Debates of May 6th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 174 to 199, related to the proposed department of foreign affairs, trade and development act be removed from Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-62; that Bill C-62 be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for the second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development; that Bill C-60 retain the status on the order paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-60 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is no unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières has the floor.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate on Bill C-60 is another sad day for our ailing Canadian democracy. The only reason I can rise today is that I am very fortunate. I am fortunate not because I have the pleasure of being a member of Parliament, which is already a great privilege, but because even though a 32nd gag order is depriving the House's 308 members of their right to speak, I am one of the lucky few who has a chance to rise and to state, loud and clear, his many reasons for voting against this bill.

Although the bill includes some good elements, the Conservatives' now-notorious habit of using omnibus bills forces us to vote either yes or no. For example, voting “yes” would mean that I support the adoption tax credit, something this side of the House totally agrees with. But it would also mean that I agree with all the tax increases laid out in the budget. This creates a real dilemma. When faced with such a catch-22, we can only give one answer: “no”.

Canadian voters expected much more when they voted for a Parliament as diverse as the one we have now. They expected all of their members of Parliament to be heard, and they expected ideas to collide.

Unfortunately, today is yet another dark day because, although our government has a majority, it feels the need to hide all of its plans, which likely do not reflect what most Canadians want.

It is ridiculous that the committee had only five days to study Bill C-60, which will amend or create no fewer than 50 pieces of legislation. I will leave it at that, since I do not want to be disrespectful. I will let those watching decide for themselves how inappropriate this tactic is.

The Conservatives' Bill C-60 is unfortunately not a surprise to the official opposition, and it should not be a surprise to Canadians. Bill C-60 is part of a growing trend that spells dark days ahead for Canadians. We are seeing an increasing number of omnibus bills, the committee had little or not enough time to discuss the bill and the government is not consistent or transparent in how it manages public affairs.

We are still not used to all that, and I hope that we never will be. However, these tactics are unfortunately becoming all too common.

As I said earlier, Bill C-60 includes some positive measures. For example, it allows for two tax credits that we support: the tax credit for adoption-related expenses, which I mentioned earlier, and the charitable donations tax credit. However, there are a lot of concerns about the fairness of the provisions that aim to increase charitable donations. The NDP raised these concerns at the Standing Committee on Finance.

Charitable organizations are increasingly relying on donations from individuals to fund their activities, as a result of the countless cuts made by the Conservative government.

Despite what the Conservatives claim, this budget does not stimulate the Canadian economy. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs and cut program spending.

More and more studies by well-known economists show that strict fiscal restraint and austerity budgets are counter-productive.

I will just quote one of them. Carol Goar of the Toronto Star said that^, ever since the Minister of Finance began chopping programs and expenditures, the economy has drooped, the job market has sagged, consumers have pulled back and the corporate sector has hunkered down, sitting on its earnings. She also said that the same formula has delivered worse results in Europe.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of at least 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP.

That will seriously slow down the country's economic growth, but will we still see growth?

The Conservatives' measures put the brakes on growth and job creation. There is nothing in this budget that would create jobs; there is nothing that would make living more affordable; nothing to strengthen the services on which families depend. Not only are the Conservatives failing to create jobs, but they are still attacking working Canadians. This bill gives the Treasury Board far-reaching powers to intervene in the collective bargaining process and dictate the working conditions in crown corporations.

I want to emphasize this point, in view of the portfolio and responsibilities my leader, the hon. member for Outremont, has given me. As the deputy critic for transportation, infrastructure and communities, I regularly rise in the House to ask the government questions about Via Rail or Canada Post, for example. Invariably, the minister or minister of state who is responsible for transport replies candidly that these crown corporations are independent corporations and that the government does not intend to interfere in their management.

The reality, however, is quite different, and we have seen this in the many pieces of special legislation that have been imposed on workers in various sectors. Bill C-60 goes even farther in this "non-interference". It would bring in changes that would allow the government 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.

I am asking the simple question: is this intervention or not? I must admit that I am starting to get a bit confused. Do we believe the words of the Minister of Transport or the will of the President of the Treasury Board? It is hard to answer this question. Still, if I must choose between a speech and a law, I know what I need to know.

Under the provisions of Bill C-60, if the government directs a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board, then the Treasury Board can impose whatever it wants in terms of the crown corporation's employees' working conditions. However, let us not forget that these are independent corporations.

No crown corporation receiving such a government order will be able to reach a collective agreement without Treasury Board approval. Can we see an intervention there? Bill C-60 also authorizes the Treasury Board to establish the terms and conditions of employment of non-unionized employees, on a government order.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-60 clearly constitute an attack on the right to free collective bargaining in Canada. They violate the basic principle of the operational independence of crown corporations, since they give the government the right to intervene if a crown corporation is not managing its labour relations to the government's satisfaction. Is this still not interference? I think the answer is clear.

I will therefore conclude by saying that all members of my party and I oppose this bill, because of its content and for procedural reasons. Bill C-60 is proposing a very wide range of complex measures that should be analyzed and examined carefully. Bringing in such a huge bill on such a tight schedule makes it impossible for members to study the proposed measures and their likely effects in a satisfactory manner, and that undermines the fundamental role of Parliament.

Moreover, Bill C-60 does not reflect the real concerns of Canadians. Instead of passing meaningful legislation to create jobs, the Conservatives are imposing austerity measures that will stifle economic growth, raise the cost of living, and negatively affect employment.

Thus, we are opposed to the 2013 budget and its implementation bills, unless they can be rewritten to take the real priorities of Canadian families into account.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to comment on the issue of priorities. The government has committed to significant advertising of the economic action plan, well into the millions of dollars, yet, on the other hand, there are many needs within communities, particularly with regard to people who are unemployed and trying to find work.

My question to the member is in relation to the importance of government being more proactive at providing the training necessary for more people to gain employment. At the same time, we are seeing a great deal of government waste through the millions being spent on advertising. Does the member want to comment on that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

The first question had to do with the huge amounts of money being spent on advertising. The word “advertising” itself could spark a debate of its own: is it advertising or propaganda? It is worth asking. What is a budget, after all? That is another very relevant question.

Mr. Speaker, you and I can probably think of more things we would like to do than we have funds to pay for. Drawing up a budget means making choices. And for a government, making choices means choosing what will help all Canadians improve their quality of life.

The proposed budget falls far short of that goal. The government is presenting an austerity budget whose only goal is to work toward balancing the budget, but I am still not convinced that it will work. One thing is sure: this bill will not boost the economy the way Canadians expect it to.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

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

Canadians are deeper in debt than they have ever been, and municipalities are having a hard time making necessary upgrades, whether they involve substandard private septic systems or the pyrrhotite used in building houses. These are serious problems, and Canadians are currently saddled with debt.

Does my colleague feel it would be appropriate to include in the budget initiatives aimed at regulating septic systems installation and addressing pyrrhotite problems? Could my colleague comment on that?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, that would be good.

I have serious doubts about the government's empathy for pyrrhotite victims, whom I see regularly in my riding. The infrastructure measures are no different. Municipalities across Canada have strongly criticized the significant amount of catching up that needs to be done just to update existing infrastructure. I am not even talking about creating new infrastructure, just updating our existing infrastructure.

With a sleight of hand worthy of Merlin the magician, the latest budget proposed by the Minister of Finance would have us believe that the government will be investing more in infrastructure when really, it is suddenly going to be cutting billions more from the infrastructure budget.

That leverage could have really helped what is at best a struggling economy. The Conservatives wasted yet another opportunity.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, not only are the Conservatives cutting millions from infrastructure and other programs, but they are also sneaking in fee increases and tax increases.

One of the ones included in Bill C-60 has to do with immigration, including visitors visas, work permits, study permits and visa and permit extensions. It would mean that under the budget the government would be able to increase fees without tabling a proposal in Parliament and without being transparent about how much revenue the fees would bring in.

Could the member comment on the impact that would have on the many people who sometimes find it very difficult to pay those fees anyway, and who would now be facing possible increases?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for such a relevant question.

In the past few weeks, I have listened to some epic conversations and debates about the word “tax”. Whether they call it a tax or a fee, the result is the same: it comes out of taxpayers' pockets. The fact that the budget contains such a big tax grab is certainly a reason to vote against Bill C-60.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it gives me great pleasure to speak in favour of budget 2013. I am pleased to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for the outstanding job he is doing on behalf of our government and all Canadians. Canada is recognized internationally for the sound economic and fiscal policies of our Conservative government. The appreciation of the world of the sound economic policy practices of Canada is a vote of confidence in our Minister of Finance. Average Canadians—those who work hard, obey the law and pay taxes—understand leadership on the economy.

There are many benefits to the passing of budget 2013 for the people in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I intend to focus on the aspects of this important statement of federal government economic policy that are of interest to my constituents.

A number of my parliamentary colleagues are proud of the many immediate beneficial measures in the budget, such the benefits to municipalities, seniors, veterans and students. I am focused on the future and why the sound economic policy in the budget is so important to the future prosperity of the Ottawa Valley and our nation.

Innovation valley north is what the upper Ottawa Valley will become through the adoption of the measures in the budget. Innovation valley north represents jobs of the future and the long-term economic future of the upper Ottawa Valley, eastern Ontario and Canada. Innovation valley north in the Ottawa Valley is the combined impacts of the defence, nuclear and aerospace industries as well as the historic Ottawa Valley lumber producers coming together to respond to the various initiatives announced in budget 2013. Their synergy has the potential to create new employment and sustain existing jobs as our local economy positions itself to take advantage of such budget measures as the almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, SADI, to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's economically important aerospace and defence industries, which include businesses such as Allen-Vanguard, formerly MedEng, which produced the bomb suit in the movie The Hurt Locker.

By encouraging new innovation in Canada's aerospace sector and by creating the aerospace technology demonstration program, which would be $110 million over five years beginning in 2014-15 and $55 million every year thereafter, we would support large-scale technology projects with commercial potential for companies like Magellan, Haley Industries in Haley Station and Arnprior Aerospace just down the road.

Critical to innovation valley north is the hub, the ideas generator, which turns ideas into employers. In the upper Ottawa Valley we are very fortunate to have two hubs that form the nucleus of innovation valley north.

The first hub is Chalk River Laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada. Budget 2013 would invest $144 million to the continued operation of AECL's Chalk River Laboratories to ensure that Canada has a reliable supply of isotopes. This investment in the future of AECL represents a vote of confidence to AECL and its 2700 local employees to complement the previous announcement made by our government to continue the process of modernization at Chalk River Laboratories by moving to a government-owned, contractor-operated governance model.

A government-owned, contractor-operated GOCO model of governance following the United States and British practice provides for a proven, cost-effective, high-accountability approach to management and operation of a national laboratory. A GOCO partnership shares the risk between government and the private sector. It allows each partner to perform duties for which it is uniquely suited. The government establishes mission areas and sets performance targets and the private sector implements the missions, using best business practices that ensure simultaneous excellence: excellence in technology solutions, delivered by the best scientists, engineers and managers; excellent operations, protecting employees, the public and the environment; and excellent community involvement, contributing to our all-important economic needs.

A comprehensive program of technology transfer and commercialization implemented by the Chalk River national nuclear laboratory would sustain, attract and create companies and employment in the upper Ottawa Valley as a technology, research and development hub. Innovation valley north in the upper Ottawa Valley is a partnership, taking advantage of the AECL platform of knowledge and assisted by many initiatives announced in budget 2013.

This is all about putting in place the conditions for Canada's knowledge industry to thrive.

During the decade of darkness under our old government, AECL was directionless and starved for funding, just as our military was. Throughout the late 1990s, AECL's future was so uncertain that it could not even complete a budget. We cannot build a future on false promises; as a consequence, the 1990s was a lost decade of opportunity for Canada's nuclear industry.

The field of nuclear science and technology has potential for innovation and clean energy technologies, both directly related to nuclear energy and in strategic areas of technology development and overlap, such as hydrogen technologies. The next generation of nuclear reactors, generation IV technologies with reduced capital costs, will enhance nuclear safety, minimize generation of nuclear waste and further reduce the risk of weapons proliferation through the use of natural uranium.

Budget 2013 would provide $325 million to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies in Ontario and across Canada, and that would create savings for Canadian businesses and support job creation for Canadians. One of the byproducts of a generation IV power reactor is hydrogen, which can be used as a clean fuel for vehicles or be stored until needed for other uses. When hydrogen is used as a fuel in an internal combustion engine modified to use it, water is what comes out the tailpipe.

The Canadian nuclear industry has a critical role to play in climate change and the economy in keeping the price of electricity affordable and in protecting the air we breathe.

The second hub in the Upper Ottawa Valley that has the best potential is Canadian Forces Base Petawawa.

Our government committed to providing the women and men in uniform with the best equipment to do the many tasks we ask them to do on our behalf. It only makes sense for defence procurement to support economic activities and opportunities for all Canadians. As the training ground of warriors, Canadian Forces Base Petawawa has greatly benefited from the implementation of the Conservative government's Canada first strategy, as have the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Our Canada first strategy reversed the decade of darkness, the hollowing out of our military by the old government that the voters of Canada wisely replaced in 2006.

Our government, like all Canadians, has the utmost respect for the women and men who put their lives on the line for freedom. For their service to Canada, we must ensure that when they pass on, they receive the dignified funeral and burial they so rightly deserve. To that end, I am pleased to confirm for the soldiers and their families at CFB Petawawa and all veterans in my riding that economic action plan 2013 would improve the existing funeral and burial program by simplifying it for veterans' families and by more than doubling the current reimbursement rate from $3,500 to over $7,300.

The upper Ottawa Valley has benefited from the standing up of the new Canadian Special Operations Regiment, CSOR, at CFB Petawawa. This new regiment reverses the bad defence policy decision of the old government to make scapegoats of the historic Canadian Airborne Regiment. With the acquisition of new strategic airlift and the purchase of new heavy transport Chinook helicopters that will be stationed at CFB Petawawa, our local civilian economy is already benefiting from local procurement and supply contracts.

Innovation valley north is here, brimming with potential, and I, as its member of Parliament, am ready to help.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must know that she has no credibility when it comes to the economy. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, budget 2013 will actually eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of the gross domestic product.

What is more, the Conservative government has invoked closure in the House of Commons in order to prematurely end debate on this budget implementation bill. It should be noted that we have just learned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance recently presented a notice of motion to the Standing Committee on Finance in order to reduce the number of meetings allocated to complete the study of Bill C-60.

Why does the member opposite believe that five days are enough to study this bill that amends more than 50 Canadian laws?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what our government is cutting are taxes. Time after time, we have reduced taxes, from the GST and so on. Now the average family has an extra $3,200 to spend or save for things they need.

All we hear from the opposition are policies to stifle job growth. For example, it brings up the issue of our trying to help Canadian businesses by increasing the tariffs on countries that are now first-rate competition for Canada. It would instead have us lower tariffs for these countries, which would cause more of our employees to lose their jobs. I am sure the NDP would not want to decrease the tariffs for our dairy farmers either.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what she is telling people in her riding about the fact that by 2015, after seven or possibly eight deficits in a row, there will be over $150 billion of debt added to the national debt. What does she tell her constituents with respect to the national debt?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our party brought to Parliament the concept of balanced budgets and paying down the debt. It was a consequence of having paid down the debt to the extent we did that when the global economic downturn occurred in 2008 we were better positioned than most.

The Conservative Government of Canada will take no lessons from people who drove the debt to the limit.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am an avid reader of the World Economic Forum's competitiveness report that comes out every year. In this year's report it had Canada ranked at 82 for the category of “business costs of terrorism”. From what I have seen from the government, it seems to have misplaced or does not really know how it spent $3.1 billion in the realm of security defence. Does the member know where the money went?

How can her government be credible on the budget when it does not even know where the money goes? Where did the $3.1 billion go?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The estimates report where everything is spent.

Overall, let us talk about results. In Canada, unlike other countries, such as the United States and the U.K., our security forces have done their job. We have not been hit by terrorism. We find them before they injure Canadians. There was the Toronto 18 and the VIA Rail episode. We are doing what it takes to protect people and to prevent these things from happening.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1. However, this piece of legislation does not address Canadians' real concerns.

Ever since the Conservatives’ 2013 budget was unveiled, my constituents have been calling me to say that they feel isolated and neglected by this government’s economic measures.

I have to say that I feel quite privileged to be able to speak to this bill, given that the Conservatives have imposed time allocation for the thirty-second time, which is surely a record for Canada. At least I have the opportunity to voice my opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to Conservative bills that lack depth. Instead of actually being concerned about ensuring our economic recovery, creating stable jobs and tackling the growing debt levels of Canadian households, the Conservatives are proposing austerity measures that will kill jobs. These measures will mean a higher cost of living for Canadian families and will stifle economic growth.

For instance, there is nothing in Bill C-60 to deal with household debt in Canada, which is currently estimated at a record level of 167% of disposal income. That is a staggering number.

The Conservatives’ economic agenda does not address the needs of Canadians. Canadians need measures that are geared toward creating quality jobs. The NDP will be voting against budget 2013 and the budget implementation bill, unless they are reworked to take into account the real priorities of Canadian families.

While I do agree with some of the measures contained in this budget, I have to say that, since I have been a member of this House, the Conservatives have refused to split budget bills into components that we can vote on separately, and thus let Canadians know, through a transparent process, which measures we support and which ones we do not.

I would like to single out several measures in this budget that I think are worthwhile in order to let people know exactly which ones I consider to be important. I will then tell you which budgetary provisions I think completely miss the mark.

Budget 2013 provides for two tax credits that I endorse: one for adoption-related expenses and one for first-time claimants of the charitable donations tax credit. I believe that these are positive measures. Furthermore, the budget streamlines the process for approving tax relief for Canadian Forces members and police officers, which I strongly support. It extends the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing sector. It includes measures to facilitate the collection of unpaid taxes and taxes sitting in tax havens and to streamline Tax Court of Canada procedures. It provides for changes to the GST and HST that are generally positive. Lastly, it calls for reducing the general preferential tariff, the GPT, on sporting equipment and baby clothing. These are sound measures, and I am not afraid to say so.

However, the Conservatives will not split up the budget and instead are forcing us to vote on a mammoth bill, as was the case in 2012 and 2011, which prevents me, as an MP, from voicing my true opinion of the budget to my constituents. I find it very troubling that I am unable to do so. However I do know that the Conservatives will seize the opportunity to say that we are voting against these measures when we ask any questions. Incredible.

I would now like to turn my attention to some of the important issues raised by Bill C-60 which is chock-full of various measures.

This budget contains tax increases for Canadians. It calls for changes to the bargaining mandate of the Treasury Board and 49 crown corporations. It proposes changes to the temporary foreign worker program, as well as changes related to citizenship and immigration. It announces the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency with Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. It highlights the Conservative government’s ongoing failure to address the challenges facing aboriginal peoples and the lack of viable, concrete job-creation measures for Canadian youth, the segment of the population hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Bill C-60 as tabled amends 49 laws and includes new legislation along with complex provisions containing myriad details and programs that will affect Canadians, the very people who elected us to establish a more just society and bring about wealth and prosperity for all Canadians.

For the sake of the public, we have a duty to weigh the major issues that this bill targets, but it will be very difficult to accomplish this in such a short period of time. The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives are giving us a mere four days to debate this mammoth bill.

On top of everything else, we have just learned that the Minister of Finance has asked the Standing Committee on Finance to set aside only five days to study the bill.

The committee that is supposed to conduct an in-depth review of the bill will have a mere five days to tackle this job. That is outrageous.

The NDP opposes Bill C-60, not only because of the measures it contains, but also because the process lacks transparency and is unethical from a parliamentary standpoint. Bill C-60 contains a broad range of measures that warrant careful consideration, but instead, the Conservatives have tabled another omnibus bill, much like bills C-38 and C-45 that were brought in last year. Tabling such a wide-ranging bill and imposing such a tight deadline for review undermines the very nature of Parliament, as members do not have the opportunity to learn everything they need to know about the bill and its ramifications.

Unfortunately, it has become commonplace to say that such actions weaken the nature of Parliament. Yesterday, while I was knocking on doors in my riding, I talked for 20 or 25 minutes to a man in Dorval, whose name is John and who is 50 or 60 years old. He told me that he had always voted to do his duty as a citizen but that he had become cynical in the past two years. He told me that he was dismayed and that he no longer believed in the parliamentary process because of our government. I was astounded and did not know what to say to him. I am not cynical, but I had a hard time finding good arguments, because I, too, think that what is happening in Canada is not reasonable and not healthy.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out several times that members of Parliament do not have access to the information they need to exercise their role of oversight. For the third time, the Conservatives are undermining the democratic process inherent in Parliament and trying to escape the watchful eyes of parliamentarians and the public.

I would like to point out another important concern. The former Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly indicated that the cuts announced in the 2013 budget are not necessary in order to re-establish a structural surplus. In his opinion, the 2013 budget will eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and slow the growth of Canada's GDP.

There is evidence. According to estimates by the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, the 2012 budget, the 2012 budget update and the 2013 budget will lead to the loss of 67,000 jobs by 2017 and a 0.57% drop in the GDP. Based on these facts, the Conservatives' 2013 budget will raise the unemployment rate in Canada. It is unfortunate, because when unemployment rates are high, the economy runs slowly. I wonder what logic the government is using when it talks about the economy.

The Conservatives love to boast about their job creation record. Yet, 1.4 million Canadians are without work and 240,000 more young people are unemployed than before the recession. Despite that, the Conservatives' Bill C-60 offers no job creation measures.

As the official opposition's youth caucus president, I am particularly concerned with Canada's youth and young workers. As a result, the rest of my speech—which is not much longer—will focus on the younger generation that is ignored by the Conservative government.

In today's labour market, there is a desperate lack of jobs for young Canadians aged 15 to 24. A study by TD Economics revealed that a young person who is currently unemployed or under-employed will be financially scarred for 18 years. This young person, who wants to work and often has an extensive education, not only has a problem finding work, but will be affected in the future with reduced earning potential. Right now, this young person has no job and cannot invest in the economy. As I said, it will take this young person 18 years to overcome the economic deficit that is being created today. This is not the way to make the economy work.

For these young people in their 20s, this means putting off purchasing their own property, having children later, needing more time to pay off their debt and earning lower salaries. That is what the Conservative government is offering our young people at this time.

Combining the underemployment crisis and unemployment among young people with the tax hikes announced in budget 2013, with Bill C-60, the Conservative government is in fact reducing my generation's purchasing power.

Although the Conservatives promised not to raise taxes, their budget includes new tax hikes for Canadians on almost everything, from hospital parking to credit unions, safety deposit boxes and labour sponsored investment funds, not to mention bicycles and strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians $7.8 billion over the next five years.

Why did the Conservatives promise not to raise taxes if they knew for a fact they were going to raise them by several billion dollars? Budget 2013 is based on an ideology that is harmful to Canadians. Although economists agree that austerity measures undermine growth, the Conservatives are determined to impose these backward-thinking measures in order to achieve their political agenda of cutting the deficit by 2015.

I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to finish and giving me a chance to speak to this bill. I will now take questions. However, I would like to emphasize that, although there are some good measures here, it is unfortunate that we have to vote on everything at once.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, in which she talked a great deal about young Canadians. I think she said young people want to work and she is looking for jobs for young Canadians.

I wonder if she has read page 180 of the budget—jobs, growth and long-term prosperity economic action plan 2013—where it talks about a new bridge for the St. Lawrence, which would provide long-lasting economic benefits to municipalities on each side of the river and, more broadly, to the region as a whole, through a commitment of up to $124.9 million from the government.

I wonder if she could tell us what she has said to young Canadians who would have the opportunity to work on this job if she would support this budget. We are looking to create jobs, and we hope the member will step up for young Canadians in her riding and say there are jobs coming with the building of this bridge.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was getting at in the last sentence of my speech. I think it is unfortunate that we are forced to vote on an omnibus bill and that the Conservatives refuse to split this bill, which does have some good measures.

I do have something to say about young people. Canada has 240,00 unemployed young people who are unable to find jobs, despite job creation measures. That is unacceptable. These young people are looking for jobs, but there are none to be found. It is not just the fact they are unemployed that is disgraceful, it is also the fact that these young people end up under-employed. I know; this is my generation. I have plenty of friends from university who are in their late twenties. They have a bachelor's degree, master's degree or Ph.D and are getting jobs that pay $12 or $15 an hour.

I have asked questions to the minister and parliamentary secretary several times now and they never have anything specific to offer. No, I will not vote in favour of the budget, because I find—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about good-quality jobs. Air Canada was supposed to be maintaining overhaul bases. Those were good-quality jobs that paid a relatively good wage. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs were lost in Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga, and the government chose to do absolutely nothing to protect those jobs, even though it was in the legislation.

My question is with regard to people in the middle class who are losing jobs. To what degree does the member believe the government is doing enough to address the middle-class people, 35 to 55, who are finding themselves unemployed because of lack of action by the government?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question.

I know that his riding was greatly affected by the closure of Aveos. Employees in my riding, in Montreal, also lost their jobs. I want to reiterate to those workers that I think it is sad that this situation still has not been resolved.

To answer my colleague's questions specifically, no, I do not think the Conservative government is doing enough to help the middle class, and the Aveos situation is a perfect example. We had good jobs here in Canada and now we do not. There is nothing concrete in the budget for jobs for the middle class. The government keeps talking about job creation. When we ask questions, the stock answer is “jobs, growth and prosperity”, and nothing more tangible than that. The government never spells out exactly what it is going to do to create jobs and it ships out the good jobs. I do not think that these are good measures for Canada's middle class.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives not doing anything concrete for jobs, but they are doing very concrete things in terms of tax hikes. In fact, there are hundreds of tax hikes on hospital parking, credit unions and safety deposit boxes, and the list goes on and on. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

I know the feedback I get is that people are always pretty outraged at the incredible cost of parking at hospitals. We are kind of a captive audience since there is nothing we can do, yet the bill would permit increased taxes for people who have to go to hospitals and pay for parking. I wonder if the member could comment on that.