Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

We could list a host of things that could be cut. I could spend all evening doing that, but that is not the purpose of our debate right now. We are debating the bill before us.

My colleague from Burnaby said that we would abolish the Senate. We might also mention that we would stop fighting against the fundamental rights of aboriginal peoples, a fight that costs us roughly $300 million a year. That is another example. There are many similar things that we could point to. However, that is not the purpose of this debate, which is on the budget before us and the changes that this omnibus bill makes to many laws.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch gears for a second and ask the member a question about something that is very foundational for our future, which is science and technology, but particularly science.

I just want to remind viewers and Canadians who are watching what has gone on in past budgets and what is going on in this budget. Here is what has been eliminated by the Conservative government in the last several years.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is gone. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which funds research, is barely surviving. The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has been eliminated. It has cut 700 positions at Environment Canada. The partnership with the United Nations Global Environment Monitoring System has been eliminated. The desertification convention research, which we are facing here in Canada and for which we need research, has been eliminated. The office of the science advisor has been eliminated. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory has been eliminated. The Experimental Lakes Area was eliminated until it was saved by the Ontario government.

Now we learn this week that between 500 and 600 jobs in our agricultural research stations across the country are being phased out. This is at a time when the government says that it is going to reorient 30% of our international aid to focus on agricultural opportunities in developing countries. It just does not square.

Can the member help us try to understand why a government would compromise a nation-state's future by undermining all of its foundational science?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have been witnessing over the past couple of years is the dismantling of the very foundations of our country, whether it is from an economic perspective, environmental perspective, human rights perspective or so on and so forth.

Yes, we are dismantling the Canada that I used to know. It is rapidly disappearing. I come from a riding that has all of these challenges before me, whether they are environmental challenges, climate change, the future of aboriginal peoples, resource development or water rights and so on. These are all challenges in my riding and I do care about them.

We need to do things right this time. That is not happening right now.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to speak on Bill C-60.

Throughout the past several weeks I have been able to travel throughout my riding of Kootenay—Columbia and discuss economic action plan 2013. Municipal and regional governments have endorsed this budget because it identifies their needs, which are to ensure that ongoing funding is provided for infrastructure that is very important to every community from coast to coast to coast.

The community improvement fund would provide funding in the amount of $32.2 billion over the next 10 years through the new building Canada plan and, most importantly, it would give greater flexibility to a broad range of infrastructure priorities, which would include highways, local and regional airports, short line rail, short sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband and connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, sport and recreation. Coupled with the new building Canada fund and P3 Canada, this funding would represent the largest and longest federal investment in job creation infrastructure in Canadian history.

Having been the mayor of Sparwood, British Columbia, for six years, I appreciate the input that the federal government can provide, but I also understand that the municipalities must do their part to ensure their communities remain vibrant.

I listened with interest this weekend to some of the comments from FCM, where some mayors said that money was not enough. Some called for national strategies. Politicians from all levels of government are great at studying things, but it is at the municipal level where the rubber hits the road. Therefore, I would suggest that communities across Canada have shovel-ready projects in which they will have full participation and quit speculating on what we can do for them.

Kootenay—Columbia is a rural riding that has some of the highest tourism visits in all of Canada due to the splendour of the Rocky Mountains, national parks, skiing and golf opportunities. I am proud of all the amenities that provide for a great visitor experience, but with that there is a great strain on affordable housing. With $1.9 billion over five years to create affordable housing, this is great news for towns like Fernie, Kimberley, Golden, Invermere and Revelstoke. Those who work in the service industry have historically been at the lower end of the pay scale and depend on housing that is reasonably priced. Through this funding, our government will assist the communities that need to sustain housing that is affordable.

The Canada job grant would provide $15,000 or more per person in combined federal, provincial and employer funding. It is something that would benefit any person who is considering a career in the trades. This must be a combined effort by everyone affected by this shortage. A number of companies in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia, including Teck Resources, Canfor and Louisiana-Pacific, welcome this news. Companies from across Canada are in dire need of skilled workers due to an aging workforce and an increased natural resource extraction sector. Our government is doing our part to help in this regard. The provinces recognize their role and, most importantly, industry members knows that they must come to the table. Otherwise, it will deter their ability to grow.

One of the biggest challenges that companies have is the shortage in tradespeople. A significant number of people are pulled away from one company to another via signing bonuses and other financial incentives. The only way for this to stop is by training as many people as we can to ensure companies can keep up with the demand.

In budget 2013, our Conservative government said that we would fix the temporary foreign worker program. Just over one month after release of that budget, our government introduced legislative, regulatory and administrative changes that would, effective immediately, require employers to pay temporary foreign workers at the prevailing wage by removing the existing wage flexibility, temporarily suspend the accelerated labour market opinion process, and increase the government's authority to suspend and revoke work permits and labour market opinions if the program were being misused.

It would add questions to employer LMO applications to ensure that the temporary foreign worker program is not used to facilitate the outsourcing of Canadian jobs. It would ensure employers who rely upon temporary foreign workers have a firm plan in place to transition to a Canadian worker. It would introduce fees from employers for the processing of labour market opinions and increase the fees for work permits so that taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the costs. It would restrict English and French as the only languages that could be identified as a job requirement.

The results of these changes would strengthen and improve the foreign worker program, support our economic recovery and growth, and ensure that employers make greater efforts to hire Canadians before hiring temporary foreign workers. These reforms would ensure that the temporary foreign worker program, which is an important program to deal with acute skills shortages on a temporary basis, is used only as a last resort.

I am very pleased to see that $9 million is proposed for the first nations land management regime to provide additional first nations with the opportunity to enact their own laws for development, conservation, use and possession of reserve lands. This would add 33 first nations to the regime, including the 8 announced earlier this year. Two of those first nations are in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. The St. Mary's Band and the Akisqnuk Band were recent uptakes to FNLM. Both of these bands are very progressive and are moving forward with great initiatives.

Further, enhanced health services within first nations are also a top priority.

Just this past weekend, I attended the grand opening of the Three Voices of Healing treatment centre at the Shuswap First Nation. This centre offers 12 beds for 41-day alcohol and drug addiction adult residential treatment programs and 30 beds for 91-day aftercare treatment programs. This aftercare program is the first of its kind in the country and is funded from grants received from various organizations and foundations.

Three Voices of Healing Society has been in operation since 1997. In September 2012, it was able to purchase this new facility in order to offer the new aftercare program. The need for aftercare has been identified through regional and national needs assessments and research in alignment with the objectives of the program renewal initiative of the national native alcohol and drug abuse program.

The aftercare program would address a critical gap in service within the B.C. first nations' continuum of care for addictions. It must be noted that within minutes, and I literally mean minutes, of mass emailing and faxing of the announcement of this new programming to all the bands and the front-line workers in British Columbia and Alberta, the phones lit up continuously and have not slowed down. I have seen first-hand the importance of these facilities. What is so impressive with this aftercare program is the ability for clients to find a skill that they can take with them after treatment.

Our government provides $100 million annually for aboriginal mental health programs and services.

I am honoured to work with the Ktunaxa and Shuswap First Nations in the Kootenay—Columbia, which are both progressive and visionary for their future.

I have given a few examples of how economic action plan 2013 would benefit, not only my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, but all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I look forward to working with my constituents to ensure that we continue to live in the greatest place on Earth.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are proposing to correct major flaws in the temporary foreign worker program by giving the minister the last word when the work permits or opinions concerning an application for permits become a source of political embarrassment.

Could he elaborate on that?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all parties recognized that the temporary foreign workers program needed to be fixed because it was being abused. We are moving forward with the appropriate measures to fix it. We look forward to businesses and companies utilizing it the way it was supposed to be utilized, and that is in the correct manner.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the issue to the question of costs and budgeting in this budget. The member is a former RCMP officer and I commend him for his 20 years of service in a difficult profession.

I want to talk to him about crime bills, and I am sure he has some good insight in this regard. For the first time in commonwealth history, a government has been found in contempt for not providing costs with respect to crime bills.

The government is very fond of mandatory minimums. We heard another private member's bill today on mandatory minimums. I think the member knows the connection between mental health, substance abuse, poverty and crime. California, Texas and other states that have been driving the mandatory minimum agenda are now backing away rapidly from it. In the case of California, mandatory minimums have often been described as one of the most expensive costs that the state has to bear and they are really pulling the state down. Mandatory minimums do not work.

With this explosion of mandatory minimum offences now being brought to bear in the Criminal Code, could he help Canadians understand how much money in this budget has been earmarked for transfer to the provinces to assist them with what will likely and inevitably be a very large increase in the number of incarcerated Canadians?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relevance to what occurs in states like California because the fact is that it has a “three strikes and you're out” rule. The third strike means an individual stays in jail forever no matter the crime. Therefore, its increase in the prison population ballooned because of that.

Mandatory minimums have been around for a long time, not only in Canada, but across the United States, and have been proven to be an effective means of deterring those who commit those crimes either at a provincial or federal level.

We need to focus on the victim of the crime. The victim is most important. Those who go to jail have to understand that they have not only hurt the victim, but they must also pay the penalty for the crime they have committed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my hon. friend from Kootenay—Columbia claim that there was evidence that mandatory minimum sentences worked.

When we went over Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, I searched in vain for any empirical study by any criminologist anywhere in the world that suggested these were anything but a massive failure, particularly now with the evidence coming from Texas. That state has been unsuccessful and has found that mandatory minimums do not reduce the crime rate but do cause increased problems within prisons and increased costs on the taxpayer.

Could my hon. colleague point me in the direction of any study that supports the idea that mandatory minimums are anything but a colossal failure?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the study I could point my colleague to is my 20 years of experience. The revolving door of people going in and out of the system does not work. Serving time in jail actually does some people good.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke in the House I made some observations about a recurring theme in the government's initiatives and announcements, and that is that the government is distancing itself from social intervention, more specifically from providing services in the country.

My last intervention focused on charities. I tried to substantiate my comments by introducing our audience to the notion of distancing, the government's desire to withdraw, a desire that has been obvious every day since it came to power. I could see that there were some controversial topics that Canadians viewed somewhat unfavourably. This government is often an easy target, both within Canada and internationally. That is the case when it comes to human rights—which I will come back to later—and access to clean drinking water. Recently in committee, we were examining Bill S-8, an initiative that once again transfers the burden of sanitation and access to clean drinking water onto first nation band councils. As everyone knows, this a fundamental right that is enshrined in the Constitution and one that is internationally recognized. Access to clean drinking water is crucial; it is a basic human right. The government is trying to step back from its obligations, to distance itself, and is transferring this burden to other bodies such as band councils, which do not necessarily have sufficient financial resources to deal with these issues.

Bill C-60 contains the same kind of blind transfer of responsibility. Some subjects are rather contentious, rather controversial. That is why the government is trying to get out of its obligations, or at least distance itself from the negative spotlight associated with certain subjects.

I will now substantiate my remarks by giving some concrete examples.

Throughout this mandate, many members in this House have joined with the auditor in exposing the obvious, chronic underfunding of education in first nation communities. The public's interest in the debate and the media coverage of the shortcomings affecting academic opportunities for a growing segment of the population helped fuel the Idle No More movement.

With respect to education, I read earlier on the CBC website that people are beginning to ask some questions about education for first nations and the general population. They are examining their own situation and their reality, a reality that is reflected in the debates in the House and in the implementation of the measures introduced in the House and sometimes in the Senate. Personally, I think too many measures are coming from the Senate.

That education works to free the people. That is why, in 2013, government agencies are instead focusing on training that meets the needs of companies involved in extracting natural resources. I am seeing that in my own riding. Those of us on the front lines can see that training programs, especially in remote areas, are designed to meet the needs expressed by a significant segment of industry. There is an attempt to push students towards programs that meet the needs of extractive companies, to the detriment of general education that encourages analytical and critical thinking regarding many of our country's contentious issues. That is basically what I wanted to say.

Now I would like to take a look at some of Canada's social statistics. It seems there is a 30% gap between the funding provided to students attending schools on reserve and other Canadians who attend provincial schools. That reflects the fact that natural resources are mainly, but not exclusively, being extracted in remote areas. My riding, where natural resources of all kinds are being extracted, is a clear example of that.

That is why this government does not necessarily have any interest in giving Indians access to post-secondary education. They will find themselves in situations that are similar to the ones they are facing now.

I am calling all of that into question and exposing it. The public has taken up this cause, and because of the advent and the growth of social media as we know them today, it does not take long for the information to get to remote communities. The Internet has become more widely available in recent years, and people have access to that information, even in remote communities. That is why the government tries so hard to restrict first nations' access to education.

Access was facilitated when I began studying law. There were programs that made it possible for aboriginal students to be admitted to law programs. There were pre-law programs, which were eliminated over time. Barring any proof to the contrary, those programs are no longer available today. Of course, it all depended on what government was in place at the time. There was a clear desire to include and extend that freedom to a segment of the population.

I was from a remote community, and that was a life-saver, if I may say so. I managed to get away from my community and its deleterious elements. Leaving did me a world of good. Now the government is trying to keep people in their communities. That explains the 30% disparity. It is the government's way of keeping Indians on reserve. There are times when the circumstances make life on reserve destructive, poisonous even. That seems to be their plan. That is my own perspective for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the vast gulf dividing Canada's aboriginal and non-aboriginal groups in terms of academic opportunity, it is conceivable that the government is trying to delegate the implementation and funding of education programs for aboriginal clients across the country. That is why I have my doubts about the measure in Bill C-60 to transfer $5 million to a charitable organization responsible for distributing post-secondary education scholarships to students registered under the Indian Act and to Inuit students.

I am not the only one who is skeptical about this type of announcement. Some observers, both here in Canada and abroad, have their doubts. In fact, in this case, the Conservatives are blindly delegating the implementation of public policy. Instead of focusing on the real disparity in funding for the training and education of first nations youth—young people who are disadvantaged and who must face adversity on a daily basis—the Conservatives are delegating everything to an organization. The organization may be well run, but it is a non-profit organization, a para-public or charitable organization, that is not necessarily accountable. The Canadian government must set the parameters for implementing measures that foster access to higher education for first nations because, in the end, it is bound by its fiduciary obligation to them.

The delegation of this task leaves me perplexed and skeptical to say the least. In fact, we know that $5 million is not a huge amount in any event, especially when we consider the number of young people who will have access to or who are old enough to have access to quality education, higher education. This leaves me perplexed.

I submit this respectfully.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting all night for some indication from the New Democrats with respect to their fiscal responsibility. In the last speech we finally heard—

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

The Senate, F-35s, advertising for natural resources, they've been giving you these answers.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might bring the member opposite under control for me. That would be very helpful.

We finally in the last speech heard that the one policy the New Democrats did have with respect to fiscal responsibility, bringing back the budget into balance, was the elimination of the Senate, which, according to them, would save $90 million, and I think they are right. I know we have heard all night how difficult it is when we put too much before the New Democrats. They cannot quite analyze it. Therefore, I want to drill down specifically then on the Senate because they have said that it is very important.

I wonder if the member could share with me what policies, bills and amendments the New Democrats have brought forward to the finance committee with respect to the elimination of the Senate and how they intend to deal with the objections of many of the provinces to the elimination of the Senate. If he could just follow up also with how they intend to deal with the NDP leader's current bill, which would give more powers to the Senate. If he could just zone in specifically on those items with respect to the Senate because that is their only fiscal plank with respect to reducing spending.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member sure he wants to talk about the Senate this evening? We could talk about despots, small private clubs, partisan appointments and nepotism. I think those are some terms that will keep coming up.

The news speaks for itself. This issue is rather controversial. If I were in the hon. member's place, I would distance myself from the Senate as much as possible, especially when such a negative spotlight is shining on it. The situation is not in their best interest.

According to the news, we are right. The NDP's desire to abolish the Senate seems to be taking shape and Canadians seem to be on board.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2013 would offer mere scraps for the environment and in no way make up for the war on the environment and science that the government has been waging and would continue to wage.

There would be $4 million for marine-based ecosystem conservation, when the government has promised to protect 10% of marine areas and yet has protected only 1%.

There would be $10 million for the conservation of fisheries and a salmon conservation stamp, after eviscerating the Fisheries Act.

There would be a new tax credit for clean energy worth a tiny $1 million for a global $1 trillion industry.

Perhaps most concerning of all is the lack of action on climate change, when the government is under increased scrutiny by our largest trading partner, the United States, and we have record low Great Lake levels, which are mentioned but not acted upon.

The environment is merely an afterthought for the government.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

I agree with her. Contrary to all the hype surrounding the television ads broadcast during prime time, the environment is not a major concern for the government. The government sees the environment as something that gets in the way of economic expansion.

In 2013, environmental and social considerations are seen as obstacles to economic expansion. This is highly reprehensible on the part of this government, because these are things people identify with. They are essential for human survival. I think we can draw our own conclusions about this.

The meagre allocations mentioned by my hon. colleague truly reflect this lack of willingness, or at least, the real importance the government places on these issues, which are in fact critically important.

This government's “extractivist” measures and its legislative initiatives and initiatives on the ground will meet the needs expressed by industry above all. They will be brought forward in order to please lobbies and special interest groups. Again, it is a question of nepotism, investment and favouritism.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak today on Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act.

I would like to begin by thanking the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance for their hard work on behalf of all Canadians.

I have been engaging my constituents in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar on what course of action our government needs to take to promote long-term prosperity for all Canadians. Their message is consistent and clear. Canadians are reasonable people; they expect a pragmatic government that is a cautious steward of our economy, a careful caretaker of our natural resources and one that focuses on job creation to ensure that every Canadian can have a job and succeed. They want low taxes and quality services.

As a parent and a grandparent, I want Canada to be the best place to live, work, raise a family and retire. I want every Canadian to be able to take advantage of all our great country has to offer.

Budget 2013 is good news for Saskatchewan and for Canada. The budget would invest in the success of Canadians. It would invest in our infrastructure and it would invest in our strong and resilient communities. It is a plan for a successful and prosperous future. The budget focuses on the priorities of Canadian families, Canada's young people, Canadian students, Canada's job creators and Canada's job seekers.

I would like to highlight how the budget would help Saskatchewan's families, our businesses and our communities. Allow me to state the obvious. Our most valuable asset as a country is our people. As a government, we have a responsibility to make sure every person has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. Right now in Canada, there is a clear mismatch between the jobs available and the skills held by job seekers in Canada.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has identified the current skills shortage as the number one obstacle to success for its members. There are too many jobs that go unfilled in Canada because employers cannot find workers with the right skills. If unaddressed, this labour mismatch has the potential to disrupt our economy and our prosperity. In fact, Saskatchewan's economy has been on such a positive expansionary phase that we are now facing labour shortages in many sectors.

I would like to talk about four areas of focus in the budget that would help Saskatchewan get the skilled workers it needs and allow us to fulfill the very potential that our first settlers saw when they came to the Prairies.

The centrepiece of economic action plan 2013 is the Canada job grant. The job grant would transform the way Canadians receive training by providing up to $15,000 per person to help ensure Canadians are able to access the training they need to get jobs in high-demand fields. The Canada job grant would take skills training choices out of the hands of government and put them where they belong, in the hands of employers with unfilled jobs and Canadians who want to work.

Second, economic action plan 2013 would follow through on budget 2012's commitment to increase women's participation in non-traditional occupations. Women now represent close to half of Canada's workforce, yet as a group they continue to be under-represented in areas of science, mathematics, engineering and technology, the very same fields in which we are experiencing labour shortages.

Our government, and especially my colleague, the Minister for the Status of Women, has taken a keen interest in this matter as it makes strong economic and business sense to have both men and women equally active in the workforce. It goes without saying that countries with strong labour force participation from both men and women typically have stronger and more durable economies. I am pleased that our government is delivering on our commitment to increase opportunities for women's participation in non-traditional occupations and keep our economy strong.

Third, Canada's young aboriginal population has tremendous potential for long-term success and prosperity, but remains under-represented in both the labour market and in post-secondary institutions. Since 2006, our government has made innovative investments to address these challenges, including efforts to strengthen on-reserve elementary and secondary education and skills training programming for aboriginal people.

Building on these actions, economic action plan 2013 would introduce a number of practical steps. The skills and partnership fund would provide project-specific funding to aboriginal organizations in an effort to improve labour market outcomes for aboriginal people.

The first nations job fund, totalling $109 million over five years, would fund the provision of personalized job training on reserves. Budget 2013 would also invest $10 million over two years for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for more than 2,000 first nations and Inuit students annually. This would be delivered by Indspire, Canada's largest indigenous-led charity, which has a stellar track record of success.

Fourth, this government, under the tireless leadership of the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, has made significant progress implementing long-overdue reforms to Canada's immigration system, with the focus on attracting talented newcomers with the skills and experience our economy requires. Earlier this year, our government opened up a new skilled trades immigration stream that will facilitate the entry of immigrants who have the skills needed to immediately find a job and begin contributing to our economy.

What I have outlined are just some of the many new steps our government is taking to address the labour mismatch that exists in Canada.

Our government knows that low taxes and a skilled workforce keep our economy growing, but as an exporter nation, we need to continue to work to open up new markets for Canadian companies to sell their goods. For the first time in our history, we are aggressively diversifying our markets and making it easier for business to trade with emerging markets.

Since coming into office, we have signed nine free trade agreements with countries like Colombia, Panama, Korea and Jordan, and we are currently working on free trade agreements with the European Union, Japan and China, just to name a few.

This pro-trade agenda is working for Saskatchewan. Earlier this year Statistics Canada announced that Saskatchewan had become Canada's fourth largest exporter of goods. Saskatchewan exports grew by over 10% last year, to reach $32.6 billion, and have more than tripled over the past decade. My home province's exports were also quite diversified. One-third of exports were agricultural products, one-third were energy products and the remaining were manufacturing and services.

This government is also putting in place the infrastructure Canada needs. For years, provincial and municipal governments, who are responsible for the majority of infrastructure in Canada, have been asking the federal government for a long-term plan to address these needs. This budget would invest over $70 billion in new infrastructure funding over 10 years in support of local and economic infrastructure projects.

This is the longest and largest federal infrastructure plan in Canadian history and is something I know every municipality in my riding, from Saskatoon to Sunningdale, would benefit from.

However, this budget is not just about the present. It is also about the future. Budget 2013 would keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015. In fact, the deficit has been cut in half over the past two years, and Canada has the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7.

We have done so well maintaining and building on critical services. We are also keeping taxes low for Canadians and for Canadian businesses. Canada's federal corporate tax right now sits at 15%, down from 21%, and the federal sales tax now sits at 5%, down from 7% when our government took office.

An average family now pays $3,100 less in taxes than when we took office in 2006, and Canadians now have the lowest tax burden in more than 50 years. That is something that everyone in the riding of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar appreciates.

Our government's plan is working, not only for Saskatchewan but for all of Canada. Our government's goal is to make Canada the best place in the world to live, raise a family, work or start a business.

Bill C-60 would keep Canada on track for long-term prosperity, and I would encourage all members of this House to support it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with interest. As this whole debate is about the economy, I just think about how lucky we are to live in a country like Canada where we have so many natural resources to take full advantage of, but then it starts to make me worried about what we are doing with our knowledge economy.

Frankly, the government is failing to look forward to when our resources begin to dwindle. How do we start to compete with other countries that have fully invested in their knowledge economy? Our GDP investment in research and development is declining. Our productivity rates are declining.

I am just wondering if my colleague could really reflect upon what the government is doing to stimulate the knowledge economy. What is some good news, because we cannot find any in the reports coming out internationally?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, I believe that Bill C-60 manages to hit all the high points when it comes to growing Canada's economy and creating jobs and long-term prosperity. In looking at some of the measures included in this implementation bill and in budget 2013, I will highlight two or three about investing in world-class research and innovation.

We would support the commercialization of research by small and medium-sized enterprises by investing $20 million to help small and medium-sized enterprises in Saskatchewan and across Canada access research and business development services at local universities and colleges. We would also strengthen research partnerships in the marketplace by investing $37 million in Saskatchewan and across Canada to support collaboration between post-secondary institutions and industry to bring new technologies, products and services to the marketplace to help spur job creation. Finally, we would promote clean energy projects, providing $325 million to support the development and demonstration of new clean technologies across Canada that create savings for Canadian businesses and support job creation for Canadians.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the plan is going so well, if the plan is working to a T for the Conservatives, and the unemployment rate for youth has gone from 11% since the Conservatives took power to 14.5%, are we looking at maybe 17% youth unemployment by the time they finish their mandate? Is that going to be a real success?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this government is definitely concerned and has put measures in this budget that look at growing our economy and at creating jobs in all sectors for all ages. This budget also focuses on many things in terms of increasing skills and training support, including the proposed new $15,000 Canada job grant to help more Canadians find high-quality, well-paying jobs.

We are providing a record $70 billion in federal investment infrastructure across Canada over the next 10 years. That is going to be a job creator. That is going to provide future jobs for our youth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I have only 10 minutes. Given the many criticisms we have levied at the Conservatives for their incompetence on fiscal and budgetary matters and their inability to run a modern economy, I do not think 10 minutes will be enough. However, I know that my colleagues in the NDP caucus will be speaking to this as well, and we will be speaking as long as we can, because there are a variety of issues that need to be raised.

I would like to start by putting on the floor a fact the Minister of Finance is well aware of. The fiscal period returns filed with the Department of Finance, which is surely not a hotbed of social democrats, have been saying for 20 years running that the best governments for balancing budgets and paying down debt are NDP governments. The Minister of Finance knows this. He would never stand up and praise the NDP. However, he knows full well that the NDP is best at balancing budgets.

NDP governments are simply better than Conservative governments. I will not even talk about Liberal governments, because they are in last place. The reality is that we run a better health care system, pay more attention to the environment, do more for working families, and most importantly, are actually better at balancing budgets than the Conservatives are. That is why I think in 2015 we will see the first federal NDP federal government in Canadian history.

Talking about balancing budgets is one thing, but let us talk about the economic record of the government. We have had some Conservatives today stand up. They love to say that they have created hundreds of thousands of low-cost jobs for temporary foreign workers. That is the only thing they can point to as far progress and any sort of success for the Conservative government.

We think that is wrong-headed. The economic direction of the country should actually be to look at building high-paying jobs for Canadians. It is a different approach. However, when we look at the Conservatives' record, they have lost half a million well-paying, family-sustaining jobs in the manufacturing sector. Then they deposit a budget, which we are discussing tonight, Bill C-60, which, according to a legitimate, independent, impartial judge, the parliamentary budget officer, would cost Canadians 67,000 jobs.

The Conservatives are laughing at that. They are saying, “So what?” Ordinary working families actually care that the Conservatives have been so inept as to lose 67,000 jobs through their budgetary incompetence.

When we talk about the loss of high-paying, family-sustaining jobs in the manufacturing sector, something the Conservatives do not seem to understand, they reply that they are creating well-paying jobs in the Canadian Senate.

I think it is fair to say that on this side of the House, we do not even think the Senate should continue to exist. Like most Canadians, we believe that the Senate should be abolished and that the $100 million we put into it to bloat the expense claims of Conservative senators could better serve by providing support for working families in this country. That is what an NDP government would do, of course.

On other budgetary priorities of the Conservative government, we have had some very eloquent speeches tonight from the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who talked about the crisis we are seeing in northern housing. Yet Conservatives want to put money into the F-35s, even though the initial budgetary proposal of $9 billion bloated to $20 billion then $30 billion and now $40 billion-plus. No one knows on this side of the House how much this will eventually cost Canadians. There is not a single Conservative who is able to give us a precise number.

However, it is not just that. It is the Conservatives' other record.

The Conservatives have inflated the advertising budget in just one ministry by 7,000%. There is a 7,000% increase in advertising for Natural Resources Canada. It is as if they are opening their wallets, which actually belong to the Canadian taxpayers, and throwing money on the floor. It does not seem to matter when they are running ads. As the member for Ottawa Centre said so eloquently, it is for programs that do not even exist. They are just running and throwing money left, right and centre.

The Prime Minister flew at a cost of over $1 million to have his limousine over in India. We have seen Conservative cabinet ministers going from four-star hotels, because that was not good enough for them, into five-star hotels. It is simply unacceptable.

Conservative fiscal management is an oxymoron. What we have is Conservatives simply betraying their voters. This is what I hear most often. It is Conservative voters, people who voted Conservative in the last election, who tell me that they did not vote for this. They did not vote for the corruption, scandals and fiscal mismanagement. They did not vote to lose jobs. They did not vote for a threefold increase in temporary foreign workers when job training programs in Canada are going unfunded. They did not vote for all of that.

A time of reckoning is coming soon. Canadians are very upset at how the government has betrayed the commitments they ran on.

I want to say one more thing about the whole approach on the economy. We think it is just wrong-headed. We see what the Conservative government is doing putting all of its emphasis on exporting raw resources—raw bitumen, raw minerals and raw logs. When the Conservatives send raw materials out of the country, they are actually exporting Canadian jobs. They should not be proud of that. They should be ashamed of exporting Canadian jobs.

What we say is that we need the value-added here. In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, after the softwood sellout was signed by the Conservatives, 2,000 full-time family-sustaining jobs were lost. Three plants went down. Canfor, Interfor and Western Forest Products went within weeks of the signature on that softwood sellout. Those jobs can only be re-established if we have a government that is determined to bring value-added manufacturing back to Canada.

Look at the green energy sector. There is a revolution happening worldwide. We are talking about $2 trillion in investments over the next decade and five million jobs worldwide in clean energy and renewable energy sources, but the Conservatives are saying, no. What they are going to do is continue to subsidize the very profitable oil and gas sectors by over $1 billion a year.

On this side of the House, we think that is wrong. On this side of the House, we actually think that we are seeing these countries, as the member for Burnaby—Douglas mentioned, investing in innovation, research and development and green jobs, and that is the future path Canada should be taking.

More and more Canadians believe in that vision as well. We are seeing more and more Canadians looking forward to 2015 when they can get this wrong-headed approach out and actually look with hope and inspiration to future prosperity in this country.

There is one last thing I wanted to mention. I come from a riding where the vast majority of my constituents are new Canadians. They have seen how mean-spirited Conservatives are when it comes to gutting the family reunification program and increasing costs for visitor visas. The families I represent, who want to come for funerals, weddings or the birth of a new child in the family, are stopped by Conservative incompetence in the immigration file. In fact, we have never had a time when it was tougher for families to get together just to visit.

However, we see in Bill C-60 that the Conservatives actually want a blank cheque from new Canadians for visitor visas for their families in their countries of origin when they come from India, China or the Philippines. When they come to Canada, the Conservatives are slapping them in the face and saying that now they are going to pay more. Not only are the Conservatives going to reject their applications; they are going to pay more for visitor visas and for student visas. When their family members want to come and visit them in Canada, they are going to have to pay more. As we know, in most cases, they are rejected.

That shows the height of disrespect for new Canadians in this country. On this side of the House, in the NDP caucus, we believe that new Canadians are first-class Canadians too. They deserve to have their family members come and visit them for these important family occasions and not be attacked by these mean-spirited Conservative taxes they impose for visitor visas, student visas and the like.

We believe that new Canadians should be treated with respect. What a concept.

For that and many other reasons, we are going to be voting against this mean-spirited budget, against the financial incompetence of the government and against the attacks that it is putting against Canadian families.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I are both from British Columbia. He was lecturing the finance minister earlier about NDP governments. He will remember the nineties when Premier Mike Harcourt resigned in disgrace in British Columbia. Premier Glen Clark resigned in disgrace in British Columbia. In fact, in the election that just occurred in British Columbia, British Columbians were so alarmed at the prospect of another lost decade of another NDP government that Adrian Dix's 22-point lead in the polls evaporated because of the anti-development, anti-jobs, high tax rhetoric that we hear parroted by the member right now.

Why does he think that a message that was so soundly rejected by British Columbians will suddenly now be embraced by Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Chilliwack knows, as all British Columbians do, that what we saw from the B.C. Liberals was the same type of game plan that we had seen from the U.S. Republicans, and I am sure we will see from the federal Conservatives, to try to consciously suppress the vote. They wanted to drive that voting down. They wanted to drive the percentage of British Columbians who voted down. They are very proud of this. One can see how proud they are.

There was a lower voting percentage than ever before. The Conservatives are very happy about that. However, we have certainly learned the lesson from the voter suppression techniques Conservatives have learned from Republicans. In the next federal election, we will have the highest voter turnout in recent times in a federal election. That is going to make the difference between the government getting re-elected or the government being shown the door.