Debates of May 6th, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on budget 2013 and the budget implementation act. As I prepared for this speech, I reviewed from budget 2006 onward with an eye to looking at how our government is focused on the economy, jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. One thing I was very happy to see was that even in the early days of our government, in 2006, we have always had an eye towards providing stability and environmental stewardship.

The Prime Minister has always recognized that environmental protection goes hand in hand with our economic future as a country. Whether it is through strategic investments in clean energy infrastructure, strong partnerships with our provincial and municipal partners, NGOs, industry and even landowners, or whether it is actually doing the tough work of regulatory reform, our government has always had an eye toward making sure we have the balance between our economic prosperity and increasing our environmental stewardship and habitat conservation. Whether it is looking for results in increasing air and water quality or reducing greenhouse gases, this government has consistently set targets and moved toward actual results in hitting those targets.

As a young boy growing up in rural northern Alberta with a grandfather who was both a trapper and farmer, I was always very close to the land. I was always in an environment where I understood the importance of environmental stewardship and good conservation, being a good Conservative. I contrast that upbringing with my niece Vienna, who was born and raised in Ottawa. I see how she would have a different opinion of what environmental stewardship and the problems of our country look like today, when she tunes in to CTV News or any of the news stations, as she likes to do, and sees evil oil and gas companies destroying thousands of hectares of land, and mining companies putting big holes in the ground, making it look like some kind of sci-fi moon landscape from the 1970s.

I understand how this negative connotation that people constantly receive from the media can lead this generation to perceive that these are the problems of environmental stewardship today. In fact, in the last 50 years, when it comes to issues such as wetlands conservation, air quality, water quality or greenhouse gas emissions, the largest problem in our country has been urban sprawl. More and more urban areas have taken up more and more wetlands and have increased the output of effluents.

I can remember, as a young man, going to the University of Calgary, and when I left the north end, between Calgary and Balzac and then Calgary and Airdrie, there were actual green spaces. Now there are houses from one end to the other, just like Toronto to Hamilton. It has become concrete. This is one of the biggest issues that we have to deal with. This is one of the issues we have to make sure we pass on to Vienna's generation, that it is a problem we have to engage in.

I am proud to be part of a government that has made strategic investments in partnerships, not just with municipalities but organizations like Nature Conservancy Canada. An additional $20 million was put into budget 2013 to help them leverage it three to one so we could protect more habitat and species at risk. Since budget 2007, we know this has been a successful program. We have invested $225 million and preserved over 875,000 acres of land over all 10 provinces in our country, and conserved habitat for up to 148 species at risk.

The fact is that we can still have growth and economic prosperity at the same time as increasing our environmental sustainability. That is a message we have to pass on. We can actually continue to grow our environmental conservation habits, not just be happy with some kind of net zero through innovative partnerships like we have already demonstrated.

One of the other things we have to do in these partnerships is win the hearts and minds of Canadians. We have to show Canadians like those in my niece's generation that habitat, wildlife and the environment are things worth saving, and to do that, we have to give them a value. We have to be able to attribute a value to that, and it is very hard to attribute a value to something that one has never really encountered.

We have Thousand Islands National Park, a beautiful park, about two hours away from Ottawa, but for my niece to pack up her family and go there takes a couple of hours. To go to Jasper National Park from Edmonton, it is two and a half hours. It limits the number of encounters they are going to have with nature and natural habitats.

That is why it is so important that our government's initiatives and investments in parks such as Rouge national urban park, where we are investing $143 million over 10 years, including in this budget as well, to bring nature closer to Canadians and to that generation that has grown up in urban sprawl. This is critically important when we talk about winning hearts and minds so that they can understand the importance of habitat and species at risk.

I am proud to be part of a government that has created over 149,000 square kilometres of national parks, including parks such as Sable Island. This government has always had an eye toward making sure that we invest in the future, and not just in job training and job growth but also in environmental stewardship.

One of the other aspects that is very important, perhaps one of the most important, is working with industry and taking a real approach. If we want to continue to extract and develop our natural resources and sell them around the world, we have to have a regulatory approach that is perceived to be one of the best in the world, not just talked about as being one of the best in the world.

That is where the Prime Minister's leadership in regulatory reform is so important. Whether it is in the transportation sector, the coal-fired electricity sector, or the oil and gas sector, we have worked with these sectors one by one. It is not just to do a redistribution of wealth, which is what a carbon tax is, taking from one to give to the other, but the rich never really have to make a sacrifice. We are talking about changing the way sectors operate so that they actually become better environmental stewards and bring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improved air quality.

This kind of work is far harder and politically far more difficult, but it brings the benefits of real results for Canadians and for the next generation, at the same time respecting our jurisdictions and understanding that the coal-fired electricity issues in Ontario or Quebec are not the same as the issues in Alberta. We have to have some flexibility, yet have targets that we are moving forward to meet.

At the same time, as we see in budget 2013, we are investing $325 million in Sustainable Development Technology Canada to help develop clean technology and help industry to continue to move forward. I come from an oil-rich part of the country where we have in situ oil sands that are nothing like what most Canadians would perceive when they think of the oil sands in Fort McMurray. These are oil sands with a very small footprint. These are oil sands for which our government has just put water monitoring in place in the Athabasca River so that we can make sure we are open and transparent and can actually demonstrate the positive results coming out of the work we have done on this sector.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance of working with landowners and the importance of respecting property rights when we are doing all of these things. It is important that we incentivize landowners so they are not worried about running into a species at risk on their land, yet see the natural habitat area as a value to their land. That can only happen through strong partnerships with our municipalities, as we are experiencing in Vermilion River.

To close, I would like to say it is our responsibility to look the next generation in the eye and say that we have been good stewards of both the environment and the economy. Environmental protection goes hand in hand with our economic future.

God bless Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, The Environment; the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Aboriginal Affairs; and the hon. member for Québec, Telecommunications.

Questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, in February, I actually visited Westlock—St. Paul, the member's riding. I visited a power plant there in Dapp. It was a biomass plant. I asked the people there if the member had ever visited, and they told me, “No.” This is a plant that takes wood waste from Edmonton and turns it into electricity. The electricity that comes from this process is distributed to all the farmers around. It is a great community project that powers 600 houses with electricity from the grid.

When I got there, people asked me a few questions. The first one was, “When is there going to be a national energy strategy that includes renewables?” I would ask the same question to the member across.

The other thing is, I would point out that there is only $1 million for SDTC this year to promote projects, like things that are happening in Dapp with its biomass plant. Will the government commit to funding SDTC more at the front end rather than the back end in 2018?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the project the member is talking about. In fact I grew up in that area.

The local councillor, Mr. Bert Seatter, has been a strong advocate of this project. If the member wishes, I would be happy to share information on the company that he talked about.

It is very important, as I said, when we start talking about these issues that we look at it as a balanced approach, that we look at economic development and growth of our economy in balance with the environment.

I am glad the member brought it up. My home province of Alberta is one of the leading provinces when it comes to wind and solar technology, which invests more money in renewable fuels than many of the provinces twice its size in this country. I am proud to be from a part of the country that does not just talk about environmental stewardship but actually takes a step forward and starts practising it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is being very selective when he talks about practising it.

Let me talk about a petition that I have introduced on numerous occasions, and that the Liberal Party has been advocating for, that is in regard to the Experimental Lakes project.

I quote from the petition:

Since 1968, ELA has been a global leader in conducting whole-ecosystem experiments, which have been critical in shaping environmental policy and understanding human impacts on lakes and fishes...

This research is done at the Experimental Lakes Area. It provides important, critical, scientific knowledge. The government was content with seeing it completely wiped out, closed. If it was not for the Government of Ontario, there would not be an ELA, even though the benefits are immense from an environmental perspective.

How does the member justify the government's behaviour on that specific project, the ELA? Why did the government not support it?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I am happy to see my friend from Winnipeg North standing up. Unfortunately the Jets are not in the playoffs this year, so he has a little more time to spend here than he would otherwise. As he likes to trade quotes, and he is always prepared, I would like to read him a quote, as well.

From Mr. John Lounds, president of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, in committee last week:

You will no doubt hear many witnesses tell you where government hasn't got it right. We'd like to tell you about something where the government has got it right in our view, which is the natural areas conservation program. In 2007 the Government of Canada made a bold investment of $225 million in this unique public-private partnership led by the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

I am proud of the fact that we are part of a government that has helped establish important habitat conservation for over 875,000 acres of land across 10 provinces of this country, including saving habitat for 148 species at risk. I think that is a record of success.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by asking a question.

Today in the House, the member for Westlock—St. Paul talked about renewable hydrocarbons. The Minister of Natural Resources has also talked about the same thing recently.

Frankly, I would like to know what this creature is, given that hydrocarbons come from dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago. It seems to me that this is not a renewable energy source, unless the Conservatives are telling me that there may be dinosaurs somewhere in the Caribbean islands. I am trying to understand what this is.

They may be talking about the corn and ethanol business. Recently, we saw that when ethanol derived from corn was on the market, it created an extreme crisis for the corn market, to the point that a lot of people in the world could no longer buy basic products such as corn because it was being converted into renewable energy.

I quite simply do not understand why the Conservatives are trying to make us believe this renewable hydrocarbons story. I am having a hard time seeing where this thing exists. I would certainly like to hear more about it though, because frankly, I sometimes think it is coming out of the mouths of dinosaurs.

Bill C-60 contains very few things that will benefit people in my riding. I will even go out on a limb and say that it could hurt them.

We will talk about a few measures that are in the budget, and other measures that are not. What worries me most is what is not in the budget.

I would first like to talk about the investment that needs to be made at Fisheries and Oceans. The budget says that over the next five years, Fisheries and Oceans will be cut by another $100 million. That department has already endured cuts, very recently, of over $70 million a year. Now the Conservatives are talking about more cuts. We do not know how big those cuts will be. The Conservatives have simply announced cuts. They have not said what is going to be cut. That is the real problem with the bill we have before us. It is supposed to be Bill C-60, Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, yet it is not a budget, or at least it is hard to believe that it is.

When I was a businessman, a budget had columns. It was a sheet with figures on it, with the money spent the previous year and the money spent during the current year. You saw how spending increased or decreased. To the Conservatives, budgets are no longer budgets; now, they are action plans. Frankly, they are works of fiction. They are books that tell a story, but do not in any way achieve the objective of managing a country in a sound and sustainable way.

I will come back to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which is going to lose $100 million over the next five years. Nowhere in the budget, or the Conservatives’ economic action plan 2013, do I see where they are going to cut. We know the impact of the cuts, though. So much has been cut from maintenance at Fisheries and Oceans Canada that our docks are in a pitiful state. The Percé dock is closed today. The lobster industry depends on that dock. My riding also depends heavily on the tourism industry, which in turn depends heavily on the dock. We are talking about 400,000 tourists a year who visit the dock.

Last year, Bill C-38 made changes to employment insurance. In today’s budget, nothing has been changed, even though every region of Canada where there is seasonal work and people make a living from seasonal industries has called for a moratorium or a return to the starting point, and for real consultations to be held. That has not been done. The result is the bill we have before us, which makes no changes to employment insurance.

As a result, people in my region have lost weeks of employment insurance benefits and they will therefore find it harder and harder to have an income to get through the seasons and make it through the whole year.

The minister says that the reason why the government made changes to employment insurance was to help people get jobs. At the same time, however, the Conservatives have cut so much from dock maintenance in my riding that they have put people out of work. In 2013, we risk losing the tourist season in the Gaspé region, because they have cut so much from the budgets that people depend on, without consultation and without doing the groundwork.

They are making so many cuts that people are losing their jobs. There will be no tourists to support merchants who depend on the tourist industry and so there is a risk that we will lose an entire year of tourism, simply because Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not been able to do its job. The department has been unable to do its job because the cuts have been so deep that it has had a great deal of difficulty meeting its obligations.

In today’s budget, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is being cut by $100 million. What is going to be cut? I have a hard time seeing where the remaining cuts at Fisheries and Oceans Canada could be made. I congratulate the department for demonstrating creativity by inventing cuts that could be made in future, without specifying what is left to cut. It seems to me that there are no cuts left to be made at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, apart from the minister’s salary maybe.

We absolutely have to think long-term. There is no long-term vision in Canada. The Conservatives are trying to cut all government spending, and they think that that is going to create the conditions upon which an economic recovery could be based. We saw this situation in the 1980s, in the Reagan era. It is called trickle-down economics. If the government cuts taxes and is less and less involved in the economy, the invisible hand of the market will take over and solve all of our problems. In my opinion, in 2008, when the serious crisis in the banking system happened, the invisible hand of the market simply did not work.

Frankly, credit does not go to the Conservatives for the regulations that were in place at the time and that helped us to get through that serious worldwide economic crisis and be in the condition we are in now.

The Conservatives boast about the fact that Canada has one of the best economies in the world. It is difficult to boast when we compare ourselves to Greece, for example, which is in free fall. Saying we are not in free fall is not all it takes to determine that everything is fine. That is not the case.

Certain conditions must prevail in order for Canada’s economy to grow. The budget now before us will not create these conditions. Furthermore, Canada has 240,000 more young people out of work than during the previous recession in 2008.

There needs to be an action plan in place to help these 240,000 unemployed youths find jobs. Instead, we have cuts to Service Canada’s summer jobs programs that encourage young people to return to the regions to work, settle down and create vibrant communities. Cuts are being made to the summer jobs program and a new internship program is being created. However, an internship is not a job. A job is paid, permanent employment. An internship usually involves unpaid work.

The government has just spent a considerable amount of money creating unpaid job opportunities without having in place an action plan to help young people find gainful employment.

Getting back to my riding, cuts to Fisheries and Oceans Canada programs means the future of the region’s children and economy are impacted. The Gaspé is not the only region affected. All of Eastern Canada will be facing problems as a result of the cutbacks recently announced. Today’s budget does nothing to alter the course this government has embarked on, one that is bad for the economy and for the regions in particular.

The government is simply unwilling to consult with people. It is unwilling to ask Canadians how they feel about Canada’s growth and what they think our priorities should be. With their parliamentary majority, the Conservatives seem to think they can do whatever they like.

Destroying laws that protect the environment is tantamount to mortgaging the future. Ultimately people will end up paying a great deal more to repair the damage wrought by the Conservatives.

This budget will cost us dearly. Therefore, I urge members to vote against it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I would like to know what he thinks the government should have included in the budget to increase job creation in his riding. What would he do to better promote job creation?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Investment is a given. The government has powerful tools at its disposal to help industry and the economy. Regarding seasonal work in the regions, it is essential to think long term if we want to ensure sustainable regional economies. The government must invest. The only organization capable of supporting jobs in the regions is the federal government. It then follows that the government has a very important role to play in support of seasonal industries.

Let us not forget that Canada is a northern country where seasonal industries are prevalent. When the government withdraws from these industries, not only does it create long-term problems, it also empties out the regions. The people leaving have to find somewhere else to go. When they arrive in the big city, they struggle. They do not have the means to start a life in the big city as long as the federal government does not have a long-term strategy.

Regional support is being slashed while, at the same time, these people are not getting the tools they need to settle elsewhere. What is more, the cuts being made are such that well-established regional industries get even less support than before.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition plays a fundamental role in the parliamentary system. According to a paper I read from the Library of Parliament:

Parliament, after all, is fundamentally about debate…and the transacting of the people's business in public.…A vigorous opposition in Parliament can be the chief bulwark against the temptation [for a majority government that wishes to do everything without debate].

In Bill C-60, the Conservatives are attempting for a second time to escape parliamentary and public scrutiny. Does my colleague agree with me that our democracy is suffering?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going through a period in which the government appears to be circumventing the idea of building consensus in the country. It disregards the parliamentary tools at its disposal to assist it in building consensus. On the contrary, it constantly seeks to oppose. The government does not want to discuss. Once again, there is very little debate about a bill as important as Bill C-60, which will amend 59 laws. Previously, there was very little debate on Bills C-38 and C-45, which amended more than 70 laws.

The same thing happened to a number of bills introduced during the 41st Parliament, or ever since the Conservatives have held a majority. They do not want to take the time to listen to the public's concerns and needs. They disregard them. This is a highly ideological government, which does not listen to the people and has difficulty justifying itself.

We cannot continue this way. We absolutely need a government that listens, that responds to needs, that has a long-term vision and that can promote sustainable economic growth. The goal was not to introduce bills full of ad hoc measures, to turn back time in order to eliminate protections previously put in place or to deregulate industries to the point where the invisible hand of the market reigns supreme.

We have seen the consequences of this kind of thinking, which was at the root of the economic crisis of 2008. We do not want to see that happen again. We want something sustainable. We have no lessons to learn from the present government.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to stand here today and speak to Canada's economic action plan 2013.

I think in the House we can all agree that there are a multitude of elements involved when a person, business or family works towards a common set of goals of success and prosperity. Of course, the individual has a lot to do with the outcomes in terms of the choices we make, our determination and how hard we are willing to work toward the objective.

Admittedly, we share responsibility. The government and all members here share responsibility in helping our citizens achieve those goals. We can provide either stepping stones or barriers. I am very proud to say that our government is providing the stepping stones by putting Canadians and the economy first. It is certainly evident in our latest budget, economic action plan 2013.

Undeniably, a firm base for any healthy economy is a thriving manufacturing and small business environment coupled with job-creating initiatives. Economic action plan 2013 includes our government's plan to make the largest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history, totalling $70 billion over a decade. This investment would help build and repair roads, bridges, subways, rail and more, certainly in communities in Prince Edward—Hastings and across this wonderful country.

There would be a new tax break for new manufacturing machinery and equipment with the accelerated capital cost write-off, which would provide the manufacturing and processing businesses in Ontario alone approximately $560 million in tax relief to grow their companies and create jobs.

Our government has extended and expanded the hiring credit for small businesses for another year, which would see many small businesses in Ontario and across Canada save another $225 million in 2013. I can tell the House that as a small businessman myself with 38 years of experience, in my riding of Prince Edward—Hastings, small businesses are one of the key components of the local economic engine. I can assure the House that this particular initiative would go a long way to helping those businesses grow, prosper and ultimately create more jobs.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 from $750,000 and indexing it going forward. We are indexing it the same way we indexed the gas tax. This would provide small businesses in Ontario approximately an additional $39 million in tax relief to grow their companies and create more jobs.

I live right next to Trenton Air Base, one of the most significant air transport capitals, not only in Canada, but in the world. We are investing almost $1 billion in the strategic aerospace and defence initiative to enhance the competitiveness of Canada's economically important aerospace and defence industry. We have created the aerospace technology demonstration programs, which would support large-scale technology projects with commercial potential in Ontario and across Canada. We have CAE in Montreal, now with simulators around the world.

The northern regions of my riding had a very active forestry industry, which certainly suffered some severe challenges when the economic downturn hit and the housing boom in the States went off. Therefore, I am pleased that we would be providing $92 million to help the forestry sector in Ontario and across Canada to continue to innovate new products and to expand into new markets.

We would provide $920 million to renew the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Since its creation in 2009, FedDev has supported over 340 projects and has played an important role in building a stronger economy in southern Ontario. FedDev has been instrumental in the success of so many projects in Prince Edward—Hastings and across the regions of southern Ontario.

I am very pleased as well to support the eastern Ontario development program, which would be renewed as well. It would continue to promote job creation and business development in all the rural areas of eastern Ontario. As part of the renewal of FedDev, I am very pleased that $200 million would be invested in a new advanced manufacturing fund to help Ontario's manufacturing industry innovate and become much more competitive.

Another ingredient required to maintain economic health is ensuring Canadians get the skills training and the employment-seeking assistance they need. I am fortunate. I have Loyalist College, the brand new skills development centre, which will play a pivotal role in developing skills in my area. Job-seekers know that if they have the right skills and education, they are well on their way to finding a good job. I am proud to say that our government firmly recognizes that, too.

As such, we are providing up to $15,000 per person, in Ontario, with combined federal-provincial-territorial and employer funding to help them get the skills they need for in-demand jobs. That is right; we are helping them to develop the skills for a job that is waiting for them. We know how important education is, especially, in high-demand fields. We will be encouraging students to undertake education in these high-demand fields, including the skilled trades, science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Our government is also investing $70 million to support an additional 5,000 paid internships for recent post-secondary graduates in Ontario and across Canada. These young people are our future. We are helping them along and providing the initiative for them to get a job.

My riding of Prince Edward—Hastings includes a first nations reserve, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte—Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, a very proud and successful local aboriginal group.

I am proud that we are helping first nations students with post-secondary education, by providing $10 million to grant scholarships and bursaries to help them attend a post-secondary education. We realize the importance of engaging first nations youth. They are going to play a tremendous role in our country.

Finally, another very important key to having a robust economy is to limit government's interference in Canadians' wallets.

Winston Churchill once said:

For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

It just does not happen.

Our government gets that, unlike the opposition, unfortunately, the tax-and-spend Liberals and the “speNDP”. There is just no end of spending. The solution is very simple with them. Just spend more, spend more, spend more. Unfortunately, we have to find a balance, and we have done that.

Right from the get-go, our government has been dedicated to freeing up Canadians' paycheques by lowering taxes. In economic action plan 2013, our government eliminated tariffs on important items for families, including baby clothing, sports equipment, skates, hockey sticks, golf clubs, and more.

In fact, our Conservative government has cut taxes over 150 times and is saving the average family over $3,000 a year. That can buy a lot of groceries or clothes for the kids, or even allow families that vacation that they have waited for and that they have deserved for so long.

Our government does not put obstacles in the way of Canadians, obstacles like red tape or increased taxes. Our red tape commission said every time we bring in a regulation, we have to get rid of one. That is common sense.

So, yes, we are providing stepping stones to help Canadians achieve the happy and successful lives they want to have.

I am thankful for the opportunity today to talk on economic action plan 2013. I am proud of the initiatives in it. I have had many extensive pre-budget consultations across our riding, with so many different groups. I know our government worked closely with recommendations from the stakeholders, the businesses, the community leaders, the experts in so many fields, to achieve the best use of taxpayer dollars. We have created a budget that will strengthen our economy and solidify our economic recovery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague opposite would like to suggest that the Conservatives are somehow being generous to first nations when, in fact, there is an alarming 30% funding gap that exists between first nations on reserve and other Canadians whose educations are provided for by the provinces.

So, number one, nothing has been done about that.

Number two, with respect to public funding of post-secondary education, my understanding is the waiting list is so long that people cannot even get on it because there is just not enough funding. My understanding is there are something like 10,000 students waiting on a waiting list in order to get into post-secondary education. Ten million dollars would barely touch that, if at all.

How will the government actually work to create a level playing field between first nations and other members of Canadian society?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question takes me back. I sat on government operations and public accounts when I first came here nine years ago. The situation with regard to first nations aboriginal education was absolutely horrendous. For five to six years after, we spent more and more money and we did not improve the result.

We then formulated a working group to go forward. We said we had to get more bang from the buck, we have to create more jobs and we have to train our first nations people. We have a strategy now in place, and of course it has been agreed upon by the first nations people themselves, who are part of the solution on the advisory council. The dollar is going forward. The member is incorrect. We are spending more on first nations education than we ever have in the history of this country.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friend for his speech, but I could not help but notice that he, like other Conservatives, speaks all the time about the taxes that the government cut, but not a peep on the taxes that the government increased.

The 2013 budget document itself says that the tax increases are bigger than the tax cuts, so there is a net tax increase imposed on Canadians. In budget 2012, what do we see? Tax increases bigger than tax cuts, a net tax increase. This is getting a bit repetitive, but it is the same thing in budget 2011 and the same thing in budget 2010. In all of the last four years, the Conservatives have raised taxes by more than they have cut taxes, thereby imposing net tax hikes on Canadians.

My question is, how can this member possibly say that his is the party of lower taxes, when indeed, over the last four years in each and every year, the Conservatives have increased the net tax load facing Canadians?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, that just is not true. The hon. member should look at the amount of taxation that has been cut across this country. I know him well. I respect him as a person. Regrettably, every now and then his orientation gets him in little challenging moments.

When we look at the overall tax reduction, the transfers that have been increased to provinces, the increased programs that have been put out there, the bottom line is, yes, we have more money coming in, but what if we did not have a growing economy?

The economy has been growing very well. Naturally, it generates more tax. It generates more income tax when people do well, when they make more money and businesses prosper. To suggest there is no reason for taxes to have a receivable that is a gain would mean we would simply have an economy that is going the other way.

Under the Conservative government we have an economy that grows, hence more taxes coming in. That is a simple equation the hon. member could understand.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I join my NDP colleagues in opposing Bill C-60, the Conservatives' latest budget implementation bill.

As has unfortunately become a trend in the House, we once again have an omnibus bill that is smaller than previous ones in terms of pages, but is just as devastating.

Bill C-60 amends nearly 50 Canadian laws and even creates a new one: the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act.

Bill C-60 also proposes a number of complex measures that require extensive study in committee or in the House, particularly with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, but the Conservatives are trying to rush them through after abuse was revealed as a result of their poor management of the program and the excessive flexibility.

It is completely unacceptable that the Conservatives are trying to hide their poor decisions from the Canadian public and prevent members from examining the bill, hence avoiding the oversight that all MPs should be providing, whether they are on the government or opposition side. These parliamentarians were sent here by their constituents to represent them and be their voice in the House. They should be able to carefully examine the budget implementation bill without having the Conservative government impose time restrictions as soon as it can.

Although previous omnibus bills were heavily criticized and thousands of Canadians voiced their disapproval, including many from my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, the Conservatives keep persisting. They are doing everything possible to avoid an extensive study in committee, because they know very well that a close study of their bill would highlight the budget's many flaws and their gross incompetence at managing public finances.

As we already know, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has already suggested limiting the time allotted for studying this bill in committee. The practice in the House, that is, limiting the time allowed for debate, is being reflected in committee. In committee, we find the Conservatives have the same attitude and the same bad faith, as they are still limiting parliamentarians’ opportunities to do their work and represent their constituents properly.

The Conservatives are trying to make Canadians believe that they are the only ones equipped to manage Canada’s economy properly, but if we take a look at their record to date, obviously this makes no sense, and Canadians across the country are well aware of it.

It is not just NDP members or members of the other opposition parties that are making these kinds of comments. Last weekend when I was walking around in my riding, the subject that was brought up most frequently by the constituents I met was the $3.1 billion that mysteriously disappeared under this government’s watch. Frankly, that has shocked and horrified people.

That is why we should be able to take a closer look at the bills this government is introducing, whether they have a direct impact on the economy or not. The Conservatives put on a great show, but if you scratch the surface a little, their façade falls apart quite quickly. The Conservatives do not have the abilities they are bragging about.

Instead of bringing in a budget with concrete measures to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the government is doing exactly the opposite. In fact, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Conservative government’s 2013 budget is more likely to eliminate thousands of jobs, reduce direct program spending and significantly diminish growth in Canada’s gross domestic product.

Canada's economic recovery is already happening more slowly than anticipated. The Minister of Finance even had to revise his predictions, before being quickly chastised by the Prime Minister, who is only thinking about the 2015 election, as though he had blinders on. On reading this budget, it is obvious that the Conservatives are only thinking about the 2015 election and that they forget that the cuts they make now will have a drastic impact on Canadians.

I do not even need to go back to my riding to hear this. I just have to walk around Parliament Hill. Since all parliamentarians use taxis, if you just take a few minutes to talk with the drivers, you quickly realize that the cuts that the Conservatives have been making ever since they came into power are having a major impact.

Taxi drivers already have fewer hours and fewer clients. Their income is lower, as is their chance of contributing to the economy. The same thing is happening in the restaurant business and in all the other small businesses in the national capital region. The situation in Ottawa will be matched in other cities throughout Canada. All those lost jobs mean lower incomes for families, who will have fewer and fewer opportunities to contribute to the economy.

The equation is very simple. This government is already finding it difficult to reduce its spending. Consequently, it will be cutting the delivery of essential services to Canadians. Despite it all, the Conservatives are unable to replenish their coffers because they are giving huge tax credits and all kinds of gifts to their friends in big oil companies, the gas industry and the big banks. Then they end up with deficits. We know that this government has record deficits. This charade that the Conservatives put on every day is absolutely pointless. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of what they are doing.

For the past few weeks, people have been talking about how the 2013 budget will increase Canadians’ tax burden by raising taxes on just about everything that exists, such as safety deposit boxes, baby strollers, bicycles, wigs for people who have cancer, parking at hospitals, and I could go on. The list is so long that I would squander my entire speech listing all the tax hikes in this budget.

I hear such nonsense from the other side of the House. The Conservatives talk about the carbon tax of $20 billion or $21 billion, sometimes $19 billion—we do not really know anymore. Someone in the Prime Minister’s Office must get his numbers mixed up sometimes. We do not have a carbon tax in our platform, but the government is accusing us of wanting to impose it. The measures in this budget are mind-boggling; the government failed to meet the public's expectations. I am almost speechless at its talent for hiding the truth from Canadians by controlling debate in the House, by limiting the time available for study of a bill in committee and by hiding tax measures that would be unacceptable to most Canadians in the countless pages of the budget.

I am frankly overwhelmed by the hypocrisy shown by this government, especially when I read the budget. The NDP cannot but vote against most of the measures put forward, but we must show some good faith: there are a few good things in the budget. Some money has been and will potentially be set aside for the repair of federal infrastructure, such as wharves. I am thinking that the Percé wharf may benefit, as may the wharf in Portneuf, in my riding, which is the longest deep-water wharf in Canada and one that is badly in need of repair. These funds may help my community, if, of course, political issues do not block access to funds that are critically important, both to my region and that of my colleague from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Despite these positive steps, most of the measures in the budget oblige us to vote against it. The Conservatives have the upper hand, saying that the NDP votes against all the measures that the Conservatives put forward, but when they wrap them in such an appalling package, we as the opposition have no choice but to speak up to defend the real priorities of Canadians and do the job for which we were sent to this House.

Let us take a look at all the measures taken by the Conservative government: withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol; crippling our environmental legislation; eliminating protection for thousands of lakes and rivers throughout Canada, several hundred, perhaps even several thousand, of which are in my own riding; increasing the retirement age to 67; and reforming employment insurance. I was talking about a case in my riding where experienced employees were threatened by Service Canada with losing their benefits if they did not give up their current seasonal jobs and take full-time jobs somewhere else. They are trying to hollow out the seasonal industries and shut down entire sectors of our economy.

When these kinds of decisions are made so dogmatically and by keeping people in the dark, it is obvious that Canadians will be better served by the NDP in 2015.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way. She serves on the committee that I chair, where she is a new addition, and we appreciate her being there, although I am troubled by some of the comments she gave in her speech. She used words like “appalling” when she talked about the strategic plan this government has. She used some pretty tough language.

Canada has the best job creation in the G7. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD are projecting that Canada will have the strongest growth of all the industrialized countries over the next number of years. For the eighth straight year, the World Economic Forum has said that Canada's banking system is the most sound and on the firmest foundation around the world. We see many countries where financial institutions in the banking sector are faltering, and it is driving the whole economy into a turmoil with uncertainty.

Canada has a Triple-A rating. Why do you use words such as “appalling” and “no strategy”? This shows that the strategy we have is working.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member, I just remind all hon. members to direct their comments and questions to the Chair, rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his kind comments about the good work I do on the committee. I thank him for welcoming me when I arrived.

To get back to the question, the jobs created by the government—the ones that have really been created, since jobs are also being lost—are precarious and are often part-time jobs. They are not of the same quality of the jobs that existed before, and that is very unfortunate. Obviously, the Conservatives do not really have much of a strategy.

I was just talking about a case in my riding relating to employment insurance. That case is a perfect example of what I am describing. Some sectors of the economy are being undermined to try to replace some Canadians who had a job where their expertise was being put to use. That was very beneficial to the company they were working for.

Today, Service Canada is threatening that these people will lose their benefits if they do not change industries. These are the situations I am describing. It all goes to show that the Conservatives basically do not have a strategy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the current government spends more on political spin than any other government in the history of Canada. It is truly amazing.

The previous questioner asked about Canada's greatest banking industry. We have the greatest banking here in Canada, compared to anywhere else in the world, because of former prime minister Jean Chrétien. The government takes credit for wanting to balance a budget. It is projecting to be able to do that after the next federal election. It was Paul Martin who had the last balanced budget. When it talks about taxes, the current government has had net tax increases for the last four consecutive years.

What I will concede to the Conservatives is their ability to spin. They spend endless tax dollars on spin. Does the member believe that the current government is abusive when it comes to tax dollars and putting political spin on things that are just not true?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

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

In fact, the NDP has been criticizing the Conservatives for a long time for spending millions of dollars on party propaganda. Quite frankly, these advertisements are not providing the public with any new information, apart from the fact that they tell us a little more about the Conservatives' ideology.

The purpose of these advertisements is supposed to be to provide information to the public; however, in practical terms, that is not what the Conservative advertising does. The Conservative ads are pure and simple propaganda. The Conservatives are spending millions of dollars in public money on this advertising when there are crying needs elsewhere, such as in infrastructure. I am thinking of water systems, for example.

In the last budget, the government did not present a single practical measure with regard to the strategy to implement and manage municipal waste water systems. In my riding, 1,400 residents need water lines built. They are unable to cover the cost of this work, and there is nothing in the budget for that.

Rather than spending millions of dollars on propaganda advertising, why not invest it to give municipalities the resources they need to actually meet the needs of their residents?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to put some comments on the record in regard to today's topic. It is important that we all recognize that this is about the future of Canada, the future of young people in our communities, and the opportunity to create the growth and long-term prosperity we all seek for our communities, provinces and country.

It is not easy. Tough decisions have to be made. People have to spend a lot of time making decisions that they know are going to hurt at times, but when looking at the bigger picture, people realize that some of the decisions being made today are being made with the future in mind and the opportunities that it will present.

We have constantly delivered the message to Canadians that we need to continue to work with the economy and look at the economics of our country and how it operates. We have been successful. The world recognizes Canada as one of the strongest economies in the world and suggests that our banking system is strong, committed and firm. Those key elements being in place makes the objective of moving forward and strengthening our communities a challenge but also a way forward so we can get things done.

We continually remain focused on those issues. We want to balance the budget during this Parliament, and the Minister of Finance has taken great steps toward accomplishing that. We also want to create a new opportunity for innovative skills training, the largest and longest federal infrastructure plan in our history, and new investments to support manufacturing and innovation in Canada.

A budget, along with its implementation and looking forward to the future, is like building a house. If there is not a strong foundation, everything built above the foundation will never be stable until the foundation is right. I believe this budget moves us forward on that path. We will create a strong foundation. We have done it in the past. Our jobs record and long predictable funding for infrastructure are indications that the plan is working.

I want to talk about a few issues. I know there is a lot of good news in this package, but there are certain things that are dear to my heart and I suggest are important to the people who I represent in Brandon—Souris.

One of the new programs we brought forward is the Canada job grant. It matches the needs of employers with the training of Canadians and, in turn, creates opportunities for the job seekers and employers to match up. I have had experience in this. In the past, when I sent staff for courses, there was no guarantee they would come back once they were finished. Now I have a stake in it. I am not only the employer, but I am going to put some money forward and help train people to get the skills required for the businesses that need it. It is not going to be decided by what area of a school or community college we can put the funding in just to fill spaces. That is no longer going to happen.

Employers are going to embrace this. They will have huge input into the training that is made available, but they will also have some management control over graduating students, in the sense that the students will have the opportunity to go back to work for them. It is a big step and, as I said, we need participation. It could provide up to $15,000 per person, or even more, and it would ensure that Canadians are acquiring the skills employers are seeking.

The Canadian government would provide up to $5,000, an amount matched by the province and/or territory, and another $5,000 matched by the employer. It would put all funding bodies on the same level, with the same idea of matching skills to the needs.

I had the great pleasure of serving as a municipal councillor many years ago. The gas tax initiative would provide more than $32 billion to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure.

My experience has been that this has been one of the best programs that has been made available to municipalities for infrastructure. Whether they are big, small or in between, they can still benefit and make plans to move forward when they know the funding is committed. It is stable and it would increase every year. That is what municipalities have asked for. That is what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has requested for years. We have done it. It is something of which we can be very proud. They would be indexed at 2% a year, starting in 2014-15, with increases to be applied in $100 million increments. This would allow many communities to move forward with the infrastructure projects they need.

In my area, we have a real boom in the oil industry taking place right now, and the infrastructure is in need of updating, although it is adequate, and new infrastructure needs to be provided as we are seeing communities bursting at the seams with families, students in our schools and people in our health care facilities. Everything is being utilized to the maximum, and we must move forward. This would allow those communities to do that.

I also want to mention the building Canada fund, in which we participated in the last round of funding. There is $14 billion allocated to support major economic projects of national, regional and local significance. We all know the need is there, listening to the speeches today and in the past, particularly in communities. There is a need for fresh water, better infrastructure, sewage and lagoon sites and better infrastructure for our highways, roads and bridges.

It is important that we recognize the significance of national projects. Sometimes we get a little sour that someone in some part of Canada is getting a large amount of money for an infrastructure project and we say “What about me?” However, when we see the benefit that one investment makes to enhance the national scope, we all become more aware of how beneficial it is and how communities are taking advantage of it.

There is also the renewed P3 Canada fund that would provide $1.25 billion to continue to support innovative ways to build infrastructure. I have been part of a provincial government that went into a P3 with a company. We built a bridge. There was a lot of controversy and discussion around it when we went forward with it, but at the end of the day, it has been functioning now for I believe more than 15 years. I have not heard anything other than positive feedback about the fact that it has been done.

We do want to build a stronger economy. We do want to promote job growth. In my discussions with many of the people in the manufacturing industry, one of the comments they make to me is how much they appreciate the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. They can actually go out and buy something today and have the writeoff value in that year or the second year. I can remember, in a private business, we bought equipment and it took us 25 years to write it off. We all know that in 25 years it is obsolete, but it cannot be moved off the books in a timely fashion. The investment is there and Canadians are taking advantage of it.

I know my time is very limited, but I am very proud to support the budget. It is something Canadians have asked of our government. They want us to be responsible, but they also want us to be forward looking. I think we have accomplished that. We have created a balance where we are going to continue to create new jobs. More than 900,000 new jobs have been created since the downturn, and the majority of them have been full-time jobs, not part-time, not government jobs, but in the private sector. That is how we move our country forward. I will be pleased to support the budget when it comes forward for the vote in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada came out with a report just recently, the 2013 Mid-Sized Cities Outlook. It looked particularly at the city of Brandon and said that since 2008 the economy of Brandon has shrunk by 1.6%. It is hardly a thing to brag about, if the economy of Brandon is hurting right now.

The report says that half of Canada's mid-size cities have not recouped the jobs they lost during the recession. These are places like Medicine Hat, Miramichi and Brandon. What is the government going to do to create real jobs and to make the economy grow? It obviously has not been doing it.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague, but I think it is important to recognize that the Government of Manitoba for the last several years has been an NDP government. It has run deficits and debts every year. In fact, this year it imposed another 1% tax on the people of Manitoba because of reckless spending and careless spending. I welcome the opportunity to debate that anywhere in the world. Brandon has a less than 1% unemployment rate. We do not need a lesson from the NDP to tell us how to spend it. The NDP in Manitoba has taken $600 million out of Manitoba taxpayers' pockets in the last two budgets, and I say shame on it.