Debates of May 2nd, 2013

Second Reading

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this question is important for several reasons.

However, there will definitely be an impact because the government is saying that the measure will help level the playing field and will eliminate a special advantage credit unions in Quebec had over banks. On the contrary, this measure will put credit unions at a disadvantage.

Credit unions have a specific mandate to operate in small, less profitable communities. That is why private banks no longer do business there. Credit unions provide local services to communities, which are often rural and spread out, and they invest directly in the economy to help stimulate regional growth.

By eliminating this additional deduction, the government is not leveling the playing field between credit unions and banks. It is giving an advantage to the banks, which are not required to invest and operate in small communities. We do not really understand the government's logic here. This measure will be counterproductive.

Unlike their slogan in the 2011 election, “Our region in power”, the Conservatives's measures are leaving the regions high and dry.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. I serve with him on the finance committee. I know he is very hard-working, even though we often disagree.

I would like to have him address one aspect of this particular bill, Bill C-60, which deals with infrastructure.

As he knows, many witnesses come before our committee from many municipalities and other individuals from across the country. They came to the government this past year and asked us to index the gas tax fund, which was done in the budget in March and which is being done in this particular piece of legislation. They asked us to do this in order to allow municipalities to address their infrastructure needs across this country, to count on that going forward over a longer period of time so they can in fact use that as a source against which to borrow money to address their infrastructure needs, in addition to other programs that this government has initiated, such as the public-private partnership funding.

Does the member opposite's party in fact support the measure in this bill, in Bill C-60, that would index the gas tax fund?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are not always black and white.

In fact, we think some of the measures in the budget implementation bill are attractive. However, we cannot support the budget as a whole.

As the official opposition, the NDP has been asking for additional investments in infrastructure for a long time now. Clearly, those additional investments require funding and the budget has to include measures for that. For instance, we could give the municipalities a chance to have a 10-year plan with initiatives such as the building Canada plan or by extending that plan. Another appropriate measure would be to raise more funds with the gas tax, since we are dealing with specific infrastructure needs.

However, as was discussed at the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, there are problems with the investments. The government actually decided that $6 billion of the infrastructure budget, meaning 35% of the total amount for the building Canada plan would not be spent. That amount appears in this budget again. The government says that it is a new amount for infrastructure whereas it is in fact the amount that was already earmarked for infrastructure and was not spent. We have a problem with that.

In general, like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Union des municipalités du Québec, we are happy that there is at least a 10-year period, even though we would have liked to have 15 or 20 years. Specific investments will in fact be made to meet the needs of communities. That will not be enough, but at least an effort was made.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned that Bill C-60 contains some poison pills, which suggests to us in the Bloc Québécois that a bill does not have to be huge in order to be filled with poison pills.

In particular, my colleague mentioned the government's interference in crown corporations. We had a taste of this—or should I say a bad aftertaste of this—during the most recent labour dispute, the lockout at Canada Post. There are other poison pills, and I would like my colleague to comment on one of them, namely the contentious Canadian Securities Transition Office. The government said that that office was supposed to cease its operations on July 12, 2013. However, under Bill C-60, that office will remain in place.

The Quebec National Assembly has adopted some unanimous motions, whether under the former Liberal government, the current PQ government or any other party present in the National Assembly. Other provinces have also expressed their displeasure at the Minister of Finance's plans to impose a Canada-wide securities regulator in Quebec and other provinces.

I would like to hear what my colleague's position and that of his party are regarding this direct attack by the Conservative government on Quebec's values.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question, which is related to the last part of my speech. I did not have time to talk about that issue because I was not given very much time.

Our position is well known. We oppose the government's attempts to create a single national securities regulator. The December 2011 Supreme Court ruling was clear. I would like to quote from that ruling:

The proposed Securities Act represents a comprehensive foray by Parliament into the realm of securities regulation. If validly adopted, it will create a single scheme governing the trade of securities throughout Canada subject to the oversight of a single national securities regulator.

The Supreme Court's decision was clear, so why is the federal government still pursuing its agenda by maintaining the transition office? I should point out that the federal government has already dumped $27 million into the project, and that was before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling.

At the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, I asked how much the government has spent since the Supreme Court ruling in an attempt to get around it even though it was clear.

Currently, all of the provinces but Ontario belong to a passport system, which allows for instant accreditation across Canada, except in Ontario. That means that if a person is an accredited stockbroker or portfolio manager in Quebec, or if a company is listed on an exchange, it is automatically accredited in all of the other provinces.

The Canadian government's goal of stronger nationwide regulation can be achieved through organizations, such as the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec, that work together in Canada. That is what the federal government should be doing.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I negotiated for the CBC for 25 years. I am well aware of how things are done in that crown corporation, and a number of very serious trades were made over those years in order to protect its pension plan, for example. The government has given hints that it wants to go after some pension plans. It has already gone after the OAS for seniors over 65 and has given very broad hints that it believes pension plans to be too rich. I am very concerned that this is just a smokescreen and, in fact, what it is going to do is order the CBC to start dismantling its pension plan.

Would the member like to comment?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has been very clear about his objective to try to equalize social benefits, including pension plans, with those in the private sector. Once again, the government is putting downward pressure on social benefits and on salaries in general.

Since the 2011 election—and likely even before that, but I have only been here for two years—the government has been saying that crown corporations must remain at arm's length. It does not many any sense for the Treasury Board Secretariat to be able to give itself the authority to withdraw offers that were supposedly made by the crown corporation itself, which is in the best position to determine its priorities and direction. This interference is completely unacceptable. Even the Conservatives have been saying that it is unacceptable for two years now, yet they are still going to do it.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013. I will be splitting my time with the very hard-working member for Brampton West and I look forward to his speech very much.

This is budget implementation act 1. Just for the benefit of those following this debate, I will outline the process at the beginning. Each summer, the finance committee initiates pre-budget hearings to hear from Canadians and organizations from across the country. Last year we heard from approximately 800 organizations and individuals who had input into the pre-budget process. We table our report in Parliament each year in December. The government considers that report and tables its budget, typically in February or March. We tabled it in March this year. It then follows up with two implementation acts, one in the spring, which the government hopes to pass by June, and then one that follows in the fall.

What the budget implementation acts do is take the budget, which was debated for four days this spring and then passed by this Parliament, and then make all the necessary legislative changes to ensure that the budget will in fact be implemented.

This particular bill, Bill C-60, has a number of measures that were included in our budget presented in March.

It would extend for two years the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment by Canadian manufacturers.

It would index the gas tax fund payments to better support job-creating infrastructure in municipalities across Canada. This is something I just asked my colleague across the way about.

It would extend for one year the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through shares for investors, especially for the junior mining sector in our country.

It would modernize the Investment Canada Act, as announced in December 2012 by the government, to clarify the treatment of proposed investments in Canada by foreign state-owned enterprises and the timeline for national security reviews.

It would provide $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research through Genome Canada, following up on our research and development agenda.

It would provide $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms.

It would provide $5 million in 2013-14 to Indspire, which is an excellent organization, for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.

It would support Canadian families through such measures as promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize the cost of adopting a child.

Following up on recommendations from the finance committee with respect to our report on charities, it would introduce a new temporary first-time donor super credit for first-time claimants of a charitable donations tax credit to encourage all young Canadians to donate to charity.

It would expand tax relief for home care services to better meet the health care needs of Canadians.

It would remove tariffs on imports of baby clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment.

It would provide $30 million in fiscal year 2013-14 to support the construction of new housing in Nunavut.

It would invest $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to preserve ecologically sensitive land.

It would provide $3 million to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers.

These last two measures, with respect to palliative care and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, I should point out were both brought to members of the finance committee over the last year.

It would commit $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted. This, again, was brought to members of the finance committee as well.

It would support veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits supporting veterans in this manner.

It would streamline the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers.

We are also very much respecting Canadian taxpayer dollars. We are proposing to improve the fairness of the tax system by eliminating duplication. We are proposing steps to align employee compensation offered by crown corporations with what is available to federal employees.

I want to address a couple of these points in particular. I will start with the accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment. This is an extension of a measure that was first put forward by our government in the March 2007 budget. It follows on a report by the industry committee in February 2007. That committee did an intensive six-month study of the manufacturing sector. We travelled across the country. Members of both sides did an excellent job in surveying what the challenges were for that sector.

The committee made 22 unanimous recommendations at that time. The first recommendation was to have an accelerated capital cost allowance. For people who are not aware of all the technicalities, it allows businesses in the manufacturing sector to write off their equipment at a faster rate. It enables them, therefore, to purchase more equipment on a much more expeditious basis to ensure that they are as up to date as possible. This makes them more productive, as they can have the most recent equipment in their shops. Having the most up-to-date equipment is also better from an environmental point of view. It has multiple benefits.

In the past, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, led by Jayson Myers, who has done an outstanding job as head of that association and of the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition, has argued that this enables companies to invest in their own productivity.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health here. He was an instrumental part of that report as well.

This is fundamental to ensuring that our manufacturing sector is competitive. We often hear that manufacturing is sort of a thing of the past. In fact, in Canada, considering the challenges they have had to face in the past, such as a rapidly appreciating dollar, variable energy costs, finding enough skilled and unskilled labour to meet their challenges, and responding to some real challenges from emerging and now emerged economies such as China, the manufacturing sector, in my view, has responded very well, in part because of specific measures like these and some of the other measures in the budget that was presented in March.

The accelerated capital cost allowance was first introduced in March 2007. It has been extended a couple of times, and it is going to be extended in this year's budget. This is an excellent reason for the members opposite, particularly those who have manufacturing bases, to support this particular piece of legislation. I encourage them to take a very good look at that.

The second item I want to spend some time on is the gas tax fund. Municipalities from across Canada have been coming to provincial and federal governments for years, saying that they need a long-term infrastructure plan to address their needs. They cannot go by this variable rate on a year-to-year basis. They are asking for a long-term sustainable plan. They asked, obviously, for gas tax funding.

Every time we, as Canadians, fill up our vehicles, we pay the 10¢-per-litre federal excise tax. Approximately half of that flows into funding, through the federal government, through the provinces, back to municipalities to ensure that it meets their needs. What we are doing is indexing that gas tax fund so that municipalities can not only count on it over the long term but will know how much it is going to be and will know that it will, in fact, be increasing on an annual basis.

This allows municipalities such as Edmonton—Leduc, Devon, Leduc County, in my area, to then borrow against that if they have something large. In Edmonton, light rail transit was expanded in my area. I believe that the City of Edmonton took approximately $100 million out of gas tax funding and put that money into light rail transit, which I think all parties in this Parliament should support.

Further to that, Edmonton recently announced another extension of their light rail transit system by using the P3 model the government has put in place. That is another excellent model municipalities across the country should look at.

The one-year extension of the mineral exploration tax credit was first put in place in 2000. This credit is sort of like Groundhog Day, because it is constantly extended by one year each and every year. This is especially important for the junior mining sector. It is very important for us to realize the importance of the mining sector in Canada.

The largest mining conference every year, the PDAC conference, is held in Toronto. It is an outstanding conference that not only shows the importance of the mining sector but the importance of that sector in relation to our other important sectors, such as the financial services sector.

I will just finish up by talking about investments such as those in Genome Canada. This follows on the government's science and technology strategy. We released our S and T strategy, again going back, in 2007. Following on that report, we have been investing in a number of areas, whether it is in the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Genome Canada, or the research granting councils, which received increased funding in this past budget, as well. That is why organizations such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada have strongly endorsed this budget.

I would ask all parliamentarians to endorse the government's initiatives in this budget to support research and development, science and technology and those high-quality jobs of the future in this country.

I look forward to questions from all members in this House.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for his speech.

We work together on the Standing Committee on Finance, where he does excellent work as chair. As he mentioned, we often disagree when it comes to political and economic issues, but I do not think that it is a stretch to say that he has earned the respect of all the members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Earlier, before his speech, the hon. member mentioned some issues pertaining to Bill C-60. The NDP is often told that opposing certain government measures will hinder economic growth. However, the hon. member mentioned in his speech that this work could be done in committee. He is familiar with the process, since we follow it in committee.

I would like a confirmation from him. Is it possible for us to support some aspects of the budget but to oppose the budget as a whole? Can he confirm that support for certain budget measures is being expressed in committee?

Some of his colleagues are saying that we are opposing measures that we once supported. Can he ask his colleagues to stop telling the opposite of the truth?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his work on the finance committee, and I appreciate his words about my chairmanship. We disagree sometimes on economic and political policy, although I will note that he quoted Milton Friedman this past week in committee, which impressed me, as he has inspired us both in different ways, I suppose.

With respect to the process, obviously what happens here is that at second reading, the vote is on the principle of the bill. I strongly urge the member opposite to look at all of the very good items in this bill and to move it forward to committee.

With respect to committee, as the member knows very well, we vote clause by clause. If there is a certain clause in the bill members opposite feel they can support, they can vote in favour of that measure. If there is a clause they oppose, for whatever reason, they can vote against that particular clause of the bill.

However, in terms of the overall items, and because of the items I identified in my speech, I would strongly encourage members opposite to vote for increased funding for Genome Canada; increased funding for Indspire, which is a fantastic program for our first nations students; and increased funding for municipalities across the country. These are items that should be supported by members on both sides of the House. That is why I encourage the member to do that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for his great speech. I was a little disappointed that he did not get to give a 20-minute speech, because if he had, I know he would have talked about the excellent improvements for veterans that have been made in this budget implementation act.

I know that the hon. member is a strong supporter of veterans in his area. I am hoping he can expand on what this budget and this implementation act would do to improve services, not only in terms of the pension but also in terms of the burial funding that was previously cut. I am hoping that he can expand on that.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have given a 20-minute speech, but the member for Brampton West, I am sure, will top it off and be even better.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about veterans. This is an area in which the government has made a number of additional investments for veterans, both those from previous wars, who are quite aged, and those from recent engagements such as Afghanistan. They have encountered all sorts of challenges, whether they are challenges with respect to physical health or with respect to mental health. In my view, this government and this minister have made some real strides forward.

With respect to this particular bill, it would support veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other selected benefits. In terms of a specific measure in this bill members on both sides of the House should support, they should definitely support this one. It is another strong argument as to why members should support this particular bill.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to share time with the member for Edmonton—Leduc. I am sure that he would have used these 10 minutes in a fantastic way, and I am honoured that he chose to share them with me so that I can add my comments to this debate.

Before I get into the substance of what I will speak about today, I will hit some of the important highlights. The budget and the budget implementation are key drivers of the economic success of our country, and we have had great economic success in Canada. One of the things that is often talked about by members of my party is the fantastic job creation we have had since the peak of the recession. We have over 900,000 net new jobs. We know that 90% of those jobs are full-time jobs, and 80% of them come from the private sector, which is important. My friends from the New Democratic Party would like to believe that the way to grow the economy is to hire into the public service, but we believe that private sector jobs are the key drivers of economic growth.

Canada's job creation record since the recession is among the best in the G7. Improvement in employment over the recovery is, in fact, the best in the G7. One key indicator I always look at is our unemployment rate compared to the rate in the United States. Historically, we have had a significantly higher unemployment rate than the United States. Due to the great leadership of our Prime Minister and to our economic action plans, we actually have an unemployment rate that is lower than the rate in the United States, which is significant.

With respect to investment, we have recovered all the business investment lost during the recession, which is also unique among the G7 countries.

Members might feel that this is a bit like Groundhog Day, but great minds think alike. The member for Edmonton—Leduc talked about a couple of key points in this budget implementation act. I would like to highlight, again, some of the points he spoke to.

One issue that is very important is the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers. My colleague spoke about that, and I will as well. My riding, which is in the great city of Brampton, has a proud tradition of manufacturing, and these are welcomed programs.

The accelerated capital cost allowance would be extended for an additional two years. It would allow manufacturers to purchase new machinery and equipment and have the cost of those purchases written off over a much shorter period of time. It would allow business people to buy that equipment and machinery, increase their productivity and therefore be more competitive in the increasingly competitive global environment in manufacturing. This has been very well received. The president and CEO of CME, Jayson Myers,said:

The budget recognizes the importance of manufacturing and exporting for each and every Canadian, as an anchor of high-value, high-paying jobs in all parts of the country and across all sectors of the economy.... The business is rapidly changing with new customers, new competitors, new technologies and new skills requirements. This budget will make a real difference in helping our manufacturers and exporters compete and win in global markets.

That is an exceptional program that would help our manufacturers.

Also, with respect to infrastructure, we often hear New Democrats comment that we are not investing in infrastructure. We are not doing enough. We should help cities. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We have made significant investments in infrastructure. In fact, they are the largest infrastructure investments in the history of any federal government, with $53 billion in long-term support. It is composed of $32.2 billion in the community improvement fund and is sub-composed of an indexed gas fund.

What the New Democrats seem to forget is that it was this government that made the transfer of the gas tax permanent, which was a key ask of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Now we would index it, which, again, was something municipalities asked for. These would be funds municipalities could count on, year after year, to make investments in the infrastructure needs in their communities.

We have had significant investments in infrastructure in my city of Brampton. We can look at the investment in the AcceleRide program and the investment in the Züm buses, which Bramptonians are very pleased about.

Our mayor was very happy with those investments. I have a quote from the great mayor of Brampton: “I am encouraged by the 2013 federal budget which will help municipalities...”.

Of course this came from the FCM itself: “Today's budget delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities”.

If that is not a ringing endorsement of our budget, I do not know what is.

I also want to talk about one other aspect of the budget, which I consider to be important with respect to the first nations land management. We are going to invest a further $9 million over two years for the expansion of the FNLMA regime. Why is that important? I sit on the aboriginal affairs committee, and I can say that one of the best ways to unlock the economic potential of first nation communities is to allow them to move at the speed of business, to exempt them from the land code provisions of the Indian Act. That is exactly what the FNLMA does. It allows first nations to enact their own land codes and therefore be able to develop their land and, that great phrase, move at the speed of business, so they can continue to economically prosper.

We believe these additional funds would allow 33 first nations to move into the regime. There are currently 39 that are fully operational, and 30 are in the process of drafting their land codes. This would greatly add to the improvement of the quality of life on first nations.

Quickly, one of the other things I wanted to talk about is with respect to the donor super credit, which is of course going to encourage Canadians to make charitable donations. We know the great work that gets done all across our communities in this country with our charitable organizations. The first-time donor super credit would provide an additional 25% tax credit for a first-time donor, up to $1,000 in monetary donations. I think this would have an exceptional impact on the giving of Canadians across this country.

It is also important to note the things we would do: the accelerated capital cost allowance; the extension of the mineral exploration tax credits, which my colleague talked about; the investments we are making in infrastructure. All of these things would be done while balancing the budget. We remain on track to balance the budget in 2015-16, and we are going to make sure the budget is balanced, because it is important for Canadians and important for the government, and we would do all the things we are talking about in the budget and still be able to balance it in the coming years.

From my pre-budget consultations, and I also did some post-budget consultations with local businesses in my community, I can say that a number of the things they were looking for are in the budget. I do not have time, but we could talk about the new job training credit, which is being worked on. It is very exciting.

One of the business owners in my riding sent me an email after he had reviewed the budget, and I am going to read what he said because I think it is reflective of the general view of small businesses in my community:

Economic Action Plan 2013 builds on the strong foundation the government laid last year, create jobs and economic growth while keeping taxes low and returning to a balanced Budget in 2015. Economic Action Plan 2013 demonstrates to hardworking Canadian families that our Government is committed to their priorities: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

That is from Herman Custodio, from Custodio's Studio Inc., which is in beautiful downtown Brampton. He is a great business owner in my local community.

For these reasons, I fully support our budget and, of course, the budget implementation act.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government talks about science and technology, it clearly has no credibility.

In fact, last year, the Conservatives cut science and technology funding by 6%. The funding for science and technology in Canada is nothing like the funding provided by other countries and jurisdictions in the world.

Why does the Conservative government insist on closing down research centres that focus on the environment, Canada's north, our waters and rivers? Why does it insist on governing without looking at scientific data?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I missed this section of my speech when I talked about those kinds of things, but I will answer the question, even though it had nothing to do with what I talked about.

Most of the things the hon. member is saying, in fact all of the things, are not true. My question to her would be this: when she hears the great resounding support for the budget implementation act from local business owners in my riding, local mayors, the FCM, manufacturers and exporters, will she for once support the things that would be good and important for the Canadian economy?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member just reproached her for asking a question about something he failed to discuss.

I see that the two government speakers who spoke one after another were very careful to talk only about certain budget measures in Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill.

However, they avoid talking about any measures that are not budget measures and that are in the budget, particularly when it comes to the government's intention to interfere in crown corporations, CBC in particular.

Since the member did not talk about this in his speech, could he elaborate on what the government is planning to do exactly?

Why does the government want to meddle in negotiations at Canada Post, VIA Rail and CBC? Does it want to take over CBC?

It already has control over Sun News Network. What more does it want? Does it want CBC as well?

I would not have a problem if the government wanted to discuss Don Cherry's contract, but I do have a problem when it wants to meddle in CBC's broadcasting and other operations.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to talk about what is in the budget, not what is not in the budget. That is why I am focusing on certain things that are in there.

We want to be good guardians of Canadian taxpayer money and be responsive to taxpayers. We look at those organizations and we want to make sure they are being operated in the most lean and efficient way possible, which responds to the desires of Canadians and taxpayers who want to pay their fair share of tax but not be overtaxed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Brampton West could connect our communities. I am from Oshawa, he is from Brampton West, and we both have a very proud history of manufacturing.

He talked about our colleague from Edmonton—Leduc, with whom I was very proud to serve on the industry committee. We brought in this accelerated capital cost allowance and the importance for manufacturing in this budget.

We have heard from the NDP members, and unfortunately, each and every time we brought a budget in since 2007, they have voted against all these wonderful things we have for manufacturing. They want to filibuster everything, delay everything, and frankly, communities like ours need the things that are in the budget in order to get our economy growing.

The NDP claims to support union jobs and claims to support manufacturers. Could he contrast the things that are in the budget as opposed to, say, the NDP policy and its style of going down to the United States, for example, to lobby against Canadian jobs in the energy sector, which has huge spinoffs for manufacturing in Ontario?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to reconcile the seemingly incomprehensible strategy that the NDP puts forward on many of our economic programs, but the member raises a great point about accelerated capital cost allowance.

I have large automotive manufacturing in my riding. I know the hon. member has in his riding as well. These are programs that would be well used by the automobile manufacturing community, because they allow it to invest in new machinery and equipment, improve productivity and be more competitive globally.

That is the issue facing Canadian manufacturers right now. We have an increasingly competitive global environment, and we have to find ways to enable our manufacturers to compete with the most efficient countries around the world, and that is exactly what the accelerated capital cost allowance would help to do.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will share my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I find it somewhat exasperating to rise once again to express my disapproval at third reading of this omnibus bill. This one is not quite as thick as the others, but even so, this so-called budget implementation bill will change over 50 laws.

The people of LaSalle—Émard are against the omnibus bills that the Conservative government has introduced repeatedly in the House. What is more, it has once again limited debate, as it has done a record number of times since the beginning of this Parliament.

In my remarks today, I will focus primarily on division 6, which is about the Investment Canada Act. Much ink has been and continues to be spilled over this act, particularly in 2012. The largest transaction yet to be reviewed under the Investment Canada Act was the purchase of Canadian oil company Nexen by Chinese state-owned CNOOC.

Many experts have expressed their views on this transaction and on the Investment Canada Act. They have said that the rules were not clear. Throughout the development of that saga in 2012, every time we asked the minister a question, he said that yes, a decision was being made and that yes, the government was going to take net benefit for Canadians into account.

The government waited until December 7, 2012. During a press conference at 4:00 p.m. on a Friday afternoon, the Prime Minister signed off on this major transaction. The interesting thing is that, during the press conference, the Prime Minister said that the government had approved CNOOC's purchase of Nexen, but then he turned around and said he was going to change the rules. That indicates that the government realized such decisions have significant consequences, but approved the transaction anyway. A closer look at the government's measures suggests that it might be aware it made the wrong decision. This is about natural resources in a strategic sector of the Canadian economy, and now a foreign state-owned company controls part of it.

Once again they have hidden away one of the most important laws, the Investment Canada Act, in an omnibus bill. We have been asking the government for a number of years to carry out an in-depth review of this legislation. Instead, the government is making announcements. It has announced two things. During the Prime Minister's press conference, one of the people attending commented on how the takeover of Canadian companies by foreign corporations would be handled. Those rules are in this bill and, what is more, the Minister of Industry is being given the authority to define or decide what rules will apply to foreign state-owned enterprises. That is worrisome.

The other aspect that I would like to talk about is the increase in the thresholds that trigger the review of these transactions under the Investment Canada Act and the application of the infamous net benefit to Canada test.

The Conservatives are establishing new review thresholds, which will first increase from $600 million to $800 million and then to $1 billion in less than five years. The valuation will no longer be based on asset value but instead on the corporation's market value. With these two factors, fewer and fewer takeovers by foreign corporations will be reviewed under the Investment Canada Act or be subject to the net benefit to Canada test.

This is disturbing because it means that the government is hanging up a big banner across the country that reads “Canada is for sale to the highest bidder”. Even Chris Hadfield will be able to see it from space. That is the government's message.

The NDP recognizes that foreign investment in Canada is important. It stimulates the economy. However, we must understand that some foreign business people and investors see Canada as a pool of talented workers. They come here because they recognize that Canadians are very talented when it comes to innovation and creativity.

They also recognize that Canada has appealing and favourable work conditions. People are treated well here. We have high health, safety and environmental standards. They also recognize the importance of establishing themselves and participating in the community. These foreign investments are a good thing for Canada because they help advance science and technology and improve knowledge sharing.

I have had the opportunity to visit many businesses that are well established here in Canada. They see Canada as a place that supports growth and trade. However, in the last 20 years, a number of businesses have been fair-weather friends. They have come to establish here, have more or less complied with working conditions and then have left. That is my concern, and I demand that we be able to study the Investment Canada Act in committee.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 136 to 154 regarding the Investment Canada Act be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and that these clauses do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”

We are moving this motion because we believe that this section of Bill C-60 is very important and complex and should therefore be carefully studied as a separate bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the NDP member for LaSalle—Émard, what she thinks about the fact that the government is scrapping the 15% tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This tax credit was of great benefit to Quebec savers.

At 163% of disposable income, Canadian household debt has reached unprecedented levels. It is no secret that Canadian families are having a hard time making ends meet and saving.

Families want to use this tax credit to sock away more money for retirement, yet the federal government is scrapping it.

What does she think about that?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely unfortunate.

We know that these funds are key to stimulating economies throughout Quebec, including in the regions.

The Conservatives do not seem to appreciate this model, because it is democratic, encourages savings and fosters regional development. We know that the Conservatives have abandoned the regions.

This measure is totally counterproductive. It will not stimulate the local economy or Canadian businesses. I am vehemently opposed to this measure.