Debates of May 3rd, 2013

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Canada's economic action plan 2013, which would continue to deliver results for Canadians, keep us in the lead among G7 nations and keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

One of the ways that we would accomplish that is by creating jobs by building equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the best equipment possible to fulfill the demands we place on them and to bring them home safely. We owe it to Canadian industry to give it the opportunity to play a major role in that process and develop a stronger manufacturing base with the capacity for leading-edge technology and innovation. Finally, we owe it to Canadian taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are spent for the maximum benefit of Canada in all respects.

Building on the success of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the government would better ensure that purchases of military equipment create economic opportunities for Canadians by developing key domestic investment capabilities to help guide procurement, by promoting export opportunities and by reforming the current procurement process to improve outcomes.

The recently released Jenkins Report frames the unique once-in-a-century opportunity presented by major investments in Canada's Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth, while enhancing Canada's ability to defend its sovereignty.

Many highly industrialized countries have clear strategies to promote their defence sectors, based on a recognition that it is in the national interests to have a strong domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading-edge equipment. For Canada, such a strategy can generate high value exports and support high paying jobs for Canadians.

A key opportunity for doing so is by targeting the $49 billion in industrial and regional benefits obligations that foreign companies are expected to accumulate by 2027 to support high skill and high value opportunities and jobs in Canadian industries. These opportunities would be selected based on the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, the potential to access global markets and the potential for increasing investments in Canadian research and innovation. Our government would work with industry sectors and stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, to identify areas of Canadian competitiveness and trends in global supply and demand in defence-related industries.

Further, we would ensure that major procurements include a plan for participation by Canadian industry prior to approving the project. We would develop a refined set of key industrial capabilities for use over the long term, and examine how existing policies and programs can be tailored to support a government-wide strategy, while remaining cognizant of Canada's international trade obligations.

In parallel, the government would reform the current procurement process to improve outcomes. This would include thorough and rigorous options analyses, a challenge function for military requirements, early and frequent industry involvement, and strengthened oversight with the use of third-party expertise.

Canada has many success stories to tell in using the purchase of equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth in Canada.

CAP Inc. sells its products and services to over 190 countries and employs more than 8,000 people. CAE is the world leader in simulation equipment, commercial aviation training, helicopter aviation training, military virtual air training and health care simulation technology. I had the pleasure of using CAE products for many years in one of my previous lives and I can attest to their excellence.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada , or GDLS, based in London and Edmonton, is a world leader in the design, manufacture and support of wheeled light armoured vehicles, or LAVs. It is a multi-billion dollar firm with over 2,300 highly skilled employees. As a result of procurements and related support from the government, GDLS Canada has generated direct sales of light armoured vehicles in excess of $17 billion over the past 35 years. It has created approximately 500,000 person years of employment in Canada and established a supplier base of over 400 Canadian companies, located in every province.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the rollout in Edmonton of the first of the LAV III upgrades. Having ridden around Afghanistan a few times in its predecessor, I know that the upgrades will be welcomed by our soldiers.

The $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy, announced in 2010, means jobs and economic growth for the country, stability for the industry and vital equipment for the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard. Over the next 30 years, it is estimated that 15,000 direct and indirect jobs may result from national shipbuilding procurement strategy projects, including skilled work in a variety of sectors.

Through this process, our government is helping small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in global supply chains that will result from these projects, creating growth and jobs throughout the country. A good example of that would be the supply of landing gear assemblies on about 4,000 F-35s by Héroux-Devtek of Longueuil, Quebec.

The Government of Canada acts as a first user of pre-commercial innovations through the Canadian innovation commercialization program, or CICP. Through CICP, federal departments test prototypes developed by Canadian businesses and provide feedback to help improve these innovative products before they are marketed to customers. This program is particularly useful for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often find it difficult to find the resources to bring innovative products to market.

Participating companies have been strongly supportive of CICP since it was launched in 2010, and our government will officially launch the military component of the program in the near future.

Canada's aerospace sector is a global technology leader and a major source of high quality jobs, directly employing 66,000 people across Canada. It is among the most research-intensive industries in the country.

The hon. David Emerson, head of the Aerospace Review, delivered his final report to the Minister of Industry on November 29, 2012. The report detailed a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the aerospace and space sectors in Canada. Our government is carefully reviewing the advice of the Aerospace Review and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices of relevance to the aerospace and space sectors.

The largest aerospace-specific innovation support program is the permanent strategic aerospace and defence initiative, or SADI, which provides repayable contributions to support strategic innovative projects by aerospace, space, defence and security companies. Since its launch in 2007, SADI has authorized $826 million in assistance to 25 projects, of which $411 million has been disbursed to date. Two examples of Alberta-based companies supported by SADI are SemBioSys Genetics Inc. and AeroMechanical Services Ltd.

We will continue to provide stable funding for SADI, close to $1 billion over five years, and will review the programs, administration and operation over the coming year to ensure that it continues to respond to the needs of this dynamic sector.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide $110 million over four years beginning in 2014-15, and $55 million per year on an ongoing basis thereafter for the creation of an aerospace technology demonstration program. This program would support large-scale technology projects that exhibit strong commercialization potential and promote collaboration among industries, including simulation trials, systems integration testing and refinement activities. A component of the program would support research costs at post-secondary institutions that serve wider industry needs. As recommended by the Aerospace Review, a portion of these resources, rising to $20 million annually, would be reallocated from the strategic aerospace and defence initiative.

We will also launch consultations in the coming months regarding the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network to be led by Industry Canada in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. The network will engage stakeholders and industry, post-secondary institutions and government laboratories to identify strategic technology areas and encourage collaboration in research and development.

The motto of the Royal Canadian Air Force is per ardua ad astra, “through adversity to the stars”. It is not just within our atmosphere that economic action plan 2013 will have effect.

Canada's space industry is a sophisticated research and innovation leader, successfully turning investments in knowledge into a global advantage in several niche areas, including robotics and satellite communications. Canada's space capabilities will be showcased through the ongoing development of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission for which a $706-million satellite construction contract has recently been signed with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates.

Canada's leading role in space is also demonstrated through continued participation in the International Space Station mission and the command of Expedition 35 of the station by Canadian astronaut, Chris Hadfield. Commander Hadfield has made all Canadians proud and I have been privileged to fly CF-18s with him in the past in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

The Aerospace Review has made important recommendations with respect to policies and programs specific to the space sector, and our government is currently examining these recommendations carefully to determine the way ahead.

Canada's high-tech defence-related aerospace and space industries have a bright future. Our government will continue to encourage growth of Canadian capacity to lead the world. Economic action plan 2013 takes several steps that would enhance that process. I encourage all members of this House, indeed, all Canadians to get on board, work hard and enjoy the ride.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to speak to part 3, division 6 of Bill C-60, specifically clauses 136 and 137, which provide some definitions relating to state-owned enterprises. The definitions are set out there, and that is of some interest.

Unfortunately, during the information session on Monday night, officials seemed to be telling us that, despite the definition, all purchases of Canadian businesses by state-owned enterprises would be subject to the definitions in clause 137, meaning that in a few years, the value of transactions will be $1 billion or more.

How does the hon. member think this could protect us from interference from foreign governments, considering that we have had some specific cases of concern that had to do with control of our natural resources?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague specifically mentioned the resource industry. Canada is a leader in the resource industry. We have tremendous capacity for foreign investment in Canada to help us develop that industry. We are always going to do that with the best interests of Canadians in mind first, but that does not mean....We have to operate with foreign investment; it has helped to develop our resources to this point and it will help in the future. We have to deal with people who can be challenging from time and time and that is why we put measures in place to protect Canadians. It is not going to be a one-way negotiation. It will always be two-way.

Foreigners have to benefit as well from doing business in Canada, and we understand that, just like Canadians have to benefit from doing business in other countries. We do not live in a bubble. We have to work within the environment of international co-operation and international law. We will put in place, as we already have put in place, measures that will protect Canadian investors. At the same time we have to work in the much broader world market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's perspective and his speech. As everyone knows, he has served Canada nobly and when he brings his comments forward he always gives an overview of the entire country.

I want to ask him about the interconnectivity of Canada's economy, especially for manufacturing. As he knows, I come from Oshawa. Oshawa is a city that is very dependent on manufacturing. He mentioned the SADI program and how that program helps manufacturers in the aerospace industry. There are some excellent things in the budget that would really help Canadian manufacturers.

The member has a lot of knowledge about the energy sector and the challenges it is facing in his province. However, developing energy sector resources creates a great spinoff for places in my community and in Ontario as a whole with respect to manufacturing.

Could he contrast our government's approach to helping manufacturers and creating jobs to the NDP's approach of going to another country and lobbying against Canadian jobs and Canadian industries? If he could give a perspective of the two different approaches to the House today that would be wonderful.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that when it comes to doing business, we take a different approach than the opposition, whether it is in Canada or abroad. Frankly, its approach of leaving the country and trashing our industries is quite shameful.

There is no question that the resource industry in Alberta is a key driver of the Canadian economy. It sure as heck is not a disease of any particular nationality. It is the driver of the Canadian economy. A job in the oil sands in Alberta means a job in manufacturing in Ontario or Quebec or somewhere else in the country. A very high percentage of Ontario's manufacturing process is tied to the oil sands. If the oil sands were ever shut down manufacturers in Ontario would shut down, the steel industry would shut down. I know some members across the way would like the oil sands to shut down, and they can take that view, but that would be the result. They lose perspective entirely on the interconnectivity of all businesses in Canada.

A lot of it is geographical. Alberta has an oil industry because of geography. Quebec has hydro power because of geography. B.C. has a forest industry because of geography. It is the sum of the parts that makes Canada strong, not focusing on one at the expense of the other.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill, so that I can make some comments.

I will say right off the bat that I will focus on one specific part of the bill, which reads as follows:

Division 17 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to give the Governor in Council the authority to direct a Crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board for the purpose of the Crown corporation entering into a collective agreement with a bargaining agent.

As a result, other provisions and other legislation may also be amended, because the consequences are far-reaching.

I will not hide the fact that this is quite a concern. I will use my experience on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to speak to the principle of the appearance of justice, which is so important in our legal system. It lets Canadians trust that institution and be confident that, by using all the recourse available to them, they will be able to get a ruling that is consistent with the law and with justice.

There is also a balance to be achieved, and there are very important principles to uphold when it comes to negotiations. There really needs to be a clear balance, and real dialogue and discussion among the parties involved in the negotiations. There is no denying that this is a sensitive issue and something that is difficult to achieve. Division 17 of part 3 of Bill C-60 poses a direct threat to this process.

This is a very serious problem. I feel, and I am sure that all of my colleagues do as well, that this aspect alone is reason enough to oppose this bill.

I will now talk about my personal experience. After all, my Conservative colleagues love to share their life experiences about much bigger issues. I will talk about the experience my late father had as a member of Local 9 of FTQ Construction's Fraternité nationale des charpentiers-menuisiers.

My father worked for 12 years as a union activist, trying to convince the guys to come to the union's general meetings. At the time, most construction workers were men. He told them every time that it was important for them to participate. Indeed, their participation was very important because it made the decisions taken at those meetings much more credible.

During the second half of his career as a carpenter-joiner, my father spent most of his time as a foreman or superintendent responsible for job sites. He was around in the 1960s, a difficult period for the construction industry when there was much less protection and safety was a major issue. As a manager, he was very concerned about the safety of the people he supervised.

This week, there have been some very hot days where people could easily go without a jacket. That is understandable, but imagine how unpleasant it must be to have to wear a hard hat on a work site on a hot summer's day. Unfortunately, hard hats hold in a lot of heat.

My father's approach was very simple. He asked the worker to put on his hard hat because it was important. If the worker protested because it was too hot out, my father insisted. He would walk away once the worker had put on his hard hat. However, if my father came back that same day to find that the same worker had once again taken off his hard hat and left it on a wall or somewhere else, my father would get in that worker's face. He would get really angry because he was responsible for the job site and the physical safety of the worker who, unfortunately, was unintentionally putting his life and health at risk.

That is one of the union movement's greatest achievements. Recently, we have again been hearing about how workplace safety is still a major problem even though there has been significant progress. A single worker has very little power to stand up for his rights against a huge organization, particularly if the management or the owner is firmly opposed to that. There must be a balance of power to deal with these issues.

Also quite recently, there have been many examples of people getting together to achieve a common goal. I am thinking of chambers of commerce and groups created in response to our campaign against excessive credit card fees. There are groups of restaurant owners and corner store owners. National groups bring thousands of small businesspeople together. Getting together for these reasons is a very noble thing. There are also seniors' groups.

I am a Knight of Columbus, a member of the La Nativité council in Beauport. The K of C is yet another excellent association dedicated to reaching out to others and helping the less fortunate. Churches of all faiths bring people together for spiritual and community reasons. That, too, is noble.

In the business community, people get together to form corporations to launch for-profit and non-profit businesses, companies with share capital or investors who may decide to risk their capital on a reasonably safe venture that could return a lot. That is yet another example of a noble reason for people to get together.

Why is the government, why are Conservative elected representatives, so intent on stigmatizing perfectly legitimate groups, such as the union movement? That makes absolutely no sense. They have provided no justification here in the House or elsewhere for their visceral hatred of the union movement and their desire to work against it. The government is certainly right to address problems. There have been very disappointing examples of obvious wrongdoing in some unions. However, does that merit such an over-the-top, unreasonable attempt to crush the union movement? Absolutely not.

While the government is at it, it needs to do something about the flagrant abuses by mining companies, for example. Canada is a haven and refuge for mining companies, which is a disgrace. After what has happened elsewhere in the world—in Latin America and Africa, for example—the government could choose to shut down numerous large companies. It could put them under guardianship to set them back on the right path. Obviously, the managers and shareholders are not able to do the right thing.

The other reason, the compelling argument that keeps us from supporting the government on part 3, division 17, is that it gives the Treasury Board president the means to intervene in bargaining.

How can we trust a man who kept a slush fund to look after friends in his riding and who protected the millionaires, with their teak decks and fancy houses, who live on certain lakes?

It all happened in the context of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, when the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tried to convince us that only commercially used waterways would be affected. It is quite possible that a number of agreements were worked out on those teak decks. Nevertheless, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth, and this opens the door to terrible abuse. It is an absolute disgrace to trust this man with such privileges.

I would like to conclude by talking about scripture. It is important to me, and I try to follow in Christ's footsteps. During the Sermon on the Mount, Christ called forth the children and comforted them. He spoke about people who take advantage of others, but he did not hesitate to drive merchants out of the temple with a whip. I will follow his example.

I am completely, 100% opposed to this bill. The government will find me, along with my colleagues, blocking its way, because of this one point.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I have to ask my colleague about some of the comments made by the former member, when he talked about the Ontario steel industry and what has happened there because of mismanagement by the government on the Investment Canada file. That is again being changed in this budget, and it is not something that was previously announced. The changes break another Conservative promise to actually consult with business, constituents and stakeholders before making changes, a promise the government has made several times.

With the budget introducing these changes, again with no consultation whatsoever, perhaps the member could offer his opinion on what those changes might do for Canadian businesses that would get gobbled up by foreign entities without protection for workers.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has an interesting perspective, and it brings us back to the question about Investment Canada that I had put earlier to a Conservative speaker.

By amending the Investment Canada Act, they are tilting the playing field. Workers will suffer because of Part 3, section 17, as will Canadian and foreign investors alike. In fact, the rules will be so lax and broad that scammers and thieves will be able to walk right in and hold our natural resources sectors hostage.

I have an excellent example to back that up. The White Birch Paper Stadacona plant in Beauport—Limoilou was owned by a private investor, and therefore was a private enterprise. We know that the government is trying to open unions' books, so why not force investors—who pay hundreds of millions of dollars and can work in complete secrecy—to open their books when negotiating? That way, we could provide some minimum protections for workers, business partners and retirees.

Retirees in my riding, who have had a lot of money stolen from them, do not expect to ever recover that money.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, had this to say:

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.

I would ask the member if he agrees with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association on the importance of this budget for Canadian manufacturers and exporters.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

If we are going to cherry-pick our quotes, then we are going to get the result we want, but the government's real record is the outright loss of 500,000 jobs in manufacturing alone.

I will ask my colleague the following question. We had the opportunity to examine this issue last Tuesday at the finance committee, together with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the experts and analysts who accompanied her. Despite the desperate attempts by the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, not one analyst from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's office was able to confirm for my colleague that the 900,000 jobs were created strictly by the actions of the Government of Canada. Obviously, a trained economist cannot state that in absolute terms.

In any event, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques responded by saying that if the government wants to take credit for the 900,000 jobs created, then it should also accept responsibility for the 500,000 jobs lost during the 2008 recession. I believe that that is something the government would never do. If we want to take credit, then we should also take responsibility.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act no. 1, the government's bill to implement the budget.

It is important when considering any budget bill to understand the circumstances to which it must respond, so I will begin with those.

First and foremost, the economic polices of this government during and after the world's worst economic recession in almost 80 years are recognized around the world as an example for others to follow. Governments alone, of course, do not create jobs or prosperity. However, it has been a happy, if unintended, blessing to have been led by a Prime Minister with a strong grasp of economics through these troubled times. Keeping taxes low, time limiting stimulus spending and focusing on long-term infrastructure and job creation investments, while modestly restraining program spending, have been key, sensible policies for supporting our recovery.

Canadians can be grateful that time and again the Conservative government has been able to resist the high-tax, high-program spending demands of the opposition. This was particularly challenging during the recession, during two and a half years of opposition-controlled Parliament. Fortunately, the last election produced a strong, stable Conservative majority government to stave off reckless tax-and-spend policies.

As a result, Canada has led the G7 significantly in net employment gains of almost 950,000 since the recession and in GDP growth. Just this week, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew once again in February.

While Canada has fared well in global comparisons, we continue to confront significant global challenges. The eurozone remains in recession. The United States, our major trading partner, is experiencing only very modest growth. Global competition from emerging economies is very intense. Too many Canadians are still looking for work.

Fortunately, this bill addresses the challenges we face. It would strengthen the Canadian economy and increase jobs, all while supporting Canadian families and respecting taxpayer dollars. This bill would deliver on the real concerns of Canadians.

One of the timely, targeted measures included in this bill is the reform of the temporary foreign worker program. The temporary foreign worker program was created to fill acute labour needs when Canadians are not available. Canadians have expressed real concerns about the use of this program by some. The program was never intended to bring in temporary foreign workers to replace already employed Canadian workers. Recent events that suggest otherwise made very clear the need to reform this program to match that intent.

The reforms brought forward in this bill stem from the government's ongoing review of the program to ensure that Canadians are the first to be considered for available jobs. The bill would increase the government's ability to revoke work permits and labour market opinions, enabling immediate action against employers who do not comply with the program's rules. Changes to the bill would require employers using the temporary foreign worker program to pay temporary foreign workers the prevailing wage for a job. These are common sense changes to the program to remove unintended incentives to look abroad for employees.

The bill also introduces user fees for employers applying for foreign workers so that these costs are no longer absorbed by taxpayers. The bill does not dispute the ongoing need for temporary foreign workers to meet acute labour shortages. Rather, these reforms create incentives to hire Canadians and ensure that temporary foreign workers are a short-term solution to skill shortages. These reforms introduced in this program would ensure that Canadians are always at the front of the hiring line.

To fulfill the commitments of the 2013 budget, this bill would also deliver targeted tax relief. The enhancement of the adoption expense tax credit, the new first-time donors super credit for charitable donations and the expansion of tax relief for home care services are all targeted tax relief measures to support Canadian families.

This bill would also remove tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, resulting in significant savings for families. All parents know the expenses that come with raising a family. From basic necessities, such as clothes and food, to education and recreational activities, it adds up very fast.

Through the delivery of the family caregiver tax credit, the child tax credit, the children's fitness tax credit and the children's arts tax credit, the average family now saves $3,200 a year in tax reductions compared to when the present government took office.

These tax credits deliver important savings for Canadians. However, the fact is that the price of too many products needed to support families are consistently priced higher in Canada than the same products sold in the United States. Through the removal of tariffs on imported baby clothing and sports equipment, this difference will be reduced.

The bill also delivers a two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery. This demonstrates that the government recognizes the importance of sectors that provide skilled jobs. The bill provides continued support for Canada's manufacturing employees, support that is especially important for my constituents in Kitchener Centre.

Canada's manufacturing economy will compete in the global economy. Members need not take my word for it. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, a key stakeholder in the manufacturing sector, has already come out and said this:

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.

Constituents in my riding of Kitchener Centre are well aware of the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, a major economic driver in southwest Ontario. The manufacturing sector employs approximately 1.8 million Canadians across Canada. In providing tax relief for new investments of manufacturing equipment, this bill creates a favourable environment for manufacturing employees.

As mentioned, in addition to tax credits to support Canadian families, this bill also ensures that taxpayer dollars are respected. The bill takes steps to close tax loopholes that allow a select few to avoid paying their fair share.

The government has already introduced loan rules to prevent foreign affiliates from converting otherwise taxable surplus income into the form of loans, thereby avoiding taxation. This bill also provides an information reporting regime for tax avoidance transactions. This, in turn, will help the government track down and monitor a loss of tax revenue and collect it for the rest of us.

Hard-working taxpayers can be confident that this bill will ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.When everyone is paying their fair share of taxes, it keeps taxes low for Canadian families and improves the incentive to invest in Canada. I am very pleased that the budget implementation bill delivers a solid plan for creating jobs and economic growth, all while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015.

This bill is great news for my constituents in Kitchener Centre. I invite all members of the House to put aside partisan differences to join me in supporting jobs, growth and long-term economic prosperity. Please pass this bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member opposite that if his party really wanted to set aside partisan differences, it would allow us to debate this bill instead of imposing yet another time allocation motion.

His party is again shutting down debate after making 50 changes to 50 pieces of legislation, including one that has to do with the temporary foreign worker program, which has been a fiasco from the start. The Conservatives have mismanaged it so badly that there have been many problems.

Thousands of jobs at the Royal Bank have recently been given to foreign workers, who are paid 15% less. In addition to this legislation, a number of other changes are being made, which shows how poorly crafted the program really is.

Can we trust a government that says it wants to stimulate the economy, when everything is so flawed? We cannot even discuss it; it is really confusing. What does my colleague have to say about that?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer my colleague's question about whether Canadians can trust this government to bring us through economic difficulty, because the answer is just so self-evident.

Look at what happened in late 2008, with the deep, steep dive around the world and global economic turmoil and the government's speedy response in coming up with a budget by the end of January 2009. I know that my friend was not here when that happened. The stimulus program we enacted at that time, and the measures we have built year after year in the last three years, have brought this economy through the recession, the greatest economic turmoil in 80 years, in a fashion better than any other country around the world. That is a good reason for Canadians to continue trusting us.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kitchener Centre. Having been there not that long ago, I know that small business is a very important part of the economy in his riding. I would like to know whether the member has described for the businesses in his riding, especially, small- and medium-sized businesses, how $2.3 billion would be taken out of their pockets because of the increased tax on dividends. Has he done that? Has he had a response to that move in this particular budget? I would love to hear what they had to say about that.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose the best thing I can do to respond to my colleague's question, and I thank her for it, is to provide her with the reaction of the group that, in my view, most closely reflects the views of small businesses across Canada, and that is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It said this about the budget:

The skills problem leads our Top Ten list of critical barriers to Canada's competitiveness. It's showing up all across the country, in every industry.... We are pleased to see the government is moving to [ confront it] and to include business directly in the [solution].

That is just one example of the many good things that are said across the country by small business in relation to this budget. I could give quotes from the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Canadian building trades unions, in fact, have said some great things about this budget.

In all respects, I think my colleague would find that small business is solidly behind the government in this budget.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the budget implementation bill, Bill C-60, but I think we have to understand in the beginning that many of us do it under some duress. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, he is again suppressing debate with another time allocation motion, which seems to become the norm in this place, and a budget that seems to have been prepared without the proper analysis. Certainly, the Atlantic premiers said that the proper analysis was not done, and I will get to that in a moment.

On the positive side, this document is not quite as big an omnibus bill as the previous two budgets were, so it is a little shorter and does not cover pretty near everything the government does. However, on the negative side, in following up on the budget, the budget implementation bill builds on the damage already done by the federal government on its ability of be a leader in Canada among the provinces to build our economy, to put some foundation under our social programs, to assist industries, to establish more trade in a way that benefits Canadians. This builds on the damage and even makes it worse from previous budgets.

Members will recall quite vividly when theMinister of Finance stood in his place and said that the government would balance the budget by 2015. Is there a Canadian who actually believes that? There are a couple of members who have raised their hands over there, but they raise their hands any time the Prime Minister says anything. They jump to the tune. For the information of Canadians and the members opposite, there has never been a target that the Minister of Finance has hit, whether it was when he was the provincial minister of finance and did the great damage to Ontario, which it still suffers from, or when he has been the federal finance minister, which the whole country suffers from now.

It is important to note in the beginning a couple of key messages and summarize them.

There is no question that this budget will make it harder for Canadian middle-class families to make ends meet. Middle-class families are really starting to suffer and suffer substantially as a result of the activities of the government. Bill C-60 raises taxes on Canadians in order to pay for the Conservatives' wasteful spending. Last night in the media, the Minister of National Defence, who is becoming infamous for his inability to manage his portfolio, saw Canadians spend twice as much on ships as other countries had. There is not time in the rest of the day to spell out all the other areas the Minister of National Defence has spent money wastefully.

The problem is that there is no joy in the Minister of National Defence, backed up by the Minister of Finance, spending wastefully because middle-class Canadians are the ones being asked to suffer and pay for irresponsible fiscal and financial spending by the government.

The budget raises taxes on small business owners by $2.3 billion over the next five years, directly hurting 750,000 Canadians and risking Canadian jobs.

There are other policy cuts. In the area of agriculture when I used to be the critic, I went to an announcement in P.E.I. two weeks ago on a Friday. I listened closely while the Minister of National Revenue made the announcement for the minister, and she said something along the lines that “We're increasing by 50% the shared funding”. It sounds really good, does it not? The Conservatives are increasing the funding. However, what we have to understand is the key words “the shared funding”. That means farmers are picking up half, where the previous government was really paying for it. If we look closely, we will find that the safety net programs, like agristability and agri-invest, have been cut substantially by the federal government. Therefore, what happens the next time when prices fall on grains in Alberta? The safety nets are not going to be there for the farm community. More middle-class families have been asked to suffer for the incompetence of the current government.

Last Sunday, I happened to be at some of the harbours in my own riding, including Stanley Bridge and Malpeque. Fishing season started early Monday morning. What were fishermen doing on Saturday and Sunday afternoon? They were stressed out and nerved up because DFO, through small craft harbours program, had not done the dredging so they could get out of their harbours. Finally, after a lot of pressure, the dredge was working and the fishermen did get out of Malpeque at six o'clock in the morning. In Stanley Bridge the fishermen had to load their traps from elsewhere because, with the cutbacks to Fisheries and Oceans to the small craft harbours program, fishermen were being asked to pay and suffer as a result of the federal government failing to live up to its responsibilities.

As well, this budget would raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million per year, which is an attack on rural Canadians and Canada's rural economy. The credit unions are right across the country. People who invest in them and put their money in those are usually small businesses. Again, the government is imposing further taxes on the credit unions.

I do not have time to go into all the nickel and dime issues where the Conservatives will tax Canadians, but they will put GST and HST on health care services, including medical work that victims of crimes need in order to establish their case in court, and hospital parking lots will have extra tax on them. Those things add up and they are all be imposed on Canadians as a result of the absolute incompetence of this Minister of Finance.

Let us turn for a moment to the attack on workers and seasonal industries. Except for the minister in charge, we all know the damage that has been done to the seasonal industries and seasonal workers through the changes to employment insurance. However, a special thing happened last weekend, and that was the Atlantic premiers issued a press release through the Council of Atlantic Premiers on April 29, in which they came together. They are from three different political parties, four premiers representing four provinces, and they spelled out fairly clearly the damage that the federal government had done to this federation called “Canada”. They talked about the impacts of employment insurance. One point they raised was:

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.

Clearly, the Atlantic premiers are coming together and saying that there is no federal leadership in our country and no consultation. The role of the federal government is to use its spending power, the budget and the budget implementation act, to do things that will build up Canada and set a foundation under our economy and our social programs. All we would get in this budget implementation act from the federal government is more and more damage, building on the poor fiscal management that it already has.

Worse yet, not only is Atlantic Canada being targeted, but middle-class families right across the country are being asked to pay the price for the fiscal incompetence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the backbenchers over there who fail to stand and speak out against the Prime Minister and the damage that has been done to the Atlantic economy and to the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the hon. member for Wascana a question, and I would now like to put the same question to the member for Malpeque.

The measure to eliminate the tax credit for labour sponsored venture capital funds was not included in Bill C-60, but it was announced in the budget. This measure is very important and very controversial. It has been criticized by Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, an organization that represents private equity companies in Canada.

What is the third party's position on the elimination of the 15% tax credit, which we think is crucial? The hon. member for Wascana did not seem to think the matter was crucial enough to look at.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what the elimination of the tax credit shows is the misplaced priorities of the government. It is a government of big business. We see that with China, the Nexen-CNOOC deal, where special privileges may be granted to big companies to come into our country to invest even if they are state-owned enterprises.

We have seen the corporate tax reductions where the multinationals, the big corporations around the world, are getting tax breaks in our country even though they are sitting on $560 billion that they are not using to increase jobs, improve technology and productivity. The venture capital the hon. member is talking about comes basically from workers. They also should have that advantage to invest where they see fit to improve the economy.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque will have three minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

Volunteerism and Ed Eggerer

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency and all across Canada, volunteers are the lifeblood of our communities. Earlier this week, the City of Airdrie held a special ceremony to honour its volunteers of the year. Perhaps the most long overdue recognition went to a pillar of our community, Mr. Ed Eggerer, who was awarded the Airdrie Ambassador Award.

It is with a heavy heart that I must inform this House that Mr. Eggerer is being given this award posthumously, having passed away suddenly on March 17. Our entire city's condolences go out to his wife Sylvia, his family and his many friends.

A true servant of democracy, Mr. Eggerer's legacy is a community far better off in innumerable ways, thanks to his humble dedication.

In addition to Mr. Eggerer, Donivan Ryan, Jack Lumley and the local Meals on Wheels program were all formally recognized for their contributions to our community.

As Governor General David Johnston said, “Volunteers are doing their part to make Canada the smart and caring nation we all want it to be.” These four winners are perfect examples.

Freedom of the Press

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate World Press Freedom Day and the essential work that journalists do to challenge the powerful and inform the public.

Sadly, around the world journalists are forced to risk their lives and livelihoods in the practice of their profession.

Over the past decade, more than 600 journalists have been killed, and nine out of 10 murders of journalists go unpunished.

Repeated attacks in Sri Lanka, the imprisonment of journalists in Ethiopia, Somalia and Iran, and the assault and arrest of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh are just a few recent examples among far too many.

As we recognize the extraordinary dedication and sacrifices of journalists around the world, we also celebrate the exceptional work of our friends in the press gallery and reporters across Canada, including this year's recipients of the World Press Freedom Award, Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in paying tribute to their contributions.

Taxation

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week Canadians filed their 2012 income tax returns. April 30 is the date that Canadians contemplate their tax obligations.

According to the Fraser Institute, a family earning over $74,000 will pay over $9,000 in income taxes in 2012. However, that represents less than one-third of that family's total tax obligations. When payroll taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and import duties are added, suddenly that family's total tax bill is 43% of its budget. If we compare that to only 37% of the family budget going to food, shelter and clothing, it puts tax obligations into sobering perspective.

Moreover, as deficits represent deferred tax obligations, one's tax bill is even higher.

The knowledge that over 45% of family income goes to one level of government or another allows taxpayers to assess if they are receiving value for money and hold government to account for the taxes it collects.

Only a concerted effort to reduce government spending at all levels of government will return Canadian tax burdens to more appropriate levels.

Freedom of the Press

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day and a time to honour the vital role played by an independent press in fostering democracy both here in Canada and around the world. This is also a day to remember all those who have lost their lives in the pursuit of truth.

Unfortunately censorship, intimidation and politically motivated arrests continue in many corners of the globe. Journalists must be able to report freely and without fear of repercussions, for when the press is intimidated, we all suffer.

World Press Freedom Day is equally an occasion to examine the state of press freedom in our own country, especially as the industry struggles and learns to adapt to the information age.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I commend all of Canada's journalists for their admirable work in support of democracy. I join with all Canadians in demanding that freedom of expression and freedom of the press be respected here at home and around the globe.

Grand River Conservation Authority

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the environment committee, I am always looking for environmental best practices, and as the member of Parliament for Kitchener Centre, I am always proud to speak about the great achievements of my community. The Grand River Conservation Authority lets me do both.

The GRCA conserves the natural environment in the middle of a thriving metropolitan area of 39 municipalities with a population of close to one million people.

The GRCA is the first watershed management agency ever created in Canada. It delivers outdoor education to more than 50,000 children per year, and its 12 conservation areas are visited by more than one million people each year.

The GRCA is built on partnerships, which is an excellent model for conservation efforts.

Having spent a lifetime hiking and paddling around the Grand River, I am extremely proud of the GRCA's excellent work.

Congratulations to board chair Jane Mitchell, executive director Joe Farwell and everybody at the GRCA.