Debates of Dec. 6th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, I do not see much relevance to Bill C-4 in the member's speech, frankly. It was mentioned once before that the speech should be kept relevant. One obligation we have in this place is to keep the debate relevant to the topic at hand. I would ask you to ensure that happens, Mr. Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am not sure if the member has been here throughout my comments. If he reads what has been said, I was talking about Bill C-4. I am talking about the budget bill and it is very lengthy. I am showing how it is relevant. Bill C-4 is a huge bill and the government prorogued the session.

The members need to listen closely to what I am saying and they will find it is actually relevant.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we go back to the hon. member so that he can continue his speech, as all members know, there is a rule of relevance in this place that hon. members are required to speak to the matter that is before the House. That is true.

As was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, Bill C-4 touches on many areas. Therefore, there is inherently significant latitude within this discussion to talk about things that are in the bill or things that relate to things that are in the bill. On that basis, I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the time for the points of order will be deducted so that I will still get my full 20 minutes, because there is so much that I want to get on the record.

When we look at representing our constituents, one of the tools that I often use to allow my constituents the opportunity to have direct input here on the floor of the House of Commons is petitions. Through the petitions, members will know that I have had the opportunity to introduce a number of petitions on a wide variety of issues.

I would like to take a look at some of those petitions and how the government's budgetary decisions have had, I would say, a very poor performance in terms of priorities. Let me give a few examples. I am referring only to petitions that constituents of mine in Winnipeg North have taken the time to sign. I very much appreciate it. I will take those petitions here to the floor and provide some comment.

Example number one is one of the more popular petitions that I have. It deals with pensions and calls upon the government to recognize that people should continue to have the right to be able to retire at age 65, as opposed to the budgetary decision of the government to increase the age when one can qualify for the old age pension from 65 to 67. This is something that the government has now committed to do and that we believe is wrong.

I can tell the members opposite, and particularly the Prime Minister, that the residents of Winnipeg North believe that Canada is a wealthy enough country that we can allow people to retire at the age of 65 if that is what they choose. We have the riches available as a nation to continue that. That has been independently approved beyond a shadow of a doubt by individuals such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Another very popular petition that I get back deals with the House itself. When I do my questionnaires, there is a resounding response on this issue. At a time when the government is cutting back on its civil service, what is it also doing? It is increasing the number of politicians here in Canada. I have an overwhelming majority of constituents in Winnipeg North who disagree with the government's decision to increase the size of the House of Commons. We do not need to increase the size of the House of Commons. That has been an issue on which I have received an overwhelming response from constituents, with an overwhelming majority of them saying no.

Some, including myself, would estimate the cost at $30 million or more to accommodate that increase on an annual basis, not to mention the millions that would be involved in creating those positions. My constituents would rather see the millions and millions of dollars that it would cost spent on a wide variety of other types of social programs.

We have petitions regarding crime prevention. As the government talks tough about crime and getting tough on criminal activity, what it fails to recognize is the importance of dealing with some of the causes of crime and becoming more aggressive and progressive in dealing with issues that would prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. This is something that the constituents that I represent want me to express to the Prime Minister and to the government. They want me to say that we need to start doing what we can to prevent crimes from being committed in the first place. The best way to do that is to come up with activities and programs that would prevent, for example, gang activities from growing.

We can say to young people it is better to get involved in programs such as Katimavik, even though the government has cut that program, which provided thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast with wonderful opportunities, and fantastic lives have followed out of those opportunities. However, we should be looking for programs and ideas that would allow our young people to say “yes, I would rather be doing that as opposed to getting engaged in gangs”.

I was at the McGregor Armoury for the Remembrance Day service and it was so encouraging to see so many young people involved in Air Cadets and other cadet programs. This again provides opportunities for young people.

I only have another minute but there are so many other issues. I could talk about the housing co-ops. I could spend at least 20 minutes just on health care. The issue is that there is so much encompassed in the bill that we could and should be talking about. The bill is going to be forced to a vote. Why? Because of time allocation. The government does not allow MPs to express themselves and that is indeed unfortunate because there is so much to talk about.

I did not even get the opportunity to say that the government inherited billions in surplus and converted it into billions in debt. I did not say anything about the billions in trade surplus, which were converted into trade deficits. The government has not done what it should be doing and that is the reason that we cannot support Bill C-4.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my friend across the way. He seemed to touch on two major aspects. One was the ongoing Senate scandal and the Prime Minister's involvement in that. If I could follow his logic, the point he was making was that the Prime Minister's Office and the government have been greatly distracted by their own ethical lapses and that distraction leads to bad legislation and bad planning around the economy and health for Canadians.

We have seen a recent report by the OECD, another one from The Economist just today, talking about the frailty of the Canadian economy and the significant foundational issues that need to be addressed.

When we look at Bill C-4, which is the topic of today's debate, this bill, which is meant to deal with supposedly the budget and finances, has all of these things crammed in, as we so often see with these omnibus bills from the Conservatives.

I would make note that the bill is, in part, introduced to fix a previous omnibus bill that was introduced to fix a previous omnibus piece of legislation. That is why we in the New Democratic Party have such opposition to the very process the government uses, because Conservatives keep introducing laws to fix old laws and doing it all under time allocation.

One of the significant frailties or concerns in the Canadian economy is the housing bubble that exists in many of our housing markets across the country; it varies. What has the government done, from my hon. friend's perspective, to address the potential, growing and concerning issue of overpricing in the housing market and of course the potential bubble bursting and affecting so many millions of Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and I will address both points. There have been ethical challenges within the Prime Minister's Office. Canadians are very much aware of those challenges and as a result of that and as a result of the Prime Minister not being transparent, accountable or fully truthful on a wide variety of different issues coming out of the Prime Minister's Office, we have been putting in a huge amount of time in terms of the agenda of the House on that issue. It has taken away from other aspects that we could be addressing. The best example of that would probably be how that issue has dominated question period. We hope that the Prime Minister will see the value in terms of testifying under oath and coming to committee.

In regard to the housing issue, the member is quite right. There is a serious housing crisis today that does need to be dealt with. One of the petitions that I introduced deals with housing co-ops. We need to start looking at ways in which we can give strength to different types of housing programs such as housing co-ops, life lease programs, renovation programs. There is so much there that we could be doing, but we find that the government's budgets have been lacking in providing this.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech in the House earlier. He brought up some very valid points in relation to the ongoing scandals that we are seeing on the other side of the House from the government and how those relate to Bill C-4.

One of the things that Bill C-4 does is change the way the government is acting when it comes to budgets. It is not so much in the sense of omnibus budget bills, because it seems to be the common practice to put in as much stuff as it can, call it a budget, and then introduce it to the House. What we see now are changes to health and safety for workers. We have seen changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the previous omnibus budget bills. Then we had a prorogation of another month so that the government could come up with consumer-friendly items, but we have seen no action on these items, just a lot of talk.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on all of the talk that we hear from the other side, contrasted with the lack of action.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a real need for us to look at the way in which the government has chosen to pass legislation through these budget mega-bills. It is not healthy.

I believe that what we could do here in opposition, as much as possible, is to remind our constituents and to inform all Canadians, in the best way we can, that passing legislation through the back door is not a good way to go about it.

Whenever we have a budget bill, whether it federal or provincial, there is always a need to have some bills brought through in a budget implementation bill. That has happened in the past. What makes this unique is the quantity of bills that are being brought in through this back door.

I want to add one further comment, because I realize that people are really concerned about the PMO. Let us recognize that it is the budget that allows for the PMO to exist in the first place. Maybe we should be looking at how we could be cutting back on the budget in the Prime Minister's Office until we start to get straightforward and truthful answers and possibly have representatives come before a committee to testify under oath.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP obviously opposes Bill C-4, because of both its content and the process used. I have a question for my colleague.

Over the past 35 years, under both Conservative and Liberal governments, the income of the richest 20% of Canadians has increased, while the income of the poorest 80% has decreased.

Could he speak to that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity and the good fortune to be around for a number of years. One of the things I have found is that statistics can often be used in many different types of manipulative ways. I can reflect on the reality that back in the nineties, for three or four years, the United Nations reported Canada as the best country in the world to live in, based on a wide spectrum of social factors. I take great pride in our quality of life. Many Canadians will say that we are the best country in the world to live in. I like to believe that the Liberal Party of Canada had a lot to do with that through engaging Canadians and, as a political entity, bringing ideas forward to the floor of the House of Commons.

Therefore, I give credit where credit is due. Canadians who have taken the time to get engaged and to participate in the political process have made me a proud Liberal in terms of our social programs and health care, where we had record amounts of dollars. That was because of Paul Martin and his health care accord. Programs such as our CPP and pension programs and many of the national programs we have today, if not virtually all of them, exist because of the efforts of wonderful, great Canadians getting engaged, and the Liberal Party has most frequently been the vehicle used to implement them as government policy.

When the member makes reference to some mistakes being made over the last 35 years, I suspect there have been some. However, all in all, I believe that we have done exceptionally well.

I find that at times there is a need for us to reflect on where we are. That is why I concluded my opening remarks by saying that when the Conservative government took office from Paul Martin, there was a healthy surplus. There was a surplus in terms of trade deficit, which means thousands of jobs, and there was a surplus in terms of finances, which means we had a healthier economy.

The Liberal Party, under the good, strong leadership of individuals like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Paul Martin, and Jean Chrétien, has done exceptionally well over the years.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak at third reading to Bill C-4, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures. Economic action plan 2013 is crucial to Canada's long-term growth. It is a strategic plan for jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity and it builds on our government's success.

Let me begin by noting that Canada is in an enviable position among the world's industrial economies. We have fared relatively better than most in the aftermath of the global recession. Real GDP is significantly above pre-recession levels and shows the best performance in the G7. Since we introduced our economic action plan, Canada has recovered more than all the output and all of the jobs lost during the great recession. Employment has increased by over one million since July 2009. This is the strongest job growth record among G7 countries over the recovery. About 90% of all jobs created since July 2009 have been full-time positions, and more than 80% are in the private sector. This has been no easy feat, but our government continues to focus on job creation and economic growth.

I would like to point out that Canada has weathered the economic storm quite well, and the world has noticed. Both the IMF and the OECD expect Canada to be among the strongest growing economies in the G7 over the next few years. For the sixth year in a row, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banking system as the world's soundest. Three credit rating agencies—Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's—have reaffirmed their top ratings for Canada, and it is expected Canada will maintain its AAA rating in the year ahead.

I should point out that we are one of only a few countries that still maintain those AAA ratings.

This economic resilience reflects the actions our government took before the global crisis: lowering taxes, paying down debt by $38 billion, reducing red tape, and promoting free trade and innovation.

Of course, Canada cannot rest on this record of success. Despite solid job creation since July 2009, there are Canadians who remain unemployed. Much of our vast potential remains unfulfilled; consequently, our work is not done. We are not out of the woods yet. That is why today's legislation focuses on the drivers of growth and job creation, underpinned by our ongoing commitment to keeping taxes low and returning to balanced budgets in 2015.

Let me briefly highlight a few of the most important initiatives in the legislation before us today, all of which touch on three pillars of this legislation: closing tax loopholes and combatting tax evasion, respecting taxpayers' dollars, and providing support for job creators.

I would like to start with tax fairness, which is a significant part of today's legislation.

This issue affects all hard-working Canadians. They know that when everyone pays their fair share, it helps us keep taxes low for all Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save, and invest in Canada. That is why we are taking additional action to improve the integrity of the tax system, such as further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules—which limit the amount of Canadian profits that can be distributed to certain non-resident shareholders as deductible interest payments—to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities, and lengthening the normal reassessment period by three years for a taxpayer who has failed to report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return and failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement.

It does not end there. The legislation takes further action on this front by modifying the tax treatment of certain financial arrangements, which are referred to as “character conversion transactions”. These transactions seek to reduce tax by converting the returns on an investment that would have the character of fully taxable ordinary income to capital gains, only 50% of which are included in income. Other financial arrangements, which are referred to as “synthetic dispositions”, seek to defer tax or obtain other tax benefits by allowing a taxpayer to economically dispose of a property while continuing to own it for income tax purposes.

To ensure that taxpayers cannot avoid paying their fair share by entering into these types of arrangements and transactions, Bill C-4 proposes a measure that treats these transactions as giving rise to dispositions at fair market value for income tax purposes.

As I am sure some may recognize, “synthetic dispositions” and “character conversion transactions” may not be terms we use on a regular basis, but make no mistake, these schemes have unfortunately allowed a select few to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Today's legislation would correct this imbalance by making common sense changes we believe are necessary and timely to ensure fairness in Canada's tax system.

While we are on the subject of tax fairness, Bill C-4 also proposes to further enhance the integrity of the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, also knows as SR and ED. Today's legislation would introduce a penalty of $1,000 in respect of each SR and ED program claim for which the information about SR and ED tax preparers and billing arrangements are missing, incomplete or inaccurate. In addition, in the case where a third-party SR and ED tax preparer had been engaged, the SR and ED program claimant and the tax preparer would be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.

Hon. members, our government has also taken steps to enhance the neutrality of the tax system, thereby improving the allocation of investment and capital within the Canadian economy. Economic action plan 2013 contained a number of measures to improve the neutrality of the tax system, including the phase-out of certain preferences, such as the 10% corporate mineral exploration and development tax credit.

Bill C-4 builds on this success by introducing two changes that would make the tax system more neutral across mining and other industries.

First, pre-production mine development expenses, which are currently treated as Canadian exploration expenses for tax purposes, would be treated instead as Canadian development expenses. Whereas CEE is fully deductible in the year incurred, CDE would be deductible at a rate of 30% per year on a declining balance basis. To allow companies to adapt to these changes, the transition from CEE to CDE treatment would be phased in over the period of 2015 to 2017.

Second, the accelerated capital cost allowance provided for certain assets acquired for use in new mines or eligible mine expansions would be phased out over the period of 2017-20.

These two changes are consistent with similar changes announced for the oil sands sector in budget 2007 and economic action plan 2011.

Hon. members, today's legislation would improve the fairness and neutrality of the tax system while keeping taxes low for Canadian families who work hard, play by the rules and pay their taxes. Let me remind all members that it is our government that has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system since 2006.

Let me now briefly touch on some of the other key measures in Bill C-4.

First I will touch on the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment.

Canada is an energy superpower, with one of the world's largest resource endowments of both traditional and emerging sources of energy. Canada is increasingly looked at as a secure and dependable supplier of a wide range of energy products.

Since 2006, our government has taken significant steps to establish our country as a global clean energy leader, including through regulatory actions, investments in technology and innovation, and broad-based incentives. The government has also supported these sectors through the tax system by expanding eligibility for the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment. Through economic action plan 2012, we expanded the eligibility of the ACCA for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of equipment that generates or distributes energy from waste.

To further encourage businesses to invest in clean energy generation and energy-efficient equipment, today's legislation would expand eligibility by providing for more types of organic waste to be used in qualifying biogas production equipment. Specifically, eligible organic waste is expanded to include pulp and paper waste and waste water, beverage industry waste and waste water, and separated organics from municipal waste.

This legislation would also broaden the range of cleaning and upgrading equipment used to treat eligible gases from waste that is eligible for the ACCA.

These are all measures that are in line with our Conservative government's strong record of environmental protection and examples of how we are ensuring that environmental protection goes hand in hand with building a strong economic future.

Our Conservative government is also committed to keeping the employment insurance premium rate low. Bill C-4 would make good on this commitment. In September, we announced that we would freeze the EI premium rate at the 2013 level of $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings for the year 2014. Additionally, the rate would be set no higher than $1.88 for the years 2015 and 2016.

By doing this, our Conservative government is promoting stability and predictability for both employers and employees. It would also leave an estimated $660 million in the pockets of employers and workers in the year 2014 alone. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recently told the House finance committee that:

...85% of our members indicated that a steady and predictable EI rate is critical for small business to help keep their businesses afloat during unstable economic times, and in turn help them grow their business as the economy improves.

These are the businesses that are looking to hire Canadians and are critical to Canada's success and economic recovery.

To ensure further predictability and stability around EI premium rates, this measure would amend the Employment Insurance Act to set the EI premium rate for 2015 and 2016 at $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings. Unlike the old Liberal government, which raided the EI fund for its own pet projects, we would ensure that EI premiums are only used for EI payments. This measure would also establish that the premium rate for 2017 and onward would be set according to the seven-year, break-even rate setting mechanism.

Make no mistake, when it comes to employment insurance, we will take no advice from the members across the way. It is a bit rich to be here to hear the Liberals and the New Democrats talk about EI rates when they supported a 45-day work year that would have seen EI premiums increase by at least 35%. Thankfully, the members on this side of the House had the common sense to oppose such a job killing proposal.

Bill C-4 also recognizes the challenges faced by small businesses across the country. In economic action plan 2011, we announced a temporary hiring credit for small business of up to $1,000 per employer. This credit provided needed relief to small businesses by helping defray the costs of hiring new workers and allowing them to take advantage of emerging economic opportunities. Indeed, the temporary hiring credit was so well received by businesses that it was extended to 2012.

While the Canadian economy is improving, the global recovery remains fragile. In order to support job creation, Bill C-4 would extend and expand the hiring credit for small businesses to 2013. By doing this, an employer whose premiums were $15,000 or less in 2012 would be refunded the increase in their 2013 premiums over those paid in 2012, to a maximum of $1,000. It is estimated that 560,000 small businesses would benefit from this measure, saving them $225 million alone in 2013. Through this initiative, we would stimulate new employment and provide better support to small businesses.

Bill C-4 would also phase out inefficient and ineffective tax credits, such as the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit. Clearly, the NDP does not realize that this credit simply is not working. The message we heard from Canadians during our consultations was loud and clear, and consistent with independent experts such as the OECD. They all said that this tax subsidy was not working to promote economic growth and create jobs.

Just listen to what the Montreal Economic Institute had to say:

All things considered, labour-sponsored funds are financial instruments that fulfill neither their economic objectives, namely to make venture capital available to help Quebec businesses, nor their financial objectives of offering a good return to contributors, their performance being interesting only by taking into account the additional tax credit.

Here is what the reputable economist, Jack Mintz, had to say:

These credits have not only been ineffective in generating more venture capital, but they have also helped finance poor projects that should have never been funded in the first place.

There is more. This is what the C.D. Howe Institute had to say:

Providing tax relief to LSIFs has been, overall, a disappointing use of taxpayer money. Such funds have been shown in multiple studies, including this one, to do a poor job of achieving public policy aims.

When will the NDP get it? These credits simply do not work. Our government understands that Canada's long-term economic competitiveness in the emerging knowledge economy needs to be driven by globally competitive, high-growth businesses that innovate and create high-quality jobs.

That is why economic action plan 2012 announced resources to support Canada's venture capital industry, including $400 million to help increase private sector investments in early stage risk capital to help recapitalize existing private sector funds with willing provinces, and to support the creation of large scale venture capital funds led by the private sector.

In summary, as I said at the outset, Bill C-4 contains many important new measures. These are measures we must take in order to respond to the needs of our time, while setting out the goals our long-term prosperity demands. Measures that find efficiencies and cost savings in government are critical to sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Action taken to support business and industry are imperative to the economic success of Canada. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery.

Our government will not apologize for streamlining government, creating jobs and keeping our tax system fair, while keeping taxes low. I therefore urge all hon. members to continue to support the government in this work that is so vital to the people of Canada and their continued prosperity, and thus vote for Bill C-4 in its entirety.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things in the speech of my neighbour about which I have some questions.

I am particularly interested in the National Research Council. There are changes mentioned in Bill C-4. However, I do have other questions about the National Research Council. For example, there have been hundreds and hundreds of scientists for the National Research Council fired over the last years and the council has taken an entirely different direction without really consulting any of these scientists.

We have heard of the muzzling that is going on in federal agencies. I smell a bit of mismanagement there. I do not have confidence that the new president, Mr. McDougall, really has a handle on what he should be doing in the NRC. Could the member comment on that and does Mr. McDougall enjoy his complete confidence?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to support the National Research Council. In fact, I have been to certain announcements in the last couple of weeks and shows that our government is spending unprecedented amounts of money on research and technology.

I was at Simon Fraser University just last weekend announcing funding for the VIVA, the visual analytics program, which is making great strides in analyzing new ways to form data and go through important information, which will help our country when it comes to innovation and research.

This morning I went to the innovation breakfast where Gilles Patry, the president, gave a wonderful speech about what his organization was doing for innovation and research in our country.

We will continue to support research and innovation because that is the future of our country. That is how our businesses will compete head on with businesses worldwide.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague did a really good job of explaining why predictable EI rates were so important to businesses as they plan future hiring decisions.

He mentioned the former Liberal government and the way it raided EI funds over the years, and this absurd notion the opposition puts forward of a 45-day work year.

He also mentioned the small business hiring tax credit. I represent the city of Mississauga, which has a number of large employers, manufacturers, but it also has many small businesses especially. It is a diverse community made up of a lot of new Canadians. Many new Canadians operate those small businesses.

Could he tell us how the small business hiring tax credit could benefit those types of business and encourage them to hire new employees?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we understand that small businesses are the backbone of this economy. They are the ones creating the bulk of the new jobs. That is why we have extended the hiring credit for small businesses. We expect over 560,000 small businesses across the country to be eligible to apply for this. Those are small businesses that could actually get up to $1,000 back next year as a result of their claims.

We expect that employment will continue to grow. In fact, we just found out that in the month of November alone, 21,600 net new jobs were created. That adds to over one million net new jobs that have been created since July 2009. It is the number one jobs growth record in the G7. It is thanks to smart policies like the hiring credit for small businesses that we are experiencing such great growth in jobs.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that even though we are pretending that we are debating the budget here, the budget has two new bills in it and all kinds of matters that are not really budget related.

I am glad my colleague across the way raised the question of employment. We have a government that is absolutely married to giving more and more power to ministers. Now we are going to have the Minister of Finance actually setting the rate for EI contributions and having the final say, instead of a board. Yet the people who pay into that EI fund are employers and workers. The government does not put any money into that fund.

Is this another ruse so that the government can keep stealing from the EI fund, as it did in the past to the tune of $57 billion?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to set the record straight. In fact, it was the previous Liberal government that took almost $57 billion from the EI fund. We are changing that. We are making sure that EI premiums go only to EI payments. That is going to be in our budget. That is something we are going to stick to.

We are also freezing EI premiums for three years so that there is predictability for both employers and employees. After those three years, we are going to have the rate set to the break-even rate so that employers and employees will be paying just the necessary amount for the system to break even. That is the way it should be, and that is the way it is going to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa has a strong history of manufacturing. I was wondering if the member would be able to contrast our approach, where we are lowering taxes for business and trying to keep taxes low for families and all Canadians, with the NDP policies.

We all know that the NDP wants to put in a $20-billion carbon tax. Right now, with the recovery kind of iffy and when we are not sure where we are going to be going, does the member think that in the economy right now Canadians can afford another hit such as is being suggested by the NDP with this $20-billion carbon tax?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the question from my hon. colleague.

As we all know, lower taxes create jobs, and they help families get by, as well. That is why, since 2006, we have lowered over 200 different taxes. Canadian families, on average, have $3,200 extra in their pockets at the end of each year as a result of our low-tax policies.

It has also encouraged businesses to invest. It has encouraged businesses to come back and relocate their head offices in Canada, such as Tim Hortons, which relocated its head office back in Canada because of our low-tax policies and our low-tax plans, which have proven to be a success. They helped us through the recession we had in 2008.

We came out stronger than any of our trading partners in any of the G7 countries. It is because of our low-tax policies. It is because we are also intending to balance the budget in 2015. It is because we have already paid down the debt by $38 billion between 2006 and 2008. We all know that a $21-billion carbon tax, which is proposed by the NDP, would be a job-killing tax.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.