House of Commons Hansard #229 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.

Topics

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the latest budget. It reads “Jobs, Growth and Prosperity” and says “Long-term” in very small letters. It does not say “budget” and, if you did not know, you might have doubts that it really is a budget. What I have here in my hands is instead a fairly partisan political document that makes nice announcements and brags about what has been done since 2006.

For example, the budget spends a few pages telling us all the wonderful things that have been done for families. It pours out figures, programs and statistics. If this was a 2013 budget, we would clearly see what is being announced as of 2013. No; you need to do a little reading between the lines to see that it is sort of a compilation of what has been done since 2006. In short, as I said earlier, it is obviously a political document.

Another thing we can criticize about this budget or this political document—call it what you will—is its lack of clarity. For example, the paragraph concerning the financial literacy initiatives aimed at seniors reads:

The Government will work with partners to improve financial literacy among seniors and respond to specific challenges faced by seniors.

It is a noble intention that nobody can argue with. However, if we really want to do some serious work, if we want to have figures, names of partners and something a little more concrete, we will have to wait. Are we going to support this budget? What is this budget exactly? Where is the substance? Are there any analyses that justify moving in this direction? Do we even have figures that jibe with the announcements? No.

Therefore, I will reiterate that this budget lacks a lot of clarity and, instead, talks up dusty old policies and random measures that have been in place for several years now. This does not give us much direction. At any rate, I will not support the 2013 budget because, despite the lack of clarity in several respects, it still spells out a number of things that we are definitely not happy with.

Another appalling aspect of this budget is that it clearly demonstrates just how incompetent the Conservatives are when it comes to any kind of management. First, the Conservatives say they will give so much in infrastructure funding; then, in budget 2013, they adjust the numbers and take some funding back. They give, they take. First, the Conservative government said that it would put the provinces in charge of skills training; now, in 2013, it is taking that responsibility back. Why, how and what will it do better? No one really knows. It gives, it takes and it takes away.

I do not know if the government has any understanding of the nature of a long-term strategy, say for intergenerational equity or consultations, for example. These concepts are all very relevant and could perhaps help the Conservatives make clear announcements and long-term plans that would allow their partners to really know where they are going and plan for the future.

I will be voting against this budget, and I would like to make a quick comment on that. Voting against a budget is not the same as voting against children, families, workers or aboriginal people. No, it is more nuanced than that. I demonstrated earlier that the budget contains many measures and announcements, some of which are more specific and others that are very vague. Just because the Conservatives announce money does not mean that they are giving more than they originally planned. Sometimes, when they announce that they are giving money, it really means that they are taking it away.

These documents are very nuanced. I say that as an aside for the people of my riding and any Canadians who are watching us debate this budget, because the Conservatives often use that demagogic argument indiscriminately. They say that the NDP voted against families, against this and that. In fact, the NDP is voting against the budget overall. Why? Because this budget gives less; it is not enough.

I would like to share my point of view more specifically as MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard and as the NDP critic for seniors.

First of all, I want to talk about infrastructure. I mentioned it briefly earlier.

I do not know how many members have ever been to Montreal, and more specifically, to the riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard. We need more than a little infrastructure investments for roads and existing infrastructure that need repairs, and for the many municipal and district projects supported by the residents, who are anxious to see those projects completed. Those projects are being blocked, however, because of a lack of funding and support from the federal government.

For instance, I am talking about the expansion of the urban boulevard and the highway 40 on-ramp. In Pierrefonds, the construction of thousands of homes is currently on hold and will be possible only if the municipality is able to carry out the project. Congestion on the boulevards in my riding is terrible. We need to do something for families, for workers and for the development of my region.

This is just one example. I have not yet spoken about public transit. Nothing has been announced in that regard. Yet, this is a vital issue for Montreal and its surrounding communities. Once again, there are many good proposals to promote clean, green public transit for our communities, and these proposals need more support. I met with STM representatives on several occasions. I know that they are doing incredible work to develop long-term strategies and make these proposals a priority. However, without any funding, these proposals cannot be implemented and Canadians cannot benefit from them.

Another factor that is relevant to my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard is co-operative housing. Pierrefonds is home to the second-largest housing co-operative in Canada, and that is not the only co-operative in the community, since there are also others, such as co-operatives for seniors. These are great institutions that have done a lot of work, but they need to know what they can expect from the government. The 2013 budget did not make any announcements indicating that the investments and agreements in this area would continue. Co-operatives and their residents are therefore concerned because they do not know whether they will be able to count on these investments and agreements a year from now.

The agreements expire soon. The government needs to be clear in this regard. If the Conservatives are not prepared to support these agreements and investments, they must say so unequivocally. They must stop trying to avoid this issue, thinking that if they do not talk about it then maybe people will forget about it. People will not forget about this issue. I guarantee it.

As the critic for seniors, I would like to raise a few points about the budget. Unfortunately, this budget is proof that seniors are not one of the Conservative government's priorities. Yet, we know that seniors constitute a growing percentage of Canada's population. This was to be expected. The population is aging and we have known about this for a long time. We can prepare for this phenomenon, but in order to do so, we must implement measures to properly support the changing needs of the population.

Contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the aging population is not a problem for our country. It can be something really positive; we simply have to prepare for this demographic change and adapt to it. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing in this budget.

First of all, I would like to talk about the targeted initiative for older workers, which was introduced in 2010 and is supposed to end in 2013-14. Will this initiative be extended? I do not know. The government has not made any announcement in that regard and has not said a word about it in budget 2013. We would expect some information, but there has been none. However, people really appreciate this initiative. That is apparent in evaluations done in Quebec, which show just how much workers and business people like it. In 2010, 96% of Quebeckers polled said they were satisfied. I think that says it all. If the Conservatives really intend to force Canadians to work two more years by increasing the eligibility age for old age security from 65 to 67, older workers looking for a job quite frankly deserve a little help.

I could go on and on. I want to emphasize that even though the Prime Minister promised to make the budget all about job creation and the economy, unfortunately that is not what we are seeing.

However, I can promise that the NDP will continue to focus on a greener, more prosperous and fairer Canada.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple: how can my colleague claim that increasing taxes can create growth and more jobs in Canada?

The NDP—including the member and the party's leader—makes very vague references to additional taxes: a carbon tax and a sales tax. The NDP is making all kinds of claims, but what we have learned over the past decade is that higher taxes do not help create jobs or make a country more competitive.

How can she claim that the opposite is true? How far will she go in increasing taxes on Canadians?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague asked an excellent question about increasing taxes. The only people who are talking about increasing taxes are the Conservatives.

The budget is about making choices. Increasing taxes is not the only option.

I could suggest that my Conservative colleague stop giving gifts to large, prosperous companies that do not create jobs, or I could suggest that he start seriously targeting tax evasion.

There are many ways to overhaul our spending in order to have money for Canadians and families. No, it is not necessary to increase taxes dramatically—or increase them at all—if we want to truly do something for families, for small and medium-sized businesses and for the environment.

That is not our only choice. There are many. The Conservatives make their choices and spend money in certain areas. The F-35s, for example, could have been better managed. We could have saved money. I could give many other examples, but I think I made my point.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my hon. colleague from the government side say in his question that we can create jobs by lowering taxes. The question is, where does the money come from for research and training?

Where does the money come from to set up a regulatory system and to set up the infrastructure that our economy depends on? What about a legal system or regulations for communication? All of these things are needed by an economy and they all come from common benefits for which it is very appropriate that the government pays.

I would like to invite my colleague on the opposition side to further respond to the claim that the only way we can create jobs is by lowering taxes.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is another fine example. Sometimes investments pay off. A serious investment in infrastructure is a fine example of something that can help complete projects that Canadians would benefit from and that would create jobs to boot.

The cuts announced in this budget will result in job losses in Canada. One plus one is two. Cuts made in certain areas come at a cost. When we look at the big picture, we do not necessarily find any savings.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

Noon

Ajax—Pickering Ontario

Conservative

Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my hon. friend, the member of Parliament for Don Valley West, who is particularly well suited, and I think very keen, to speak to the budget.

I would like to begin by complimenting our outstanding Minister of Finance, my neighbour and the member of Parliament for Whitby—Oshawa, on the latest budget. He and his team have once again set an extremely high standard. By continuing to look a little ahead, he is following the example of Sir John A's great finance ministers, Alexander Galt and Sir John Rose, Hincks, Tilley and Sir George Foster, who looked to the whole world for Canada's economic opportunity. By putting responsible resource development, manufacturing and innovation front and centre in successive budgets, they have articulated a truly national policy for the 21st century.

I would like to speak briefly today about four issues: debt, jobs, markets and the future.

Let us be clear from the start: as the minister said, the past seven years have belonged to Canada, from the performance of our troops in Panjwai, Afghanistan, in 2006, to the G20 summit in Toronto, in 2010, where worldwide fiscal consolidation was on the agenda. That is when the world started to see Canada in a different light. At the height of the crisis, the world turned to Canada for its economic leadership. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have never failed to provide that leadership.

The Muskoka initiative has delivered an ambitious global partnership for maternal, newborn and child health, even as we have launched the most ambitious trade liberalization agenda in our country's history, all the while remaining the best in the G7 for job creation, growth and government-funded research. The key to all these achievements, above all else, is fiscal responsibility.

If one compares our deficit projection for this year, $18.7 billion, with that of the U.S., their current projection is $901 billion, with many variables ahead in Congress and elsewhere. The U.K. is £108 billion for this year. As the lesson of Cyprus has shown in the past week, the world is still on a sovereign debt precipice. Many of our allies and partners are already exceeding the 90% threshold for debt to GDP, beyond which growth has historically slowed on average by 1.2% per year, even in conditions of low interest rates, as Reinhart and Rogoff have recently shown in a now famous paper.

Every country that has an average per capita income that is higher than Canada's also has a debt level that is lower than Canada's, be it Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia or other small countries.

This budget resists the temptation to throw caution to the winds and to sacrifice fiscal consolidation on the altar of short-term advantage to saddle our young people with an unnecessary burden. However, that is exactly what both opposition parties would do with their uncosted proposals, their inconsistent statements, their bureaucratic reflexes and their politics of instant gratification.

The Conservatives will not travel this path. We will not miss this opportunity to continue Canada's economic leadership in mining, where we continue to be the world leader in new financing of exploration and development.

In the aerospace and defence sectors. we have the capacity to produce the best products and develop future capabilities, and those sectors just received new support in this budget.

Nor will we miss this opportunity in advanced manufacturing, where we are taking action to promote innovation.

In the area of finance, Toronto and other very dynamic centres of Canada's financial sector—Calgary, Montreal and Vancouver—now rank among the top 10 financial centres in the world.

Also in agriculture, our exports of meat, grain, fish and other food products continue to grow. All of these sectors are creating high-paying jobs from coast to coast to coast, in urban areas and rural.

It is one thing to want to have a low-tax, high-skill jurisdiction; it is quite another to deliver on such a commitment. This Prime Minister and this minister have done both. International investors have been watching. We have the best business plan, according to Forbes Magazine. We have the soundest banks, according to the Davos forum. Over the past seven years, portfolio investment in Canada has grown 67%, while many other advanced economies have lost the confidence of investors, or stumbled. Direct investment by Canadians in the world has grown from $806 billion to $980 billion, while direct investment in Canada has advanced from $802 billion to $947 billion.

These are some of the keys to our recovery. These are the facts that underpin the creation of 950,000 net new jobs, most of them in the private sector and most of them high-quality, since the low point of the last recession. However, we must do more to ensure all Canadians have access to economic opportunity. That is why this budget also includes new measures to tackle homelessness, to build new affordable housing, to empower those with disabilities and to help young aboriginal Canadians find a trade or start a new business.

Let us be clear about our record to date. Canada's growth over the past seven years has been balanced and inclusive. Let us recall what TD Economics told us in December 2012. It stated:

Income inequality is both persistently lower and rising more slowly in Canada than in the United States. In fact, inequality in Canada has been flat since 1998, as measured by the Gini coefficient.

That is another record of achievement.

Let us look at the numbers showing the opportunity that Canada has. According to Statistics Canada, our GDP in 2012 was at $1.833 trillion. Again, according to Statistics Canada, as of now the estimated population is 35 million. That is $52,288 of GDP per Canadian, well ahead of larger countries in the G7 and well ahead of most of our peers.

Unlike the opposition, we harbour no illusions about the role that international trade has played in our success.

Let us be clear on what international economic experts are saying. Robert Z. Lawrence of the Peterson Institute said:

Trade has improved...living standards. With the exception of oil, emerging economies have been mainly complementary rather than competitive....

This is not what we hear from the NDP, who want to shut down all of our trade agreements in North America and beyond. The NDP is not coming clean with Canadians about what this would do to our living standards, our prosperity and to our future. Instead, the government is pursuing an ambitious trade agenda, building a powerful economic relationship with China.

We are pursuing free trade with India. We are negotiating an unprecedented free trade agreement with Europe for Canada.

We are multiplying free trade agreements with Latin America, and we are driving with the U.S., Japan and others toward a trans-Pacific partnership.

With regard to CIDA amalgamation with foreign affairs, I think all of us on this side of the House welcome it. It will help us to be more strategic about our position in the world, to have an effective policy for partnering with low income countries while trading and investing with developing middle income and high income countries coherently and powerfully.

Is it not a huge advantage for Canada to have a development commitment to the 54 countries of Africa, and to have mining companies that have invested, not $5 billion in 2005, but $32 billion-plus in Africa today? Does that not do more to raise living standards and to secure Canadian leadership?

What does this mean for a riding like Ajax—Pickering? It means young people will be considering apprenticeships in the many sectors where nearly a quarter of a million jobs are still going unfilled. It means small businesses will be seeking Canada jobs grants to plan for new hiring, even while welcoming the extension of the tax credit for new hires.

It means that investment in industrial equipment will continue. In 2010, there was an 11% increase and in 2011, the increase was nearly 25%.

It means that those who attended our pre-budget round table on youth, women and unemployment last fall with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development now know that they have been heard. It means commuters, families, and public transit and municipal authorities in Ajax—Pickering can now have confidence that the largest long-term commitment to infrastructure in Canada's history, $70 billion over 10 years, will benefit them. It means that those who believe in a strong defence industry for Canada will be looking to opportunities in shipbuilding, aerospace, and defence procurement to harness new ideas and support the next technological breakthrough in blast resistant materials or low emission propulsion.

During the ministry of Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada represented only 1.3% of global GDP. Today, we represent something like 2.6%, after a crisis that has seen the share of other advanced economies slide and as emerging economies have seen unparalleled growth.

Global GDP has risen from $41 trillion in 2000 to over $70 trillion today, but Canada's place remains prominent. Canada's prospects remain bright. Canada's leadership remains strong, thanks to this budget.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, before I came to Parliament, I was a school teacher. I believe in education. It is the best investment our country can make. Education is the starting point for sweeping change in every respect.

Education does figure into this budget, but what worries me is that it is always tied to jobs. Education begins at a very young age. Many of us here today have children. Our children sometimes have a hard time or have problems at school.

How does the budget help families with children who have difficulties at school? These learning difficulties could result in problems for young teenagers, and they may drop out of school. What is the government doing to prevent that? Nothing that I can see.

There is another thing that worries me about education. In the budget, it says, “provide $10 million over two years for...marketing activities [for international students].” Come on. Education is not marketing. It is an intrinsic and important value.

I would like to ask my colleague why the education of our children and help for families are being cast aside.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have not cast education aside. We respect that it is under provincial jurisdiction.

Even so, we are providing $10 billion a year in transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary training. That level of funding is much higher than at any time in the past, particularly under the Liberals.

In addition, we have earmarked $2.7 billion a year for labour market transfers to help people find work. There are a number of initiatives related to this in the budget. We have a youth employment strategy, an opportunities fund for persons with disabilities and an aboriginal skills and employment training strategy.

These programs all contain an educational component and respect provincial jurisdiction, which remains one of the building blocks of our country and our Constitution.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about all the advantages of the 2013 budget. It promised a lot of things.

If the budget is so good, could he please explain why the government needs to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising to tell everyone that it is doing good things?

In fact, the advertising does not even explain any details of why the government is spending what it is spending. It is simply just to put some good feelings in Canadians. If the government thinks the budget is so great, why does it think it is so great to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on these kinds of feel-good advertisements?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was not here at the time and neither was I, but he really should know that the spending levels were much higher under the Liberal government. The hon. President of the Treasury Board has mentioned that point on several occasions. The member should also know that no one will take Liberals seriously on this question until they tell us what happened with the $40 million in the sponsorship scandal, the biggest government advertising scandal in Canadian history.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Kingston and the Islands said in a previous question that on that side they only believe that jobs can be created by lowering taxes.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: what do higher taxes do to job creation in this country?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, it would be such a pleasure to be in this place if there were more questions like that. I encourage all hon. members to ask questions that are relevant to economic reality in the world today.

The short answer is that higher taxes would kill jobs. I will say that again so that everyone understands: higher taxes would kill jobs.

The NDP has not been following what has happened in Sweden. New Democrats think it is a socialist workers' paradise with very high taxes, but it is doing well because it has reduced taxes more aggressively than any country in Europe. It is doing well because it has lower debt levels, thanks to a government that is very similar to ours in its policies, more so than almost any in Europe.

Low taxes create jobs; high taxes kill jobs.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to defend and support economic action plan 2013. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Ajax—Pickering, who did an outstanding job in his speech in talking about so many issues that are relevant in this budget today.

Economic action plan 2013 is about jobs, growth, long-term prosperity and Canada's bright future. Over the past several years, we have all witnessed the global economy destabilized and former leading nations crippled by global market forces, excess spending and debt. The citizens of these countries have suffered the most, with job losses, fluctuating currencies and a future of uncertainty. However, Canada could not be more contrastive, and budget 2013 is, quite simply, further evidence of why Canada continues to be an oasis for financial stability.

The praise for budget 2013 and Canada's economy is significant. Moody's rated Canada with a solid AAA rating. In the G7, Canada is the only nation with this top credit rating, and following the release of our fiscal plan, we will eliminate the national deficit in an expedient two years. This is complemented by a consistently high ranking by the OECD. Its economic survey of Canada reports that the economy is continuing to grow despite the persistence of international turbulence, federal fiscal plans are seen by markets as credible, the banking system is sound and Canada enjoys strong institutions and policy credibility.

To that final note, the decisions made in budget 2013 are additional evidence of the sound policy-making decisions and our economic stability. From global to local, the praise for our financial institutions and economic leadership is consistent. Canadian Building Trades said it is are “extremely happy” with the Canada job grant and said further, “This is an opportunity to really affect the [trades] industry in a positive way”.

The Canadian Welding Association also said, “We are pleased to see that the Harper government is taking action to support skilled trades in Canada.”

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I will just interrupt the member. He cannot refer to members of Parliament by their given name, even when referring to the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Across a huge diversity of sectors, an impressive 950,000 net new jobs have been created since 2009.

Quite simply, the Minister of Finance understands that it is the economy and jobs that matter to Canadians and their families.

Knowing of the shortage of workers in skilled trades, the government has reallocated $4 million over three years to work with provinces and territories to increase opportunities for apprentices. These apprentices would find potential employment through federally funded construction and maintenance contracts as well as through affordable housing and infrastructure projects.

I should mention that in the industry committee, we spent a lot of time interviewing witnesses on issues such as skilled trades and the need for support in those areas. We heard from those witnesses, and this budget is testament to the fact that this government listens.

The government recognizes the importance of all Canadians working and contributing meaningfully to the workforce. It is for this reason that budget 2013 is committing to the labour market agreements for persons with disabilities. This program would focus on enhancing skills training and opportunities for those with disabilities.

It would also extend the opportunities fund to $40 million per year, understanding that the structure of a building can act as a barrier for some individuals. Economic action plan 2013 has committed to an ongoing allotment of $15 million per year for the enabling accessibility fund. This fund would assist in the costs of renovations to increase accessibility for people with ambulatory needs.

The government is here to help Canadians throughout their careers, from their first job to a career transition, ultimately leading to a full and productive life.

We are here to support our youth in finding employment. A primary barrier for new graduates following the completion of their studies is gaining work experience. These bright young adults would now have the opportunity to gain this experience through paid internships. The government would provide an investment of $70 million over the course of three years to help support 5,000 paid internships for new graduates. This would be in addition to subsidizing the upfront costs of tuition, with over $10 billion annually to directly support post-secondary education, including financial assistance such as student loans and grants.

Canada is an exceptionally diverse country. I am proud that my riding of Don Valley West is home to individuals from all countries. Knowing that each individual and cultural community adds to our vibrant cultural mosaic, this government has shown a consistent and substantial investment in supporting newcomers, including, in 2006, over $1.5 billion over five years dedicated to settlement and integration programs.

Also, knowing that Canada is a highly sought after destination for immigrants, I was pleased to see that in economic action plan 2013 there would be a focus on international recruitment to meet Canada's labour market needs.

There is also a commitment to ensure success by providing opportunities for individuals from abroad to experience Canada through the temporary resident program. We would do so by funding $42 million over two years to increase processing capacity for these applicants, as well as countless others. We would help individuals in areas such as Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park, two important neighbourhoods in Don Valley West.

Coming from the automotive sector, I was very pleased to see the provision of $1.4 billion in tax relief to the manufacturing sector, with a two-year extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery and equipment. This would help manufacturers purchase the equipment they need to operate their businesses and in turn create jobs and help to grow our economy.

Our government is committed to research and leadership and innovation, even in a time of global uncertainty.

This is evidenced by the $920 million dedicated to renew the federal economic development agency, of which $200 million would be applied to new advanced manufacturing. This would benefit countless local research centres, such as the MaRS research centre for innovation located in Toronto.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters voiced its support, saying:

The federal budget sends an important signal. It positions manufacturing and exporting at the heart of Canada's Economic Action Plan by focusing on practical steps that will enhance competitiveness, productivity, innovation, and business growth.

This is very good news for companies creating jobs in Canada, investing in our communities and developing and selling world-class products and services around the world.

It is our government's bold commitment to innovation with a measured fiscal responsibility that has ensured Canada has maintained its place as a leading economy.

The government also recognizes that an integral part of our economy is small business. These are the mom-and-pop shops down the street that provide a host of services that create a sense of community.

As I wrap up my time today, I want to also mention a very special centre of excellence in my community of Don Valley West, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I was delighted to note in economic action plan 2013, on my favourite page in the entire book, page 235, that the CNIB would receive $3 million to assist in the development of its national digital hub, which would provide new technology to assist the blind and the sight-impaired.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of the budget that draws a great deal of concern is the fact that the government has said the provinces are no longer going to be responsible for skill set training programming. The federal government will take on that role and is prepared to allow these skill set developments to take place across the country as long as there are matching grants from the provinces. The provinces do not necessarily have equal resources, or potentially even priorities, for developing the programs that would be able to take advantage of the millions of dollars being offered.

My question for the member is this: what is the government prepared to do for those provinces that might not be able to match the funds for skills development training programs? Is it prepared to work with the private sector and ensure that every region is treated equally with the dollars being allocated?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, job creation is very important to our country. We need to find ways in which we can assist in skills training and development.

I mentioned in my speech that at committee we heard from trade unions and labour unions that encouraged us to find ways to ensure that we could develop apprenticeship programs and skills training for youth that would allow them to become productive, find good jobs and get employed in our country.

With the internship program alone, businesses would be a partner in that development. The provinces and the federal government would be partners. At varying levels they will find ways to do it at numbers that work to the benefit of that province.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the job training program, which was initially entrusted to the provinces and then taken away in the current budget. The Conservatives often make decisions without supporting figures or analysis.

Could my colleague tell me where this decision came from? Do they have a concrete plan? Why do they think they can do better? Why could the provinces not go on managing this program, perhaps with the help of the sage advice of my Conservative colleagues?

These decisions are frustrating, surprising to a number of our partners and, so far, unexplained and unfounded.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, Perrin Beatty, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, stated, “Everywhere I go, business of all sizes tell me that their No. 1 concern is finding the right people to do the job”.

Clearly, we have not been meeting the need of industry and business across this country, whether in skills training, internship and apprenticeship development or helping businesses to succeed. By developing the programs we have developed, we would meet that need and help our provinces and businesses to achieve that end.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member if he does not feel there is some truth in the kind of commentary we have seen, for instance, in Jeffrey Simpson's column in The Globe and Mail, which said that under the Conservative government the tax code is getting increasingly complicated, that individual boutique tax cuts are not good fiscal policy and that we end up with a dog's breakfast of a few things thrown here and there to meet certain constituencies, but we lack a sensible coherent fiscal plan.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

John Carmichael Conservative Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2013 is about creating jobs, growing our economy and creating prosperity for all Canadians. Throughout the years, we have developed a tax plan that provides incentives and tax relief from coast to coast to coast, and I believe our tax plan today meets those needs and helps Canadians and especially families keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. Quite frankly, that is what our job is all about.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak about budget 2013. This budget obviously leaves much to be desired, and that is why we will vote against it. However, there is one positive aspect. Despite the budget's general underlying idea of cutting spending, and therefore slowing economic growth, the government at least has not cancelled two very positive measures that were introduced by previous Liberal governments.

I am obviously talking, first of all, about the gas tax. Acknowledging that there were major municipal infrastructure needs at the time, the Liberals very wisely introduced this measure, which channels funds from the gas tax to the municipalities. That measure remains intact. The second measure dating back to previous Liberal governments is the GST exemption for the municipalities. In other words, the municipalities do not have to pay GST as a result of this earlier measure.

That is the positive aspect of this budget. However, it has a lot of negative aspects. I would like to talk a little about infrastructure. We see across Canada and North America that now is the time to renew our infrastructure. I am not the one saying it. We need only read the newspapers and listen to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We really need to renew and repair our infrastructure, and in other cases we must build new infrastructure if we want to guarantee ongoing economic growth.

What disappoint us in this budget are the cuts to the building Canada fund over the next two years. This makes us wonder whether these cuts are based on an economic argument or a political argument. In other words, is the purpose of these cuts simply to enable the government to achieve its target of a balanced budget just in time for the next election, or are they being made for economic reasons? I doubt they are being made for economic reasons since this measure will slow economic growth. I sincerely believe these infrastructure investment cuts are being made for purely political reasons, to benefit the Conservative Party and further its political objectives.

Driving on roads that are in poor condition costs drivers money. Every time we have to go to a service centre to have our wheels aligned or a flat tire changed because our car hit a pothole, that costs us money. I know the government likes to talk about private investment, but taxpayers could invest that money in an RRSP, for example. Then there would be more money in their RRSPs 10 or 20 years later, which would be good for their eventual retirement. When we do not invest in infrastructure, that costs people a lot of money.

I would like to cite an American example from a study conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers. That study was based on figures from 2009. The American Society of Civil Engineers found that the United States had lost $78 billion as a result of traffic jams, which bring cars to a halt. That holds up traffic and wastes gasoline, since cars do not move forward. Those losses cost Americans $78 billion. Repairs to cars as a result of potholes and other causes totalled $67 billion in the United States in 2009. That is not peanuts.

In addition, more car accidents happen when infrastructure is in poor condition. That is a fact. Car accidents in the United States, many of which were due to a road system in poor condition, cost $230 billion in 2009. Not investing in infrastructure is an expensive proposition.

As we know, investing in infrastructure is costly. However, it is highly effective in creating jobs. In 2009, the University of Massachusetts Amherst concluded from research and analysis that every billion dollars spent on infrastructure creates 18,000 jobs. That is 30% more than if we took that billion dollars and gave it back in the form of tax cuts. Investing in infrastructure is very effective. It is an effective way of creating jobs, and people obviously save the time and money they would have had to spend on car repairs.

Infrastructure must also be in good condition if we want to promote future economic growth. Economic activity cannot grow without infrastructure. Good infrastructure means strong economic growth in the long run.

As Liberal water policy critic, I observed something a little while ago, and now it is all starting to make sense. I observed that proposed waste water regulations were diluted between Canada Gazette part I, a part of the regulation-making process, and Canada Gazette part II.

What that means is obviously the quality of our water will not be as high as it would have been, but it also means that it will not be necessary to spend as much on waste water plants as we would if the regulations were stricter.

I am wondering now if the government diluted waste water regulations intentionally in order to minimize how much money it would have to invest across Canada in plant upgrades and construction of new plants.

Now it is all starting to make sense when I look at the budget and the political objective of balancing the budget. I am not saying that balancing the budget is not a good idea for the economy, but does it have to be by the fall of 2015? I am not so sure.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled by the budget for a number of reasons. With regard to the failure to reverse the decision to cut essential scientific work in the environmental field from the Experimental Lakes Area to the Polar Environment Arctic Research Lab, there has been a year in which the government could have reconsidered. These are very small savings and pale in comparison to areas where there is a lot of spending.

The thing that shocks me most about the budget is that I cannot find any tables that tell us, department by department, where the money will be spent. I have never in my life seen a budget that did not include the budget.

I wonder if my colleague has any comments.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, when I worked on my speech this the weekend, I looked furiously for some numbers and some comparative tables that would allow us to get some kind of an historical perspective on what was being done and noticed the exact same thing.

There seems to be an effort of subterfuge, to basically hide the realities of this budget in an historical context. I find that quite ironic. While the government is hiding what it is doing, it is spending large sums of money promoting itself and its supposed good works on television. Even a small portion of that advertising money could have been used to keep the ELA going, which is known as the best freshwater laboratory in the world. It is a travesty that it is being shut down.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the importance of the co-operative movement in our lives and the fact that this government seems to want to attack such a significant economic force in Canada.

Can the member who just spoke explain the consequences of the elimination of the tax credit that allowed caisses populaires and credit unions to capitalize? What impact will this have specifically on caisses populaires, which are an economic powerhouse primarily in Quebec?