Debates of May 2nd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague and applaud her for the great work that she is doing on this important file. Affordable housing and housing security is one of the key determinants of health. That is why this is so essential and is such an egregious omission in this budget.

When we have families and young people spending 40%, 45%, 50% and over 50% of their gross income on housing, they are not spending that money on anything else. They are living in precarious situations. They have precarious jobs. Due to their precariousness, they are not able to help our economy in the way that they really could be, in the way that they really should be, and in the way that we really need them to be.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech and particularly for the little bit about the performing arts. Arts and culture have once again been ignored by the government, which believes that culture and entertainment make no economic contribution to our society.

I would appreciate it if my colleague would discuss the importance of developing training programs for stage and film technicians. Canada’s film industry is internationally recognized for our films, which win awards around the world. The industry is viable and vibrant, but it always needs further refinement. I would also be grateful if he could tell us just how important the record industry is.

I would like him to tell the House more about the importance of this entire industry and why it is important to invest in it and support our culture. After all, we are talking about our heritage.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true. We talk a lot about the knowledge economy and we talk a lot about the economy of the 21st century, that we have to move to a different model.

Yes, we have the basics and we have the model right here. It is in the arts and culture sector, where we are competing against the best all over the world. We have developed a phenomenal recording industry and a film industry. We have world-recognized writers and visual artists. We have an industry that supports it to the tune of between $60 billion and $80 billion.

This budget, like many other actions of the government, missed great opportunities to leverage this. This is an export commodity that the current government is letting lie fallow when it should be actually supporting the sector and presenting it to the world.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas, additionally, that we do not find in the bill is any investment in energy efficiency. We had hoped for, and my constituents had hoped for, a return of the home energy retrofit. What I had also hoped for, following a review we are doing in committee, is a major investment of energy efficiency in government buildings instead of cutting civil servants.

Would the member speak to that?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the work that she has done raising awareness constantly on issues of the environment. Certainly, in my city in Toronto we have a huge need for investments in energy efficiency.

We saw in the House very recently that the government voted down our motion on the perils of a 2° rise in temperature, yet we can do many things to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One of the main ones is reducing and conserving energy.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, May 2, two years after the NDP was elected as the official opposition. It has bee two years, but this budget implementation bill still contains the worst of the Conservative policies, even though this legislation should only include budget measures. Therefore, I will oppose this bill because of its content and because of the process.

Bill C-60, which implements parts of budget 2013, increases the tax burden on Canadians with tax increases for credit unions and small businesses. It also includes higher tariffs on thousands of products. It gives Treasury Board very broad powers allowing it to intervene in the collective bargaining process and to impose terms and conditions of employment on non-unionized crown corporation employees. It also amends the Investment Canada Act to significantly reduce the number of takeovers that are subject to review. Finally, it proposes a symbolic but inadequate solution to the flawed approach to the temporary foreign worker program.

To fully understand the problems with Bill C-60, we must go back to its source, the 2013 budget. That budget did not include anything really new, nor did it propose anything satisfactory regarding employment. It continued to target services provided to Canadians by trying to shrink the size of government. In this budget, the government tried to pull a fast one with funds allocated to worker training, and by pretending that infrastructure funds were going to increase when in fact they have been reduced, as my NDP colleagues found out. It is very important to point out that what was announced as new money is in fact a budget cut.

This budget also targets workers' funds and all those who benefit from such funds, including small investors and businesses in our regions. Moreover, the budget does not take seriously the problems facing producers, such as the labour shortage. The changes made to the employment insurance program did not help at all, and many farmers and seasonal entrepreneurs in my riding are having a hard time hiring skilled labour this year. They worry about the impact that these changes will have on them. The budget also does not do anything to help them with risk management.

The budget also shows a lack of conviction regarding the implementation of the Emerson report recommendations. That report, commissioned by this Conservative government, was drafted by the industry. The fact that its recommendations were not fully implemented means the Conservatives are not clearly siding with the aerospace industry, even though that industry creates thousands of jobs in a riding like Mirabel.

Again, with this budget, the government missed an opportunity to reverse its decision to slash old age security and many other programs. It is really unfortunate that this budget does absolutely nothing for the citizens of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

By amending close to 50 different acts, Bill C-60 follows the same pattern as omnibus Bills C-38 and C-45.

While it is smaller than similar bills we have seen from this government, it still amends 49 pieces of legislation, which is a lot. The mere fact that the bill has fewer pages does not mean it is no worse. In any case, what Canadians want is not something that is no worse. They want something better. To achieve that, measures should be proposed properly, separately, and they should be debated fairly, based on their merits. They should be proposed responsibly in this Parliament.

Omnibus bills like this one and all the other budget implementation bills are fundamentally bad for democracy and for our Parliament.

With Bill C-60, the Conservatives are trying, for the third time, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight. Canadians deserve better than a Conservative omnibus bill that adds to their cost of living and does not create jobs.

I want to be clear. I will oppose this omnibus bill because it is altogether bad for the Canadian economy. Regardless of what the Conservatives are saying, budget 2013 and Bill C-60 are measures that will slow down the Canadian economy instead of boosting it.

Budget 2013 cuts thousands of jobs, cuts program spending and weakens GDP growth. The Conservatives' plan, starting with budget 2012, will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in GDP. That is far from the prosperity the Conservatives promised.

I want to talk about something other than figures, but I do want to say that I did not make them up. They came from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was appointed by this government.

As if it were not enough that this budget does nothing for the economy, with this bill, the government continues to go after workers. The bill gives extensive powers to the Treasury Board to intervene in the collective bargaining process and impose terms and conditions of employment on crown corporations. This interference in the negotiating process is very disappointing. The Conservatives are continuing their direct attack on collective bargaining. What a perfect example of doublespeak. They talk about independence for crown corporations, but they want to impose their austerity ideology and they are crushing that independence by interfering in the management of crown corporations.

I also want to mention that workers are not the only ones who will be negatively affected by this bill. The Conservatives really seem to have it in for the regions. Their tax hikes for credit unions and small businesses represent a direct attack on my riding's economy. Credit unions and SMEs are an important part of our communities' economic and social fabric. The Conservatives are taxing them to benefit the major banks and big businesses.

They amended the Investment Canada Act to considerably reduce the number of takeovers subject to review. That means that businesses outside of major urban centres will no longer be reviewed and, without oversight from the government, could be taken over by foreign companies.

Furthermore, how can we forget their ill-advised EI reform, which targets seasonal workers, who are essential to rural economies, or their attack on labour-sponsored funds, which are supported by workers, investors, unions and businesses, especially in the regions?

It is clear that the budget does nothing for my riding.

In conclusion, the government is trying to say that it is doing a good job managing the economy. In this budget, there is nothing for workers and nothing for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. People deserve much more, and I hope to have the opportunity to give them more in 2015.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that there is nothing in this bill for workers. That is definitely true, but I want to know if she agrees with the idea that it will harm workers. Sixty-seven thousands jobs will be lost between now and 2017 because of the 2012 and 2013 budgets.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it will harm workers. It will reduce the number of jobs.

Basically, the Conservatives are putting austerity measures in place to reduce the government to nothing. Many people will lose their jobs and services will be cut. In the meantime, changes are being made to employment insurance and many people are worried about their job.

The effects are already being felt in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, even though these measures have only been in place a few months. Almost every week, a new example of EI mismanagement comes to light.

For example, this week a woman came to my office. She said that they threatened to take her employment insurance benefits away if she did not go to Saint-Jérôme, which is a 30-minute drive from her home in Lachute. The only way to get there is highway 50. However, she does not have a car. That makes it pretty hard to do.

The measures this government is taking are clearly against workers, especially workers in the regions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I especially understand the comments made by the member in response to her last question on the impact EI changes have on a region.

The Atlantic premiers wrote a letter. In it they said:

These impacts are most acutely felt in seasonal industries, which make up a significant portion of the Atlantic economy. These changes were introduced without consultation or shared analysis, and therefore without a full understanding of the effect of the changes. Atlantic premiers urged the Federal Government to suspend the changes to the program pending the completion of an evidence-based approach.

That is in information from the Council of Atlantic Premiers, and what those people are saying is that the current government's changes—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I hear some of the backbench members from Atlantic Canada over there chirping, but they stand and support the Prime Minister like trained seals.

My question for the member is this. Does she see the same kind of impacts in the rural areas of Quebec?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Argenteuil and Papineau we have already seen a lot of people coming forward with issues surrounding the changes to employment insurance, impacts that they have already felt, whether it is clawbacks or fear of what will happen to them when their job is to plant things, and they cannot plant things in the winter. It has definitely had an impact for employers in the region that are no longer able to find people who want to come back in the summer because they are afraid of what it will mean for their salary down the road.

Therefore, this is having a huge impact on whether people live in the regions. Bringing new generations into rural areas is something that places like Argenteuil and Papineau are putting so much work into doing right now. We are not far from Ottawa or Montreal. It should be a place where people want to go, live and work, and not too far from the city. However, unfortunately people are afraid they are going to have to drive to Gatineau or Montreal just to work for a minimum wage. People do not want to move into the region anymore.

Unfortunately, this is what is happening and it is clear it is because the Conservatives did not study how this would impact Canadians when they made the changes to employment insurance.

I also want to mention, while I am on my feet, that it is too bad the Conservatives also did not go back on their changes to OAS. Canadians have been calling for this as well, and it is not fair to ask these people to work longer. OAS is supposed to be a security net, not something that makes people work longer.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Burlington.

It is very interesting. I have listened to the debates this afternoon and opposition members have been arguing about the rationale as to why they cannot support Bill C-60, our economic action plan.

I would like to give them a few examples of reasons why they should support it. It is rather important legislation that continues a growth pattern that we have started on as a government.

We have come out of the recession as number one in the world, which is really rare for Canada as it has never been there before. It is exciting to see the numbers of jobs that have been created and the opportunity that we have as far as growth as we move forward.

Maybe I will close with some of the optimistic things that we can talk about within our country, but this legislation builds on that. Just for one reason alone, if the opposition is looking at something it could support, it certainly could support our veterans. This legislation would give a very nice benefit to our vets. For that reason alone, the opposition should support it.

Then again, it should also be supporting what the legislation does with regards to going after tax evaders, something that has not happened for many years. Just in fairness, as Canadians, and for no other reason, the opposition should support it to ensure everyone pays their fair share of taxes and to deal with those who cheat.

When it comes to the indexing of the gas tax, I heard the opposition say that the number one problem in municipalities was housing. I would beg to differ. The number one problem in municipalities, as we have heard right across the country from coast to coast to coast, is infrastructure. The legislation deals with $53 billion of infrastructure over a 10-year period, the most aggressive infrastructure plan that we have ever laid out as a country. For that reason alone, the opposition should support the legislation.

We would be lowering taxes and providing flow-through shares for mining and keeping that industry going. The accelerated capital cost allowance creates a tremendous amount of opportunity in manufacturing and opportunity for job growth and industry growth for many years to come. This is a great benefit in the legislation. The opposition should be supporting it because of that, or because of the hiring tax credit that has been continued for small businesses, which is a real benefit that it should be supporting. Even the capital gains exemption has gone up for lifetime capital gains for individuals. This is should be supported.

For those reasons alone, and I could go on about many other reasons, the opposition should support the bill. Instead, we hear a lot of negativity and some things that are negative have nothing to do with the legislation as far as arguments go. I guess I should not be alarmed about that, because when the opposition runs out of manufactured reasons for not supporting it, it comes up with reasons that are not even in the bill.

I would like to spend my time on the number one issue in my riding, which is the lack of labour. It is different from what I heard from the hon. member from Toronto, who suggested the number one problem was unemployment.

I have the opposite problem in my riding, which is a good thing in some ways, but in other ways it is not. The temporary foreign worker program was there to address it in the last election. When the people of my riding discerned whether I was the right person to vote for, the number one issue they came forward with was a lack of labour. The importance of the temporary foreign worker program was to deal with the kinds of reduction and the ability for corporations and industries to grow and create the kinds of opportunity for our region and our country.

However, the temporary foreign worker program was something we said we would take a look at, to see if we could find ways to make that program work even more effectively. Guess what? We did. We made the program work even more effectively and efficiently. However, there is a bit of a problem with the temporary foreign worker program and this legislation addresses that.

In my riding, unemployment is zero. The real objective of the temporary foreign worker program is that it does not take away jobs from Canadians, but helps complement the workforce where there are no Canadians to fill those jobs.

Even where unemployment is virtually zero or very close to it, there are people in the system who have abused the program, even in my riding. This needs to be addressed. In this piece of legislation, we are going after those individuals, tweaking the program and will be consulting on this program in the future to make it better so that it actually deals with what it was intended to do, which was complement and not replace Canadian workers.

There are seven ways that this piece of legislation lays out how it is going to be changed. The first one would come into effect immediately and it is with respect to the pay differential, which was brought in about a year or a year and a half ago and was not being used. Only about 5% of those using the program even bothered with it. Let us get rid of the compromised price of 15% for skilled workers or 5% for lower-skilled workers on the differential of what those individuals are being paid. That we got rid of in this piece of legislation.

We are going to temporarily suspend in this piece of legislation the accelerated labour market opinion process, which was something they were asking for. In my riding, people needed it. We are not going to cancel it in this legislation, just suspend it while we take a breather, do some consultation and look at how we build on this program to make it even better.

The third thing in this piece of legislation on the program is to make sure it has the power to deal with those who abuse the process in the sense of being able to take away, revoke or suspend the labour market opinion process, the work permit as well as the LMO. This is something we need if we are going to be able to deal with those who refuse to see it as a program to complement Canadian workers and use it to replace Canadian workers, which we are seeing even in an area such as ours.

The fourth change to the temporary foreign worker program in this piece of legislation is to make sure we stop outsourcing. The program was never intended to replace the Canadian workforce and to have people work outside our country is a total abuse. This piece of legislation deals with that as well. That is another reason for certain that the opposition should be supporting it.

The fifth reason is that we want to make certain there is a plan in place for corporations that get LMOs and use temporary foreign workers to replace them long term with the Canadian workforce. That may be the most difficult one in my riding to comply with, so we are going to go through a process of consultation on that.

The sixth thing is to make sure that the fund is self-funded. There is no way that the taxpayer should be supporting this fund. The employer should be doing that.

The seventh thing is to make sure that English and French are the only mandatory languages necessary for foreign workers.

Those are the seven changes. The agricultural community and the agriculture workforce are exempt from most of these, except that if people abuse the system, the work permits will be revoked.

These are wonderful changes to the program, but it is in a process of consultation. It is one of the most important pieces in this bill that will impact all of Canada, but particularly my riding.

We have a wonderful experience in Canada. When we were coming through the recession, my colleagues in America went green with envy. They call Canada the miracle to the north because of the jobs created, the lower taxes, how we are freeing up the private sector to grow, capitalizing on international markets and moving to balanced books. For that, we should be very excited as Canadians. We have a great story to tell. We are doing some wonderful things not only in this budget, but in past budgets. This complements past ones. All members should think soberly about that and support this piece of legislation.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, of course, with an omnibus budget bill is that one can pick and choose what one decides to talk about and skim over some of the rest. With the Conservatives, unfortunately, the devil is always in the details when it comes to their budget bills.

I want to ask about two issues in particular that I did not hear the member mention and that trouble me.

As members will recall, I have quite often risen in the House to talk about issues related to Canada Post as they were brought to me both by constituents, and when I was the labour critic, by communities right across the country with respect to post office closures, staff layoffs and particularly with respect to collective bargaining. When I was asking those questions, the government always said, “Oh, it's an arm's-length relationship, and we couldn't possibly comment.”

Well, in this budget bill we learn that those are the shortest arms in the world. In this budget bill, the government is interfering quite directly in the collective bargaining rights of the workers at not only Canada Post but also CBC and with respect to VIA Rail.

I ask the member quite specifically: why is this budget bill meddling in the managerial autonomy of crown corporations?

Second, there are provisions in this budget that also deal with the Investment Canada Act.

The member would also know that on a number of occasions I have raised the story of the U.S. Steel buyout of Stelco under the Investment Canada Act where absolutely no production or employment guarantees were met by that company. The government took them to court, and was winning every step of the way, but then folded like a cheap shirt.

How do these Investment Canada Act provisions actually help the people who are now for the third time, in three collective agreement negotiations, locked out by the company?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolutely wonderful story that we have with regard to investments in Canada, and for those who come to this country to invest and create opportunities for employment in manufacturing, as well as the opportunity in the long run for Canadians on investments. This is one of the first times in the history of our country that we actually have the floodgates wide open because it is all about confidence. People are going to invest in this country because of the confidence that is here that they would actually be making money.

In fact, I was talking to a group this morning from chemical corporations in this country that are dealing with investments. They are looking at infrastructure builds of $5 billion over the next five years. They are saying that they have corporations all over the world, but the corporations that are making the most money are really Canadian corporations. Why? It is because of the competitive advantage that we are giving them. We are working to make certain that we have the opportunities for Canadians to be able to develop manufacturing jobs and good jobs in the long run. These are one small example of the kinds of investments that are coming into this country.

When it comes to Canada Post, CBC and other crown corporations, they are arm's-length from government, but we want to make sure that they are sustainable in the long run. We have to work and be responsible to Canadians and to the public we represent by making sure that these crown corporations move in that direction. That is where I believe this piece of legislation will take us.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how he can say that with a straight face.

He mentioned infrastructure earlier. However, the infrastructure money is coming from the building Canada fund, an old program that did not use up all of its funding. They are claiming that there is new money but, in reality, they are cutting $5.8 billion over five years.

These are not new funds and this is not the most money any government has ever spent. That is untrue.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon. colleague: it is absolutely new. It is indexed gas tax funds, which is brand new, plus $14 billion in larger projects. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but collectively it is $53 billion in 10-year, long-term, stable funding.

This is exactly what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been asking for across Canada. This is what it is getting in this piece of legislation. It is the most excited. When I talk to mayors and reeves in municipalities across my riding, they are absolutely ecstatic about this bill. They want it passed because they then can make some long-term plans for solid infrastructure that will build this country a long way into the future.

My hon. colleague should support this piece of legislation if for no other reason than the infrastructure alone.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and talk about Bill C-60, the first BIA. There is normally one in the spring and one in the fall.

I want to say a couple of words before I begin on the actual substance of the bill. We are hearing from the opposition about the length of the bill. That is a legitimate concern. Therefore, I looked at it. It is 115 pages, in English and in French. It is not 115 in English and 115 in French. It is a total of 115 pages.

I am absolutely positive that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain can read 50 pages and understand what it is in it. The argument that this is some sort of big bill that is unmanageable is completely false. If the opposition cannot read 50 pages, then we have something to really worry about.

Let us be fair. This is a 50-page bill, 115 pages in both languages. If members are talented enough, which I am not, to read it in both languages, it is 115 pages. It is not that long.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for hosting the overview of the bill on Monday night. There was a decent crowd there of members of Parliament and staff.

Every section was reviewed, not by the political staff but by members of the finance department. They went clause by clause, division by division, and answered questions from the floor from all parties on what was in this implementation bill, Bill C-60. They gave non-partisan answers to what was in the bill.

I would encourage all members of Parliament who are interested in the financial aspects of the budget and the implementation bill to take advantage of the opportunity that the government is providing to all members of the House. The briefings that took place on Monday night of this week made a significant difference in the understanding of what was in these clauses before us today.

Let me go to some of the points I think are very important to my riding, to me personally, to my constituents and to the country as a whole. I will see how much time I have and how far I can go on these.

Let us talk about the adoption expense tax credit that the opposition will vote against. With this tax credit for adoptive parents, we are adding to what they can deduct in their quest as a family to adopt a child or baby. It is an opportunity. We understand, on this side of the House, that there are costs and effort for young families to adopt a child.

We are using the tax credit system to say that we understand what they are trying to do, that they are doing a good thing for their family, that they are doing a good thing for the country and we are providing some assistance in the adoption expense tax credit.

We are also offering a first-time donor's super credit. For people who have not donated before, we are adding an extra 25% to that first-time donation that they make to an organization, if they and their spouse have not donated since 2007. We are encouraging Canadians to support charities.

Where did we get this from? We have done consultations as individual members and the finance committee heard people from across the country. These are the kinds of support for which the not-for-profit charity sector asked. That is what is being delivered. It is in the budget, which is a policy document. The implementation bill is what takes parts of that budget and puts them into law. It implements those changes. I am very supportive of that change.

Another important change we are making has to do with more of a technical issue. We are providing assistance to the registered disability savings plan for adult beneficiaries.

I am very proud of this government for developing the registered disability savings plan that did not exist before we took office. We heard that at the finance committee. In the field we talked to different individuals and organizations about what is needed for disabled adults and disabled children and parents who were concerned about their financial well-being after they had passed.

We developed this registered disability plan, and that plan came back for a review. In my riding there was a meeting to discuss changes that could be made, and one of the issues was somebody being able to take out a registered disability savings plan for another adult who was unable to do it at that time because of physical or mental issues, just not being able to do it. The change we are implementing in this bill will make that happen. I am very proud of this.

In my riding, 50% to 60% of people are over age 55, which is relatively senior. I am not quite there yet, but I am getting closer by the day. In this bill we are adding some services such as bathing, feeding, assistance in dressing, taking medication and so on to the GST-HST exemption for health care services for seniors. This is a very positive piece of relief for those who require those services from publicly funded organizations. In the past and up until this bill passes, they had to pay HST in Ontario, and this bill would remove that. I cannot believe the opposition members are voting against it.

We often hear in the news about how much influence a member of Parliament can have. On tariff relief for Canadian consumers, I have an organization in my riding called Source For Sports, and a gentleman named Randy Hooper, who is now retired from that organization, said to me a few years ago that they were big importers of hockey equipment and they were not competitive with U.S. counterparts because of the tariff on hockey equipment. People in Burlington can easily go to the border, one hour away, cross into Buffalo and buy hockey equipment. I took that issue up and wrote a letter and spoke directly to the finance minister. It did not happen right away, but it did happen eventually. I am thankful that I had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to represent my constituent, represent my constituent business and make the point that we need to look at this issue. I may have had a small influence on making that happen, and that is what a member of Parliament should do. I am very proud of that and I want to make sure, even though Mr. Hooper is retired, that he gets credit for bringing that to my attention.

Another area I would like to talk about, as I said, is that we have a fairly large senior population in my riding, and we also have a fairly large veterans group in my riding. Many of them are naval veterans. For some reason the navy did a very good job of recruiting in Burlington. We have one of the nicest naval monuments in the country in Burlington on our waterfront. I am very proud that the Minister of Veterans Affairs recognized the issue of the disability payment being deducted as income from recipients before they received the rest of the allowance. We are removing that so they can keep the full amount. It is excellent that it is in the budget and we are implementing it. It will have a major impact on many veterans in my riding.

Finally, we are obviously looking at the gas tax. The member who spoke before me talked about the importance of infrastructure. I hear it all the time from my municipality. I hear it from FCM. I have an open-door policy with my local council group. We have a very good relationship, and they talk about infrastructure all the time. We are indexing the gas tax. We are providing support for infrastructure. That is another area that will have a direct impact on my riding.

I appreciate the time I have had to speak to Bill C-60. I hope everyone in the House will support it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoyed being on committee with my colleague. He does drop in from time to time. He just cannot stay away from the estimates.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

I did take the time to go through this bill. I have a question for him on something that puzzles me. I would appreciate his explaining to me, in division 16, amendments to section 227 of Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, why these needed to be amended and put in the bill.

My second question is about the previous comments that were made by his colleague about the temporary foreign worker program. I come from the same province, and I must say that the feedback I am getting on the temporary foreign worker program does not appear to be the same as the member is getting, but then again I do not just consult with corporations, which is where he said he consulted.

I wonder if the member could advise me as to whether or not, in bringing forward these amendments, the government has consulted widely with organizations such as the Alberta Federation of Labour, which has done some extensive analyses and given support to temporary foreign workers. Has he consulted with churches? I have heard from the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Church. They are very upset about this program and the lack of support for temporary foreign workers.

I have also been told that the supposed new provision to analyze future work plans for a company always had to be provided. It is not a new provision. It was just never enforced.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure why the member would be opposed to the changes in division 16. Those members talk about working together here in the House, and here we have division 16, the proposed amendments that would allow the minister to seek both specific and general approval from the Governor in Council from public works for tools and services to help other jurisdictions, particularly in the purchasing area. The actual change would allow the Minister of Public Works to have more flexibility when it comes to working with municipalities and provinces on procurement issues, so that we can provide services to those organizations in a more efficient and effective way.

I am not exactly sure why those members are opposed to that, but that is what it would do. Maybe it needs to be explained. I am sure somebody from the Department of Finance would be happy to explain it to the member.

The other issue was about temporary foreign workers. We have been clear that the temporary foreign worker program has a role to play in this country, that there are parts of this country that need support and that there are companies having trouble finding employees. We recognize that there are some issues and, as with any government program, there are abuses sometimes. We have to make sure those abuses are eliminated or at least minimized to the absolutely greatest possible extent, and that is exactly what we are doing. I am assuming that those members are supportive of that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington, just like the Minister of Finance, talked a fair bit about hockey helmets. I guess he believes that his request to reduce the cost of hockey helmets really helped, and maybe it did.

Does the member for Burlington not have any young families in his riding who happen to ride bicycles? Does he not have any really young families that like to buy little red wagons?

Does he not recognize that in that area the government is proposing to put $338 million, which is a tax, on people? If the government was doing something to improve the manufacturing sector in Canada, that would be one thing, but what it is really doing is taking that $338 million out of the back pockets of middle-class families. Why?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question tells a story. Not only is the leader of the Liberal Party over his head, but the whole Liberal Party, at least the political arm, is over its head. This country would drown with them in charge, if they ever came back.

They talk about fairness. How is it fair for companies in China and India to get an advantage over our Canadian companies? We are moving forward. We are making it fair for our companies to compete.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. We will now resume debate at a somewhat more civilized level. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to comment on this budget. I listened attentively to those who spoke before me. I believe that the debate will generate some passion, as we just heard in a few of the previous comments.

To begin with, I would like to point out that this is the 32nd time that the Conservative government has taken away our right to comment in the House. It is truly a scandal, and it must stop. It is essential that members be allowed to give their speeches, say what they have to say, and speak about their needs and the problems society will have to face if a budget like this one is adopted. Under this budget, the Conservatives are increasing taxes and reducing services.

I would like to comment on a number of things such as family, freedom and poverty. The budget cannot avoid addressing matters like these. I would also like to talk about job creation.

Even though the government quotes figures and tweaks them from one year to the next, they never give us a start date for how these figures were calculated, and the fact remains that jobs are being lost. Jobs have been lost at White Birch in Quebec. I could mention other companies, like Electrolux, where jobs have been lost. Work may be moving from one province to another, but we are after all living in a confederation and jobs need to be created everywhere. The youth unemployment rate has spiked significantly, and this should compel us to do something.

What the government gives with the right hand, it takes away with the left. I believe that many of my colleagues have been able to demonstrate this. On one hand, a fund is established to help young families, and tax credits are made available for artistic activities; but on the other, a surcharge is imposed on products that cross the border, which takes back the money that these families had saved from their reduced taxes. They are therefore disguised tax hikes.

Just now, the member for Ottawa—Orléans took the floor. I wonder whether he lives on the same planet as my colleagues and I. He said that cuts have been made in a compassionate manner.

Cutting jobs and employee salaries is not a very compassionate thing to do. I will explain how it was done. Those whose jobs were being cut received a letter telling them that jobs would be eliminated in their department.

They were told that X number of positions would be eliminated, but were not immediately told which jobs would be eliminated. Is that what the Conservatives mean by "being compassionate"? Sometimes, employees were asked to choose from among the duties and work being done, what positions were less useful than others. Is that what they call "being compassionate"? That is not what I would call it. There is one small restriction.

This budget is a direct attack on labour funds. In Quebec, the CSN and the FTQ have labour funds. Not so long ago, I sent my constituents a ten-percenter and the highest response rate I ever received had to do with labour funds and the FTQ. These funds allow people to deduct 15% extra from their taxes to make some savings. What the right hand gave away, the left took back, yet again. This additional deduction to which these people were entitled has been taken away.

Who contributed to these funds? They were often people whose wages were very low. It enabled them to save about $1000 a year. Year after year, they would try to save an extra $1,000. Then, by retirement, they would have saved a total of roughly $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000. They saved their entire lives.

Before being a member of Parliament, I worked in an organization. I met people who were earning $30,000 or less per year. In spite of this, they managed to put a little money aside to invest in this terrific fund.

The 15% tax break for the labour fund contributions encouraged them to save their pennies. These are the people who are being attacked. The labour funds, whether the CSN’s or the FTQ’s, are being attacked.

Labour force training is also being attacked. We succeeded in getting something into the budget that says that a company can now deduct $5,000 for training if it invests that much in training.

What companies are we talking about?

In Quebec, there is the 1% labour force training program. Now none of the small companies will be able to make that deduction because once again, this budget helps the big players, but not the small ones. Small businesses will not be able to invest $5,000 in labour force training to match what the government might give. This skews the debate. The companies lose out and labour force training will suffer. Workers, individuals and competitiveness, when all is said and done, will lose out.

I do not know whether the government thought about this aspect, but it is essential; the less training one has, the less competitive one is and the less competitive, the lower the sales, the lower demand for the product and you begin to go under. Our leader has pointed out that in Canada, small businesses and manufacturers have lost a great deal in recent years.

For 2013 and 2014, the budget forecast a deficit of approximately $16.5 billion. In reality, this will be $18.7 billion. Despite all these cuts, Canada's deficit is growing. People are being fooled when they tighten their belts and deprive themselves of everything. It might be worth asking which people are really depriving themselves.

Everything is really upside-down. They are going to pick the pockets of the smallest companies to pay for the majority, rather than the other way around. What are taxes for? Why were they created? Taxes are collected to redistribute wealth through infrastructure, worker training and various other mechanisms. When roads are built, a group of individuals pays and it is all redistributed.

Clearly, the company for which a four-lane road is built does not pay for it. Nor does it pay for the time its trucks spend on the road to deliver a product from point A to point B. People pay for it through taxes. They pay out of their pockets, and they are going to pay more and more. The sales tax was lowered, but the prices of products entering the country are going up.

I have been putting together a file for a year now. This bill follows on from two others, Bill C-38, which was introduced a year ago in the spring, and Bill C-45, which was next in line. In the latter, employment insurance was hard hit. The bill tried to define suitable employment and discarded the previous definition. What we have is the party in power deciding what is suitable for them.

Mr. Speaker, when you retire one day, we will decide for you what you are going to do. You will be able to do something other than what you are doing now. In fact, you will be able to do many things, because you are highly skilled in several areas. Others will therefore decide what is suitable for you.

Some extremely strange things have happened: people who worked in agriculture, for example, being offered jobs washing dishes in restaurants. I think everyone is aware of these strange goings-on.

I would like to talk about a letter I received from the elected representatives in the north shore region, who tell us that the employment insurance reform—and hence the consequences of these notorious mammoth budgets—runs counter to the interests of north shore workers. It will completely undermine the economy.

People remember what the government said during the last election: “power to the regions”, yet for now, the regions have been totally abandoned, and our elected representatives are saying so.

Next week, people from Prince Edward Island, including the minister, will be coming here to speak to us about employment insurance. The people of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic provinces are being thoroughly swindled. Seventy percent of all seasonal workers are in the Atlantic provinces.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it may have been a translation issue, but I just want to clarify. I thought I heard my colleague say that the deficit continues to grow with the 2013-14 budget. On page 12 of the budget, it is clear that the deficit in 2012-13 is $25.9 billion and in 2013-14 it is $18.7 billion. My math indicates that this is a clear reduction.

I wonder if my colleague would clarify what her intent was in saying that the deficit is growing, when in fact, the deficit is going down dramatically.