Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-60. I know you have been in the House a number of times when I had a chance to talk about the border and you will hear more about that. The previous member did mention what was taking place with the Windsor-Detroit corridor, with a new public border crossing being created.

There have been some positive steps that have taken place, which have been supported by all parties in the House for the most part. However, some decisions need to be made for the future. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is exposing the new border crossing to some potential issues.

We all know that there has been a challenge with Matty Moroun, who is the owner of the Ambassador Bridge. He has private American ownership. Basically, there are around 25 international bridges and tunnels between Canada and the United States and only two are held in the private sector, the Ambassador Bridge and the AbitibiBowater Bridge in Fort Francis and International Falls.

Why is this important for the Windsor-Detroit corridor?

For those who do not know, in the riding that I represent there are four crossings that span around two miles which represent approximately 40% of the daily trade to the Untied States. However, with 34 states having Canada as their number one trading partner, this key system of infrastructure has yet to be addressed with the border authority. A border authority would help with the efficiency of our trade. It would allow goods and services to travel more freely and in a better organized fashion.

From the far west, we have the Hazmat Truck Ferry. There is the Ambassador bridge, which takes just over 30% of the daily trade. There is the Detroit-Windsor rail tunnel, which is an aging piece of infrastructure, but hopefully a new one will be coming. However, I am not sure we will have support for that right now from the government. We are waiting to see the decision on that and if the application process will still go forward. Last, we have the Windsor-Detroit tunnel which has mostly vehicles that go through it and some trucks make use of it as well.

The reason I mention this is because the Conservative government is embarking on a public-private partnership for the border. However, the government is not going with the agreement that is normally uses for infrastructure improvements on other bridges and crossings, which is needed to exercise leveraged borrowing through public bonds, such as they do in the U.S. This is one of the ways in which the Americans have gone about their process for twinning infrastructure pieces in the past and look to that for future developments. The Peace Bridge and the Blue Water Bridge are two examples of that. Those areas also have a border authority.

However, we have yet to see the details of the management of our new border crossing, but the public-private partnership the Conservatives are proposing could be fraught with issues, which I have raised. We will have to use a carrot-stick approach and see whether someone from the private sector will bid on it.

It will be a very ambitious project because the bridge will have to span across the Detroit River, yet it has to have enough carriage space underneath to allow transport freighters go through. This is one of the busiest waterways in the world for freighters and private boats. It is very important that the proposal does not touch the Detroit water, that it is a different type of bridge from one that has footings in the water, otherwise the IJC is triggered and it will take much longer.

The reason I bring all that up is, again, the public-private partnership, which is a challenge with regard to our process because it is not vetted. We have gone through this before for our border crossing and I am really concerned that we will need major incentives which would raise the tolls, and the tolls are an additional tax on citizens. There is no doubt about that.

There is a difference between a public and private partnership. Recently, the city of Windsor successfully sued for its portion of the tunnel. We were in a relationship there, but the operator and owner of the tunnel kept it past the 50-year date line that they were supposed to and kept the proceeds as well. When I was on city council, the mayor, Mike Hurst, successfully sued. We found a document showing that the owner had to return the tunnel to the public. However, we found the state of the tunnel in such disrepair that we had to put millions of dollars into it right away just for it to be safe. The private sector had a different model, which was basically to sponge every nickel out of the thing. The result was it did not put the maintenance money into it.

Now successfully operating under the city of Windsor, it provides a revenue stream to the city for infrastructure and other projects and it has been fixed up and repaired.

Interestingly, the private sector on the other side of the border, which owns the lease agreements from the city of Detroit, actually charges more money for crossing than what we charge on the Canadian side. Again, it is going to squeeze everything it can. In fact, it does not even have parity in terms of money, despite the dollar being close to parity with the United States over a number of years. That is one of the issues I want to touch on a bit later.

I will leave it at that for the border, but we are a far way from being done and the public–private partnership that we have is a big exposure because the finances are not allocated right at this time.

As New Democrats, we have been raising questions about the process that has taken place for this budget bill and what has happened. It is important that I lay out a bit about why we believe the process is so broken and it is one of the reasons the Conservatives are going back to fix things that they tried to fix in the last budget bills.

A number of years ago, it was the Paul Martin administration under the Liberals that started to add components of legislation in the budget bill. “Omnibus bills” is what they are specifically known as and they have a number of different things that are travelling with the bill that would normally have an independent process. That is important because this is similar to what the Americans call “riders”, where they attach all kinds of unusual things as they cut deals to try to get the budget passed, so all kinds of pet projects and things will go through.

The issues we are dealing with in this budget bill are very serious. We have the Immigration Act, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, the Investment Canada Act, to say a few, that in the budget bill as opposed to having a full vetting at committees.

The committee systems are important. At a committee we have a number of different individuals who will be invited to come forward, provide their testimony and then from there we get experts and we really hash it out. Sometimes there is actually support for legislation and for changes or we find mistakes in bills that were put forth accidentally. Not all legislation is drafted in a pristine manner and will pass the test of metal, so it requires amendments. Amendments will be made, voted on and then returned here to this chamber. That is the normal process and usually it takes a bit longer, but at the same time it makes for better legislation. Unfortunately, all these different things have been put in front of us.

The committees that the budget bill has gone to have been the finance committee, the industry committee, the citizenship and immigration committee, the human resources and skills development committee, the veterans affairs committee and the foreign affairs and international development committee. Through that process, despite looking at spending billions of dollars, there were 33 amendments by the New Democrats, 8 by the Liberals and zero from the Conservatives. Therefore, what we see is a budget bill that will go through with very little debate and expert review.

I would just make one other point with regard to the finances in the budget. The budget continues on a reckless path of cutting revenues without increasing the access to supports that we need to pay for some of them. This is what I am referring to with regard to corporate tax cuts that continue. We are borrowing money and we will be paying interest on those corporate tax cuts because we do not have a surplus right now. Therefore, we are taking resources out of our system and paying a premium for them at a time when we should not be doing that.

That is how the HST was brought in. I commissioned an independent paper that looked at the HST when we had to borrow $6 billion to do so and if we got back to a surplus and paid it off in 10 years, as an independent paper estimated, we would spend around $8 billion to bring it in. Therefore, when we are going to pay a premium for something, we had better get something of value out of it and I do not think we are.

This budget continues subsidies for the oil and gas industry. It supports tax reductions for banks, insurance companies and others that certainly are making a profit right now.

We need to make better decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the point the member made in reference to the process in committees.

In bringing in time allocation, the government likes to say that it has allocated the bill out to six committees to have thorough debate and discussion. I sit on the citizenship and immigration committee. When the bill came before our committee, the Liberal Party was given a full 10 minutes to deal with the changes that were being implemented in this budget. A full 10 minutes, which means 5 minutes of questioning with 5 minutes of answers. It did not quite work out to 5 and 5, but the point is it is only 10 minutes.

The question I have for the member is in regard to the manner in which the government is pushing through Bill C-60. It is very anti-democratic, as it continues to rely on time allocation and prevents individuals from being able to speak out and giving their concerns and ideas. The member made reference to amendments, which the government does not respond to, whether by allowing for proper time or considering positive changes that are being suggested.

Does the member want to provide comment on that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the immigration committee only heard from the department and not from any witnesses.

This budget bill has a number of serious tax increases and fees on immigration, as well temporary foreign worker issues. This affects our overall economy. Immigration is very important in this country. I come from an area of the country that is the fourth most diverse in terms of population. We have a city of only 200,000 people. We are not the size of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, but we still are the fourth most diverse.

It is important that we actually have those witnesses come forward so that we can see the consequences. If we do not do that, we are not going to have good legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Windsor West on his excellent speech.

Tax cuts for multinationals, in other words, big corporate cuts, have had a measurable impact on workforce succession.

No investments have been made in workforce succession. We have an aging population and an aging workforce in many economic sectors, including the automotive sector. The government has not looked at how important succession planning is. The next generation will make up the workforce for the next 15, 20 and 25 years.

Tax cuts are all well and good. Since 2006, the Conservatives have cut the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Where has that money gone? Into the pockets of CEOs. Some 20 of the richest CEOs in Canada earn nearly $5 million or more a year. That is how large corporations work. Thus, there is no incentive for workforce succession planning.

Since his riding is very industrial and relies on manufacturing, good succession planning is crucial.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the auto sector requires a much more robust developed strategy. We do not have that, not in this budget bill and not as policy. A classic example is other industries affecting manufacturing and the auto industry, and in preparing for the transition of the workplace, where we spend those resources is important.

Let us look at some of these issues, like the oil and gas industry, in terms of its subsidization, and continued subsidization. Not only does it get a tax cut but it has other things, like a flow-through shares subsidy, a Canadian exploration expense that it can claim, a Canadian development expense it can claim, and a Canadian oil and gas property expense it can claim. With the subsidies from the government and its programs for taxes, it actually had a $28.7-billion holiday in 2008 alone.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the important measures our government has taken in introducing budget 2013 and the budget implementation act. It comes as no surprise that we are continuing to focus on the economy. Getting our economy to fire on all cylinders remains our top priority as without continued growth, we cannot get Canadians into the job market and pay for services we expect from government.

I am also pleased to report that our plan is working. Last week, Statistics Canada announced the economy grew by 2.5% in the first quarter of 2013. This represents the strongest quarterly growth in nearly two years. Additionally, Statistics Canada positively revised our economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2012, up from 0.6% to 0.9%. The solid economic growth in the first quarter of 2013 is the seventh straight quarter of positive growth, and is another sign that Canada's economy remains on the right side.

The over 900,000 net new jobs created in Canada since the depth of the global recession, with over 90% full time and nearly 75% private sector, represents the best job growth record in the entire G7.

Saying that, we know there is more work to be done, and there is no greater priority for me right now than helping to position Canada's economy for success over the long term.

Many of the businesses in my neck of the woods in Edmonton have trouble finding skilled workers to fill vacant positions. Every time a job remains unfilled, it means that the businesses are not growing as fast as they could. It is frustrating to know that there are countless vacant positions across the country, and especially in Alberta. They are not being filled, while we have many Canadians looking for jobs.

In fact, CIBC World Markets stated in a report in December 2012 that 30% of businesses are facing a skilled labour shortage. The Construction Sector Council has declared that between 2012 and 2020, the construction sector will need 319,000 new workers. Engineers Canada projects that 95,000 professional engineers will retire by 2020 and the Environmental Careers Organization of Canada says that with 100,000 employees reaching retirement in the next decade, numerous opportunities will open up for students and new graduates in that sector.

In addition to those labour market challenges, our demographics are changing. Our population is aging rapidly and becoming increasingly diverse. There are too many groups and important segments of our populations that are under-represented in the labour force.

In light of this news I was thrilled to hear the Minister of Finance announce the creation of a Canada jobs grant. I truly believe that this would transform the way Canadians seeking to upgrade their education and skills will enter the job market. It is important that we seize upon this opportunity and meet the challenge head on.

Many of us in this House understand the details of the jobs grant, but I think it is worth outlining in some detail what it means for people out there who are looking for work. In the near future, our government would begin negotiations with the provinces and territories to transform labour market agreements to include this very important measure. We would also reach out to employers and other interested stakeholders to ensure the program is designed with the full intent of getting people the qualifications they need to get jobs in high demand fields.

The Canada jobs grant is innovative, as it purposely includes employers to invest in training employees. The jobs grant would require employers to contribute up to $5,000 per person, which would be matched by both the federal and provincial governments. This means the grants could provide up to $15,000 per person. This is an important building block in getting our economy up to full speed.

Having the private sector form partnerships with different levels of government would ensure that we are getting the highest return on investment. It is the employers who will be using these people, so it is only logical that they be involved in the process of training. This process would almost guarantee that people coming out with their new skills will be going into a job.

To sum this up, it means that the job grant would successfully match people with the right skill set to the right jobs. Upon full implementation, it is expected that nearly 130,000 Canadians every year would benefit from the jobs grants. This would have an immediate effect on the economy. I believe that many more people from all walks of life would be able to find meaningful employment in their field.

Another important measure that budget 2013 announced was the funding to reduce barriers to accreditation of apprentices. Particularly in today's day and age, people are mobile and follow jobs across the country.

Just in my own constituency of Edmonton Centre, there are people from every province and territory who have moved there to find that all-important job. Given these factors, we must make it easier for apprentices to work across the country.

I was pleased to see our government take action and to start the important process of working with the provinces and territories to harmonize requirements for apprenticeships, as well as examine the use of practical tests as a method of assessment in targeting skilled trades.

On top of the measures I have already mentioned, budget 2013 announced initiatives to help young people and Canadians with disabilities get into the job market. We would be supporting more internships for recent post-secondary graduates. We would also be investing new money and training for on-reserve income recipients and would be introducing a first nations education act. Collectively, all of these measures would transform the economy while making it easier for Canadians to get a job and for businesses to grow.

The other area I want to talk on is the important tax relief measures our government has introduced since 2006 and continues to implement through the budget implementation act. As I go door-knocking throughout my constituency, hold town halls and engage in regular correspondence, my constituents continue to tell me how our tax relief measures are leaving more money in their pockets. They appreciate how they now have more means to pay for things that matter to them.

Since forming government in 2006, we have provided tax relief to Canadians in over 150 different ways. The average family of four now receives $3,200 in extra tax savings as a result of our initiatives, and that is money in their pockets. I want to highlight some of the more significant tax relief measures that Canadians benefit from.

In 2006, I was pleased to run on a platform that reduced the GST to 5% and exempted the first $10,000 of student scholarship or bursary income from taxation, and introduced a tax credit for up to $500 a year for textbooks. Those are commitments we made and quickly delivered on. We have increased the amount of money people can earn without paying income tax. We introduced the tax-free savings account that has allowed Canadians to earn tax-free investment income, with more than 8.2 million Canadians signing on.

Our government introduced the child tax credit, the children's fitness credit and the children's arts tax credit, which now makes it more affordable for families to keep their children active. We introduced the registered disability savings plan, which helps families save for the long-term financial security of those with a severe disability. We introduced the new family caregiver tax credit and removed the $10,000 limit on eligible expenses that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit.

The list goes on and on.

I cannot stress enough how these measures have helped increase Canadians' quality of life. Even though every Canadian is benefiting from these measures, low-income and middle-income Canadians are receiving the greatest relief. In total, our government has provided almost $160 billion in tax relief over a six-year period.

We have taken more than one million low-income Canadians off the tax rolls, and now the federal tax burden is the lowest it has been in 50 years.

There is more work to do.

That is why in this budget implementation act, we would be providing tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers deployed on international missions. To better meet the health care needs of Canadians, we would be expanding the GST exemption for publicly funded homemaker services to include personal care services. We would be introducing a new temporary first-time donor's super credit to encourage young Canadians to donate to charity. We would be enhancing the adoption expense tax credit to better recognize costs unique to adoption.

These are just a few of the measures found in the budget implementation act that would assist Canadians and continue to lower their tax burden. As I continue to meet with constituents and businesses over the summer, I am looking forward to hearing their thoughts on how to further provide tax relief and better grow our economy and their prosperity. As members of Parliament, we must continue to work together to pass important legislation such as the budget implementation act that will build a stronger economy as we continue to face a challenging economic environment.

Canadians sent us here to get things done. I strongly believe that measures such as the new Canada job grant, our initiatives to get more people into the workforce, and the plethora of tax relief benefits will help our economy grow and greatly assist the people we serve.

I encourage all members of the House to vote for this legislation and to work together for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech.

At the end of his speech, he said that he was looking forward to speaking with his constituents this summer. We are all looking forward to getting back to our ridings to see what our constituents think of the work we are doing in the House.

I was able to do some of that this spring when the budget was introduced. I showed it to my constituents to see what they thought about it. We received a lot of feedback from people in the riding of Alfred-Pellan, people from Duvernay, Saint-François, Auteuil, Vimont and other communities. Residents of Laval decided to get involved and tell us what they like and do not like about this budget.

A number of points were raised about this budget. For one, there is the fact that the President of the Treasury Board will have more authority to interfere in collective agreements.

I am wondering what my colleague opposite thinks about the fact that the government is directly attacking workers by, among other things, eliminating the labour-sponsored funds tax credit and giving the President of the Treasury Board more powers?

What does he think?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to her supposed issue about the President of the Treasury Board, the simple fact is that we have a lot of crown corporations in this country—VIA Rail, CBC, Canada Post, and the list goes on—that are independent and at arm's length, but they operate with taxpayer dollars. We are responsible for ensuring that those taxpayer dollars are spent properly. There is a requirement for us to have some oversight and some insight into what is going on with those agreements so that one does not get totally out of whack with the other.

It is simply being responsible. It is simply ensuring that the taxpayer dollars that go to all those crown corporations are expended properly.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate, the member for Laval mentioned the NDP approach to balancing the budget, which did not include tax cuts. I can only assume that it is code for increasing taxes to do that.

The hon. member talked a lot about how important cutting taxes for Canadian families and businesses was, and has been, to the economic growth we have seen in this country. I wonder if he might expand a bit on his thoughts with respect to dramatic increases in taxes on Canadians, how that might impact our job growth going forward and how that would impact Canadian families.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have made a habit, a good habit, of reducing taxes for Canadians individually, reducing corporate taxes, and reducing taxes on small businesses, and that has done nothing but create jobs and put money in people's pockets.

I do not want to ascribe motives, but when the NDP members talk about the dangers of reducing taxes, I would say, frankly, that it is exactly the opposite. I would not want to be around if they ever got the chance, and God forbid if they do, to reverse a lot of the tax measures we have brought in that have benefited Canadian families and have benefited Canadian businesses to the point that those businesses can hire more Canadians so that we can put more money back into the pockets of Canadian families.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, precisely because of what just happened. Another hon. member said that I spoke about cutting taxes. However, what I said—and this is my question for the hon. member—is that when the government makes a plan, it should also plan its implementation. That requires management skills, and those need to be proven. So far, the Conservatives have not done their homework. They have totally missed the mark, and that is why they have a deficit.

How can the Conservatives fix the situation now?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that Canada is 2.5% of the world economy. When the rest of the world is sinking, we are going to be down with it.

The simple fact is that in relative terms, we are much better off than just about all the rest of the world. It is because of the economic policies this government has followed. It is because of the strong banking system. It is because of a combination of things.

The proof in the pudding is, again, seven quarters in a row of economic growth. It was 2.5% in the last quarter, which is the strongest quarterly growth in the last two years. Economic growth in the last quarter is up from .6% to .9%. I think we are exactly on the right track.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Once again, the Conservatives did not allow a single amendment to their bill in committee. Now we are at report stage in the House, and the bill is deeply flawed. Nevertheless, it will be passed as is if the Liberal Party's amendments at report stage are rejected. Even though the Conservatives are not listening, I would like to use my time to explain how this bill will affect Quebec's economy.

All Quebeckers—except for the Conservative MPs, who are loath to lift a finger for Quebec—are scandalized by the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. Driven by their ideology, the Conservatives have decided to gradually eliminate the tax credit for contributions to labour-sponsored funds because they want to hurt unions. The credit will drop from 15% to 10% on March 1, 2015, then from 10% to 5% on March 1, 2016, and it will be eliminated altogether on March 1, 2017.

The Conservatives used a June 2012 study by the OECD to justify this attack on unions. The study recommended eliminating the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds because they offered lower returns than private funds. The study, however, was based on analyses from the early 2000s, and it is a poor reflection of Quebec's reality, which is much different from the rest of Canada's.

Quebeckers are dismayed at this change. The Conservatives might be surprised to hear that it is not the unions crying foul at the government's decision; it is chambers of commerce across the province. They are all united in sounding the alarm. A brief look at the statistics shows why.

This tax credit affects Quebec directly because take-up in our province is 85%. These very popular funds are a huge help to small and medium-sized businesses. They are a staple of Quebec's economy and retirement savings. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, labour-sponsored funds have helped create or maintain over 35,000 jobs.

Venture capital is plentiful in Quebec. According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, if we look at the province's venture capital-to-GDP ratio, Quebec ranks third among OECD member countries and is well above the Canadian average. Having access to venture capital is vital to the start-up of many companies. Given that there is generally less entrepreneurship in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we have to understand that putting another obstacle in the way of starting up businesses could be devastating to Quebec's economy.

Labour-sponsored funds generally make long-term investments in businesses. This allows entrepreneurs to start up a company and keep it going until it turns a profit, which can take a number of years. These funds generally also invest in smaller-scale projects than private funds, which makes it possible to help businesses that would not otherwise obtain any funding.

We know that these funds complement private funds rather than compete against them. Together, they allow Quebec to have a competitive economy and, above all, to be one of the most creative places in the world.

I have to speak out against the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds and also the phasing-out of funding for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions.

Last year, the government said that cuts to the organization's operating budget would result in reductions in administrative costs, but not transfers. However, transfers to businesses will be at their lowest level since the law was enacted to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec in 2005.

For example, in 2005, $286 million was paid out in transfers. In 2010-11, $424 million was paid out. The Conservatives plan to pay out only $212 million in 2013-14.

Taking inflation into account, we quickly realize that the Conservatives are also looking to gradually eliminate the agency. As I previously asked here in the House, will the Conservatives stand up and tell us clearly what they intend to do with Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions? Are they planning on abolishing it, as they are doing with the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds? Many Quebec businesses need this government assistance. What is the Conservative plan? Why do most of their cuts directly target Quebec?

Another serious problem with this bill is that it calls into question the autonomy of crown corporations, including CBC/Radio-Canada, Canada Post and VIA Rail. Everyone knows that the Conservatives like to control everything and they never hesitate to extend the scope of this control. Many Canadians are justifiably concerned about this government's lack of transparency.

In my case, since this bill was introduced I have received five times more correspondence on this issue than on any others.

The government now wants to interfere in the collective bargaining process. It is talking about reducing the compensation of crown corporation employees, including their pensions.

I do not understand why Conservatives have such a rigid ideology. With this budget, they are taking advantage of their majority position to impose their vision on Canadians. This budget is openly hostile to workers, including employees of crown corporations.

Another major concern about this bill is that it does not do enough to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to youth unemployment. We all know that young people have been hit hard by the economic crisis. Today, their unemployment rate is 5% higher than before the economic crisis. It is very disconcerting. As we speak, young people have just finished or are finishing up their semester. They racked up debt all year long in order to pay for tuition, housing, food and other things. However, they will have a hard time finding a summer job. For them, the summer is the only time when they can put a bit of money in their pockets.

If they do not get a job this summer, some young people will have to drop out of school temporarily or permanently only to, quite often, end up working for minimum wage. Many will not be able to resume their studies because they will not have the money to pay for another year of school. Those who pursue their studies anyway will have to tighten their belts, which will have an adverse economic impact. They will consume less this summer, which will decrease revenues for a number of businesses.

I am asking my Conservative colleagues: where are the measures for boosting youth employment? Where is the government's vision for young people? There is nothing for them in this budget, just bad news for their future.

I could go on and on about many other aspects of the budget that concern me. I raised a number of points at second reading. I raised more today, and I will raise even more at third reading.

Although there are some points I agree with, there are many I do not agree with. I am particularly concerned about the tax hikes, but I will not have time to talk about that issue.

In general, this bill and the government's economic action plan are tainted with a narrow ideology that does not support workers' rights. This ideology would have them control everything, even when the Supreme Court tells the government it cannot do something, as was the case with the securities commission.

This budget is not designed to stimulate the economy. Instead, it is designed to transform Canada into the Conservatives' vision for Canada. This is not a budget for Canadians. It is a budget for the Conservatives.

We will vote for Canadians and we will vote against this budget.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. I know that the hon. member is from Quebec. He spent a lot of time talking specifically about Quebec. I am wondering if that is the start of a trend we are hearing from the Liberal Party. It is speaking about Quebec and somehow separating it from the rest of Canada, thereby pitting one region against the other. Is that something it will continue to do?

Because the member comes from Quebec, I wonder if he might also elaborate a bit on the attitude of Quebeckers with respect to reducing taxes for families and businesses. Do they feel as we do in the rest of our ridings and my riding that it helps actual job creation? At committee, we heard from an industry that is very important to the province of Quebec, the video gaming industry, about how important the tax cuts were to stimulating the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in that industry.

I am wondering if tax cuts are important to the people of Quebec. Are they helping to invest in and create jobs in this economy? Will we continue to see this pitting of one region of the country against another by the Liberals?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a lot of questions, and I will try to address as many of them as I can.

My focus was mainly on a pro-Conservative movement. We have la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain. My speech was based on that.

The Conservatives seem to think that they have everybody on board. I am talking specifically about Quebec because I happen to be a Quebec member. It has nothing to do with pitting one region against the other. The member should read some of my declarations. I tabled a private member's bill that proposed to provide tax incentives to Canadians to travel across this country so they can get to know one another, and all of the Conservatives voted against it. Most Conservatives, not just the member across the way, could learn a lesson or two about how Canadians can learn about each other.

Most of my notes that referenced the cuts to le fonds des travailleurs are in a paper published by the Montreal chamber of commerce, which is a pro-Conservative movement. It said that it is a totally bad idea when 85% of the funds that are utilized by the Fonds du solidarité come from the province of Quebec.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Liberal Party colleague.

It is clear that the Conservatives are going after investment funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ. They are also going after this country's caisses populaires. We do not understand how the Conservatives can go after financial institutions that play an important role in the return to prosperity we all want, in light of the disastrous few years we have experienced under the Conservatives.

What does my colleague think about these attacks on the institutions that promote investment, such as caisses populaires and investment funds? Why does he think the Conservatives are attacking these institutions that are so important to the Canadian economy?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, British Columbia, whose French is excellent and whose question was even better.

I addressed two or three subjects in my speech. One of them was the cuts to the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. I wanted to point this out because it appeared in a report indicating that all the chambers of commerce opposed those cuts, even though most of them support the Conservatives. Thus, we do not understand why they want to cut a program supported by Conservatives, except the Conservatives who sit in the House. It is completely unacceptable.

As for the change to tax credits for credit unions, that is also unacceptable, because we see the growth across the country. Credit unions have always been very popular in Quebec, and this has always been good for attracting investment and money from individuals. Once again, it is completely unacceptable.

I do not know if we can say that this bill is bad for all Canadians, but it is certainly bad for Quebeckers.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage, the government bill that would implement the legislative aspects of the government's budgetary plan.

What I have been hearing from the constituents in Wellington—Halton Hills, the riding I represent, is that their number one priority remains economic growth and job creation.

I have talked to hundreds of constituents over the last six months or so on my drives back to the riding, and called them and asked them what their priorities are, over the last half year. Consistently, they have said that they want to see the government remain focused on economic issues, that they are still concerned about job creation and economic growth. I am happy to say that this budget would deliver on those concerns.

I think it is useful to take a step back from the immediate events that have taken place in the last year and take a bit of a broader perspective on the budget.

Since September 2008, the world has changed. It is clear that the global recession that hit us is still with us in many respects. Even though the contraction of economic growth is there globally, many of the aftereffects of that recession that took place in the aftermath of September 2008, in the summer of 2009, are still with us today. Canada has weathered those after-effects better than most other advanced economies in the world. I think it is useful to take a look at what happened over the last five or six years, to put things into perspective.

In 2009, the IMF said it would be the first time since the 1930s that the global economy would actually contract. South of the border, in the United States, we saw a housing market that underwent a severe correction, affecting many homeowners.

In Europe, we saw the crisis that is still unfolding, a eurozone crisis of skyrocketing unemployment. In fact, I think the most recent figures for the eurozone show eurozone unemployment reaching a new high of about 12%. We have unemployment in Spain hitting 25%. Youth unemployment is almost double that level. We had a sovereign debt crisis about a year ago in Greece that almost led to a solvency problem. We have had ongoing austerity measures, deep austerity measures, that have taken place in the rest of the eurozone.

However, we in Canada have managed to escape the worst of some of those aftereffects. I think it is because the government, in late 2008 and early 2009, realized that we had to do things differently. We came forward with an economic action plan. This budget would build upon those economic action plans of the last five or six years.

I think the proof is in the evidence. The proof is in the empirical data. The fact is that since the recession, the global recession and the recession here in Canada, ended in the summer of 2009, more than 950,000 net new jobs have been created. Contrary to many people's misperceptions, most of those jobs have been full-time, 90% of them, and most of those full-time jobs have been good, highly skilled and highly paid jobs.

Do not take it just from me. Take it from the IMF and the OECD, which have said that this year Canada will lead the G7 in economic growth. In fact, the World Economic Forum has rated Canada's banks as the soundest in the world for the last four or five years.

Clearly, our plan has been working. It is has been working, in part, because of the government's actions through its budgets of the last four years or five years. It has worked, in part, because of actions taken by Canadians and the Canadian private sector.

I think it would also be useful to take a step back and take a look at this budget as one would review a set of financial statements. There has been a lot of talk about our deficits, about our debt to GDP ratios, about the government's taxation policy.

However, if we break down the budget, the government's budget, the government's financial position is a set of three financial statements. Look at the cash flow, look at the balance sheet and look at the profit and loss statement. I think there again we can say that Canada is in an excellent position.

In terms of our cash flow, clearly, we have no problems in servicing the national debt we have. In fact, I just checked on the quotes today. The Canada 10-year bond is trading at just above 2% yield. That yield is at almost a record low level. Never in the last 40 or 50 years have we seen the Canada 10-year bond trade at such a low yield.

Why is that? It is because investors want to buy Canada bonds. They have faith and confidence in the financial plan of the government, and there is high demand for these bonds, which indicates a great deal of investor confidence and investor faith in the government's financial plan.

The fact that all the major rating agencies have once again reaffirmed the Canada bond Triple-A rating is also proof that, from a cash flow perspective, we have nothing to worry about.

From a balance sheet perspective, our debt to GDP ratio is currently about 33%. If we look back at the history of our debt to GDP ratio, it has not been this low since the mid-1960s. In the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s our debt to GDP was at or below 33%, and we would have to go back much further, back to the first 20 years of the 20th century to see Canada's debt to GDP ratio at that level.

If we take our debt interest to GDP ratio, there again it has not been this low since the early part of the 20th century, so from a balance sheet perspective, we are also in great shape.

If we look at the government's budgetary plan as a profit and loss statement, this year's deficit is projected to be $19 billion. That represents 1.2% of our GDP, the lowest in the G7. There again, it is an excellent figure.

As we have committed many times, we will eliminate this deficit by 2015-16. In fact, in the fiscal year 2015-16, we project a slight budgetary surplus, and we have done this despite the fact that over the last six years since coming to power, the government has significantly reduced personal and corporate income taxation in this country, and we have committed to balancing this budget without raising corporate or personal income taxes.

From a cash flow perspective, from a balance sheet perspective, from a profit and loss perspective, the government's budgetary plan is working and it is prudent.

I would also like to highlight specific measures in the budget. We have the Canada jobs grant, which would be built on the expiry of the labour market agreements that have been negotiated with the provinces and are to expire next year, in 2014.

Clearly, when we look at the macro unemployment picture in this country, we see we have regions of significantly higher unemployment and regions of significantly lower unemployment—in fact, one would argue, naturally zero unemployment in some parts of the country—and we need to better match labour market demand with unemployed Canadians who are looking for work. The Canada jobs grant is precisely the plan that would help us match employers with Canadians who want to work.

Another significant aspect of this budget that I want to highlight is the record-setting investments that the government would make over the next 10 years in infrastructure. In fact, total federal outlays for infrastructure, beginning in 2014-15, would be $70 billion over that 10-year period. That is a record amount of infrastructure money that this government would commit to, which would flow to municipalities and provinces, to help build the infrastructure requirements of tomorrow.

Finally, I want to highlight the fact that we are also very focused on job creation and economic growth, especially for Canada's small to medium-sized businesses. That is why we would extend the hiring credit for small businesses. That is why we would create a fund of $60 million over the next five years to help incubator and accelerator organizations, and that is why also we would create an advanced manufacturing fund to help manufacturers in southern Ontario who have borne the brunt of the recession.

In sum, this is a good budget, a budget I support. I encourage other members in the House to acknowledge some of the good aspects of the budget. I do not expect them to support it, being in opposition, but I do think that some of the good work the government has done over the last number of years that would be carried on in this current budget needs to be acknowledged. It has put Canada in an enviable position in the G7 and in the OECD, and I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to acknowledge that good work and commend the government for it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his overview. He had some good points underlining where we stand on the balance sheet, but I have some problems with some of the assumptions he made in his comments. He made it sound as if we are doing well and have done well through the 2008 period because of the government's policies.

In fact, it was in spite of many of the people who sit on the front bench, not because of them, that we are doing well. He should remember well when there was a push to merge banks, to deregulate. We would have seen the disaster we have seen south of the border to some extent if that had happened, and we withstood the 2008 storm primarily because our banks were capitalized and we did not deregulate and allow these kinds of financial products to come about. I think he should acknowledge that.

He should also acknowledge that there is almost half a trillion dollars not being invested, which was Mr. Carney's point, of course. Where is the plan to get money moving and invest to create jobs, and would he not acknowledge the point I made about the push to merge and deregulate?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in hindsight, I agree with the member opposite that for the government of the day to ensure that the widely held rule remained in place to prevent any single shareholder from taking over a bank or potentially merging two banks into one was the right thing to do. It has helped us avoid the worst of the excesses of some of the large global financial institutions that we saw south of the border, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, so I think that the maintenance of the widely held rule is a good thing to keep in place and something that I strongly support.

With respect to the member's question about the surplus corporate cash remaining on the sidelines, the most powerful tool that we have right now to encourage Canadian and foreign corporations resident in Canada to deploy their money in the markets is what the U.S. fed is doing. Ben Bernanke and the U.S. fed have deployed quantitative easing. That far and away overshadows anything that this government could do in cajoling and encouraging private sector companies to deploy their cash and put it into productive economic growth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments acknowledging that it was the Chrétien government that ensured that we did not move toward a deregulation of the banking industry and that as a direct result, 10 years later, we were able to manage our banking industry as banks around the world started to default.

The question I have for the member is with respect to infrastructure dollars. The member said that we have record high amounts of infrastructure dollars that are going to be spent or committed by the government. What I take exception to is his describing it as a record amount of money. We are talking about a 10-year period of time. The vast majority of that record amount is being allocated post-2015 election.

My question to the member is this: why should Canadians believe the government to be sincere when most of that infrastructure dollar spending would occur after the next federal election?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that Mr. Chrétien was opposed to the bank mergers but Mr. Martin was very much in favour of them. I heard that through people who were very directly related to that situation, so clearly there was a vigorous debate within the government of the day about what was to be done. In fact, those were probably the cues taken to the senior bank executives when they announced in Toronto that they would merge. They probably got signals from Finance Canada at the time, which was then headed up by finance minister Paul Martin, that it was okay to merge. However, clearly someone higher up in the government, the prime minister, had different ideas, and that is why those mergers were not allowed to proceed.

With respect to the government's 10-year plan for infrastructure, we can bank on the fact that the government has delivered a record-setting amount of infrastructure funding over the last five years. We can bank on the government's past actions as a predictor of its future intention with respect to this 10-year plan that starts in 2014.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, who are going to be holding the government's feet to the fire tonight on what the Conservatives call an economic action plan. It was supposed to be a budget; many people said after it was announced by the finance minister that they were still waiting for the budget.

I want to begin my comments by referring to some of the problems with the budget from 2012.

I will go back to November 2012, when there was this interesting interplay between the President of the Treasury Board and the PBO. The government had laid out the idea that it was going to find 70% of the savings it had booked by finding efficiencies in government. That was fine. The only problem was it did not provide the evidence, and we all know what happened after that: the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to take the government to court.

I have started my comments by providing this background because if the government is going to put assumptions into the budget that have to do with savings and it is going to show Canadians that they can trust it, then it should be able to show parliamentarians, and indeed the Parliamentary Budget Officer, where it is going to find those savings. It should not make general sweeping comments.

This is not new, though. I remember having the same problem three budgets ago. Three budgets ago, the government was talking about selling off capital assets and finding savings to meet its budgetary requirements. In fact, it was not able to do that.

The problem was that the government had not identified where it was going to sell off those assets. It just had some general ideas.

This is a continuing problem with the Conservatives. Over time, when they make assumptions that they are going to find savings but do not identify where the savings are, it catches up to them. We saw that with the government's forecasts for deficits and growth, but most importantly in the budgetary numbers, which is what we are discussing.

When the budget came forward—or the economic action plan, as Conservatives call it—we did not get details. In fact, some commented that the only important parts of the economic action plan were the first four pages and the final pages, and everything in between was fluff and propaganda.

Those are not my words, but I agree with them. The government is trying to fool people by putting out announcements and pronouncements, to the point where we do not even call it a budget any more.

I suppose there is some truth in advertising, because it is not a budget as we normally understand a budget to be. Normally a budget will lay out financial aspirations and give some evidence of where the savings are going to be found and what programs are going to be invested in.

One example that has really irritated a lot of people in my riding and across the country, particularly young people, is the Canada job grant. If we were to watch our televisions tonight and see the government's ad, we would think that right now there is a program for young people called the Canada jobs grant. In fact, we would be very disappointed if we picked up the phone the next day and tried to contact someone to avail ourselves of this program, because it turns out that this program that the government has made a lot of fanfare announcing does not exist. It is predicated on agreements that have not happened yet. We have a government now that has to get agreement from the provinces, which is no small task, and then the rollout may happen.

With regard to youth unemployment, right now the government is telling young people to just trust it because it has a program for them. If they pick up the phone to try to get help, there is no one on the other end. That is indicative of this budget. What we get is a lot of hack.

The government's credibility is suffering not just because of what we have seen in the last couple of weeks with the scandals in the other place but also in its actual currency in being able to tell Canadians exactly where it is going to find savings and exactly what programs will exist for young people.

On top of that, as if advertising programs with great fanfare and making people believe they actually exist was not bad enough, there are other pieces of legislation—because that is what the government does—that should not be in the budget at all, in particular the amalgamation of CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Bringing CIDA under the umbrella of foreign affairs is a very important exercise. At committee we asked officials when they found about this merger. They were told basically the day of the budget. We asked who was consulted on this merger. It turns out it was not really anyone. It looks like the Conservatives had a conversation among themselves.

I say that because when other jurisdictions have done this—the U.K., the U.S.—they took the time to consult within government to start with. It turns out that if public servants have been working on international development and foreign affairs for most of their careers, one would think they would be good sources for consulting on the changes we are about to see with CIDA. One would think we would consult Canadians on this issue, even those who work in international development and diplomacy.

However, that is not the case with the current government, because it does not consult. What is really offensive and undermines the opportunity to see this done well is that it was put into a budget bill. A budget bill is the forecast of what we should be looking at in terms of economic activity and investment, but Conservatives put the merger of departments into a budget bill. Why? It is because they have done it before and they think that is the way to do business.

If this were even contemplated in the U.K. or the U.S., it would be laughed at. Officials had better go to either the White House, the Pentagon, et cetera, or in the case of the U.K. to cabinet, with a plan. In the case of the U.K., when the merger occurred, there was actually a white paper on it. People were consulted. It was in the platform of the government of the day.

In the case of the United States, people consulted widely. Ms. Clinton, as Secretary of State, went out and put together different groups that did the work speedily until the job was done. However, with the Conservative government, people find out the day of the budget, with no consultations.

Now we are hearing that a transition team is in place, but officials on the transition team have to wait for a budget to be passed. They then have to scratch their heads and wait for the minister to give direction. By the way, the people they work with are wondering how this is going work, but the officials cannot tell them. Why? It is because Conservatives did not bother to even consult.

With regard to CIDA, people are concerned about the money that CIDA will bring to the table and where it is going to go. They are worried about the mandate, because in this legislation they do not have the language that most people would like to see, the language in the official development assistance legislation that focuses on the reduction of poverty or poverty eradication. Instead the mandate is to follow Canadian values.

I am not sure Canadians feel a lot of comfort when they see the way the government interprets Canadian values. According to the Minister of Foreign Affairs today, our Canadian values mean not signing on to the arms trade treaty because somehow there is a conspiracy that the whole world is involved in to bring in gun control that the Conservatives do not like.

Canadian values are in the eye of the beholder. What we need is legislation that will guide international development assistance, but what we see with this economic propaganda plan of the government is that it does not meet the test on numbers. We are still waiting for the government to tell us how it is going to make its savings from the previous budget, which we do not have, and I am sure every Conservative knows that. We are now waiting for the government to tell us how we go forward with that problem. We do not have numbers from the previous budget in going forward to 2013. As well, we have pieces of legislation such as the merger of CIDA into foreign affairs as an add-on, without contemplation, without consultation, without a plan.

I have just started. I started with the fact that it seems to be a shell game, a Fantasia for young people. At the end of the day, what we have is not a budget. It is not credible, and that is why we will not be supporting it.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might comment a bit further. The NDP member for Laval earlier said that he thought a number of the items in Canada's economic action plans were actually very good ideas and were needed in the economy at the time. I wonder if there is a bit of disagreement within the NDP with respect to the value of the economic action plans.

Also, I wonder if he might comment on specifics, because again, the member for Laval said that the NDP's position would be to balance the budget without making cuts. However, I have not heard any specifics on how it would do that. Are the New Democrats specifically talking about increasing taxes to do that? Where would they be increasing taxes? If they are talking about cutting programs, what specific programs are they talking about cutting? What income levels could Canadians expect tax increases on? Are they talking also about increasing the GST, or will it just be a carbon tax? Could he focus his points on whether they are talking about tax increases, and if they have identified those programs they are going to cut, what are they?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is having some fun thinking of ways to try to be crafty and find a wedge. The problem is that the member knows that the most recent tax we have had to deal with in the House is called the HST. Some called it the Prime Minister's name sales tax. I do not. This government brought that in. The only taxes we will talk about that have been raised have been from the government. He knows that they are raising taxes in this budget and that he is trying to find a wedge somehow.

What we have said, and we will stand by it, is that when people such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer want to have numbers to show how one might balance the budget, we would, as a government, provide those numbers, not hide from accountability, as he has.