working in seniors' residences or painting fences. These young people do all sorts of work for the community and clearly all of that costs money.

I was intrigued—if that is the right term—to see labour-sponsored funds listed as sponsors. I told the chair of the youth centre's board of directors that this was a good example of how labour-sponsored funds give back to our communities and to Quebec society.

This is another example that shows that the Conservative government is not taking into account Quebec realities and does not understand how important these measures are to Quebec communities.

They make a positive and important contribution.

We must therefore condemn this budget measure and the budget implementation bill. That is very important for Quebeckers. We sent postcards to the people in my riding inviting them to comment on and express their opposition to this measure. We received hundreds of responses, maybe even a thousand. In the last budget bill, people also opposed the botched EI reform. Again, the people of Quebec protested to express their opposition to this measure. This is a misguided measure that has been imposed on Quebeckers. Obviously, Quebec is not the only province that has been harmed, but I am focusing first and foremost on my community, which was also affected.

There are many other measures, but we also have to address the question of process. A number of my colleagues have also raised this issue. I spoke about the procedure for appointing judges to the Supreme Court. This shows how this bill includes everything but the kitchen sink. The same thing happened with Bill C-38 and the omnibus bill introduced last fall. All these elements are extremely problematic. Instead of having a healthy debate and addressing all the items in the bill, we can only speak for 10 minutes—20 minutes, if we are lucky . We can debate the bill at the second reading and third reading stages. Obviously, there is also an issue with the committees. The time available for committees to study bills has been severely restricted. We are starting to get used to this, although we certainly do not want to. The members' speaking time is rather limited, which makes it rather difficult to address every item.

I would like to talk about something else along the same lines. In fact, I am running out of time—which illustrates my point—and that is exactly what we take issue with. Before I run out of time, I would like to criticize the changes made to the Canada Labour Code. It is absolutely unacceptable that the government is making changes to the working conditions of so many people, including in the public sector, through a budget implementation bill. This is an unhealthy way to operate, and workers have been critical of this approach. Last week, I met with several young people from the Canadian Labour Congress who were representing a number of different labour bodies. Those young representatives commented on the measures. The omnibus nature of the bill limits our ability in committee to hear testimony from people like these young representatives. It is tough for legislators. Unfortunately, things do not change. The members across the way say they want to focus on the economy, but when we read the bill, it is clear that it is not just about the economy. In fact, there is little mention of the economy. The bill is mainly about changing the foundation of our social systems. I think it is important to speak out against this. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the debate, the government has been turning a deaf ear.

In closing, I would like to say that even when it comes to the economy, the government clearly lacks judgment. It is making cuts and reducing services. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that even though the government is cutting services, including services to Canadians, it is still spending just as much money. I think that says it all when it comes to how this government is managing the economy. Instead of talking about the economy, the government has chosen to talk about other things.

Unfortunately, we will not be supporting Bill C-4.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why does my colleague think the government uses omnibus bills? It puts everything in a budget implementation bill and, in the end, it becomes a bill about unions, safety, and so on.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. I feel as though this bill is really discordant. Some of its elements are acceptable, while others are not.

What the Conservatives are proposing here is discordant and confusing. In short, they are not allowing any real debate, and this is an affront to democracy.

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

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

That is what I have been trying to say, eloquently or not. This is the third time I have spoken out against this method, so it is becoming harder to find ways to say the same thing without repeating myself.

As my colleague mentioned, this bill contains all kinds of things that have nothing to do with the budget. This seems to be a way for some Conservative ministers to find solutions to problems without truly addressing the challenges.

For example, the Minister of Justice wants to make changes to how Supreme Court justices from Quebec are appointed. Instead of addressing the issue properly and fixing a botched process, the government chose to hide it in an omnibus bill.

We are seeing the same sort of thing from the President of the Treasury Board. He lacks respect for public sector workers. So many negotiations were not conducted in good faith. For example, the negotiations with the diplomats were very difficult.

Even though there are problems with the process, rather than sitting down with these people, having a serious conversation and proposing solutions in a bill, the government is trying to hide these measures in an omnibus bill. That is the problem with this process, and the NDP opposes this way of doing things.