Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 31 consideration of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Kings—Hants still has four and a half minutes left to conclude his remarks. I will give him the floor now.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before being so rudely interrupted by the weekend, I was saying that the Conservatives' latest budget would raise taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over four years, and a number of these tax measures are included in this budget implementation act.

Bill C-60 would attack Canada's rural economy, with tax increases on credit unions. It would take more money out of small communities that are already struggling, and it would make it harder for small businesses in rural and small-town Canada to get the credit they need to grow and create jobs.

This is what David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada had to say:

The income tax increase on credit unions...is growth limiting. It deprives credit unions of income that might otherwise be used to support the growth of the credit union by building its capital base. The credit union will...have less capacity to make loans to small business, fund community economic development, and meet member needs.

It disregards the federal government's desire to support small business in local communities...

...it's really a tax on growth.

It is a tax on growth in rural and small-town Canada.

Garth Manness, the CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, said:

...it is no exaggeration to say that some...may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, [but] valuable and stable jobs at the credit unions could be lost.

Many of Canada's smaller rural communities face persistently higher unemployment rates and a rapidly aging population as younger workers move to cities for stable jobs. It is illogical for the Conservatives to go ahead with this tax hike on credit unions and diminish an already-limited source of investment in these rural and small-town communities.

On top of hurting small businesses that rely on credit unions, Bill C-60 would attack 750,000 Canadian small-business owners with a new tax hike on dividends. This legislation would even raise taxes on safety depot boxes. Perhaps what is most offensive is that Bill C-60 would actually punish victims of crime by adding GST or HST to health care services they need to establish their case in court.

The Canadian Psychological Association remains concerned that Bill C-60 would add GST and HST to mental health services, including psychological assessments. This is what Karen Cohen, the CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association, said when she appeared before the finance committee: “If passed without clarification or amendment, Canadians will now have to pay taxes on certain psychological services that were once exempt”. She provided a number of examples of Canadian patients who would now have to pay GST on mental health services, and went on to say:

It's important to note that this isn't a pocketbook issue for psychologists. It's not the psychologists who have to pay this tax. It's going to be hard-working Canadians who have a health need that is not met by Canada's publicly funded health care system.

A psychological assessment can cost thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket fees. The amount of money at stake for Canadian patients is not trivial.

While it may be true that the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill is less omni-busive than either Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, it is still deeply flawed, and we see the government now moving closure to ram this through the House of Commons without respect for Parliament and without proper scrutiny. This bill would threaten the independence of the CBC; it would raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families.

We proposed at committee some constructive amendments to address the very legitimate objections raised by Canadians during the committee's studies, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason. They have been deaf to the concerns of Canadians on this, and I expect Canadians will return the favour to the Conservatives in the next federal election.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member rightly points out the fact that, first, this is a budget implementation bill that would amend 49 different pieces of legislation; and second, we just finished voting on time allocation, which will limit our ability to study the impacts of this particular piece of legislation.

The member noted a number of ways that Canadians would be impacted by this legislation. Could he comment on the fact that, once again, we are not going to have time to deal with the matters that are before this House in a way that would allow us to determine the impact and the longer-range consequences?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when we were studying some of the changes to the governance of labour negotiations for crown corporations that are made in this legislation, it was raised by several witnesses that they had been called in the past to appear before House of Commons committees but never the finance committee.

That was something we heard from a number of witnesses who noticed that instead of being called before the human resources committee to discuss issues around labour and governance around labour, which would have made sense, they were being called before the finance committee. Here we were at the House of Commons finance committee where we were supposed to be studying and focusing on fiscal questions, budget questions, and we were forced to be generalists and to opine on legislation that falls outside of the purview of either our expertise or the committee's mandate.

It is not enough to have some studies done at other committees, they should be able to vote on the individual provisions at those committees wherein the expertise lies.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have remarked before that when the Conservatives lower a tariff, they claim it is a tax reduction. However, when they increase a tariff, they actually claim it is somehow protecting Canadian industry, not giving an advantage to other countries that export their products into Canada.

Could the member for Kings—Hants expound on that a bit, and let the members and Canadians know that they would be paying more for appliances, they would be paying more for bikes, they would be paying more for school supplies, because of an increase in tariffs to the tune of almost $350 million in this budget?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his continued hard work on behalf of Canadians in this House.

In the budget, the Conservatives say that cutting tariffs would help reduce cross-border shopping and help reduce the cost of living for Canadians families. The only problem is that they do not cut tariffs in this budget. In fact, they increase. The net increase is around $250 million. The Conservatives cut some tariffs, about $80 million, but they increased tariffs overall by $250 million. That is the net, the difference between the $330-million tariff increase and the $80-million tariff decrease.

If we take into account the fact that the Conservatives would be increasing tariffs on middle-class Canadian families by $250 million, using their own words and their own logic, this would increase cross-border shopping to the detriment of Canadian small businesses in border communities, and it would increase the cost of living for Canadian families.

The Conservatives are aware of the fact that they would be increasing tariffs and increasing taxes on just about everything the middle-class Canadian families need, but they are trying to hide it. They are trying to do it by stealth. They are being unaccountable.

By moving forward with time allocation today in the House, Conservatives are further reducing that accountability to Canadian families, Canadian citizens and Canadian taxpayers.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure and honour to stand and speak in favour of today's pro-economic and job-growth legislation, Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1 at report stage. Certainly, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance last week, I also would like to thank the finance committee members and the great chair, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, for their comprehensive and timely study of the bill. I also would like to extend a very special thanks to every witness who appeared in front of the committee to speak to the significance of the bill and Canada's economy.

In my time today I would like to focus on a number of specific measures contained in the legislation that received some attention during our committee study. First, members will no doubt be familiar with the important adjustments to the Canadian tariff systems that were announced as part of economic action plan 2013. In spite of what the member for Kings—Hants indicated, I would really like to talk clearly about what this is intended to do.

This was in essence a foreign aid program and it was created in the 1970s by western countries to give companies from poor third world markets preferential access to our domestic market. Most western countries that maintained the GPT program or equivalent had modified their list of countries to reflect the fact that formerly developing countries had grown their economies in the 40 years since this program was first introduced. But unlike the EU, the United States and Japan, Canada has not reviewed the list of countries until now. This means that list is sorely outdated.

As a consequence, Canada is giving special breaks in the form of lower tariffs to foreign companies from emerging economic powerhouses like China, South Korea, India and Brazil, companies that compete directly with Canadian businesses and their workers for global market share. Nearly 80% of these special breaks are now going to China even though China now has an economy that is over four times the size of Canada's. Specifically, China's economy is valued at $7.3 billion compared to Canada's, which is $1.7 billion.

Without our changes, Chinese companies will continue to benefit from a one-way trade deal, receiving special breaks and offering nothing in return. This program acts as a disincentive for those growing economies to enter into free trade agreements with Canada, agreements that would increase export opportunities for Canadian businesses, would create more and better jobs for Canadians and would further reduce tariffs for Canadian consumers.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters explained the changes best when it said:

It's 39 years since we updated it. It was meant to help developing countries....we were giving them preferential tariffs while their per capita GDP is higher than Canada’s....The solution is what the government is doing: try to negotiate free trade agreements with countries around the world so that we not only drop our tariffs, but they drop their tariffs as well.

That is exactly what we are trying to accomplish.

This leads me to another important feature of today's legislation that responds to recent concerns of the U.S.-Canada price gap. Economic action plan 2013 proposes to eliminate all tariffs on baby clothing and select sports and athletic equipment, including everything from ice skates, hockey equipment, skis, snowboards, golf clubs and other products that promote physical fitness and healthy living.

Targeted measures contained in Bill C-60 represent $79 million in annual tariff relief for Canadian families. I should note though, this tariff relief comes with the expectation that wholesalers, distributors and retailers will pass these savings on to consumers. Working with the Retail Council of Canada and consumer groups, our government will be monitoring the impact of these tariff reductions on Canada's retail prices.

In fact, the Retail Council of Canada has spoken out in support of this important first step in reducing outdated tariffs, which put Canadian consumers at a disadvantage, stating:

—we are very pleased to see this first step toward leveling the playing field for Canadian retailers....it is a good start and a demonstration of the government's recognition of one of the key reasons for price differences in Canada.

Even better, listen to what Dean Lapierre, president of the Windsor Minor Hockey Association, had to say:

This will definitely help because the cost of equipment is the main thing people cite when deciding to register.... It could cost $600 to $700 to equip one player, double that if the kid’s a goalie. And a lot of families have two or more kids who want to play, so this is great.

I want to be clear that this initiative would allow our government and all Canadians to assess whether further tariff elimination could help to narrow the price gap for consumers in Canada. Of course, this is going to guide our future decisions.

Before concluding, I want to take a moment to highlight one particular item contained in today's legislation related to public sector compensation, specifically the amendments to the Financial Administration Act that would enable the governor in council to direct a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate, including wages and benefits, approved by Treasury Board. While this may seem highly technical to many Canadians watching at home, it really is very important for taxpayers across the country.

As with our action in last year's budget to reform public service pensions, along with those of MPs and senators, to make them more sustainable and bring them in line with private sector pensions, the overriding objective is to protect the taxpayer's dollar. While we acknowledge that all crown corporations are independent in their operations, their financial decisions impact the government's bottom line.

As responsible economic managers, our government must ensure that we have the right tools to protect taxpayers at the bargaining table, if necessary. This is neither new nor revolutionary. It is a common sense action on behalf of taxpayers. It is important to note on this particular measure that Quebec has had a very similar provision in place for over three decades. I hope that all members of the House will understand that both the government and crown corporations have a fundamental responsibility to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely and to help ensure that Canada's fiscal position remains sustainable over the long term.

In the words of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

—[the] executives who manage government-owned companies have enjoyed, until now, special status: they are paid like business people, with none of the risk.... But the taxpayer is always there, at the end of the day, to stroke another cheque, cover the losses, and make everything better....

Simply put, provisions in Bill C-60,... grant [the government]...the power to tell negotiators at these companies how much they can offer unions in wages, benefits.... to insert some spine into government negotiating teams--should improve the odds for taxpayers.

Again, I would like to note that the legislation before us today is an important step in creating jobs and economic growth, while keeping taxes low and balancing the budget by 2015. I certainly urge all members to vote in favour of this jobs, growth and long-term prosperity budget bill and support this very important measure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one aspect that seems to be missing from this bill is any big discussion about an energy strategy for this country. We hear time and time again how the oil sands and other oil and gas activities are the economic engine of this country. Yet budget bill after budget bill tabled in the House is vacuous as to how we are going to better regulate our energy industry.

Through the last three budget bills, the government streamlined environmental legislation. Many in my province, including the premier, have called for the federal, provincial and territorial governments to work together on a clean energy strategy for all Canadians. Could the member speak to why we continue to see nothing about this in any of the government's budget bills that come forward?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out a bit of irony. Opposition members frequently say there is too much in the bill and that there should be discussions at the environment committee and with natural resources. I would say to the member that those are appropriate discussions for committees designed to deal with that. We have made some important improvements in the environmental legislation in previous budgets in order to provide balance.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-60, the budget implementation act, and very important measures, whether it is the Nature Conservancy of Canada, which is incredibly well received, the Pacific salmon stamps, the money that is going to go directly to the organization to support the conservation of habitat. We are here to speak to Bill C-60, but I certainly believe we are having dialogues at many different levels on the important issue of energy.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60 is an important tool to get our budget implemented to address, among many things, a skills mismatch in our country and getting people into open jobs. I know that is a big problem out west, particularly, as it is in Essex County, in the machine, tool, die and mould sector, which has plenty of openings.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of the new Canada job grant as a tool for overcoming or bridging that skills mismatch to get people who are either unemployed or underemployed into those meaningful positions in order to keep the economy moving.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces in the budget that was very well received and that people are excited about is the Canada job grant. Of course, that is going to take the federal government and the provincial governments, but most importantly, the employers. We are going to try to create the right skills match for the jobs that are available in the future. This is going to be a win, win, win, win: a win for the federal government, a win for the provincial governments, a win for the employers, and of course, a win for the potential employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I are both members of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Clearly, for a bill of this scope and importance, there was very little consultation and debate in the Standing Committee on Finance.

Other than the meeting we had with Department of Finance officials and, of course, the clause-by-clause meeting, we had the equivalent of two and a half meetings in committee to discuss a bill that will add, eliminate or amend 50 or so pieces of legislation.

Clearly this was not enough time to do a thorough study. Moreover, the superficial study carried out in other committees did not meet the need for careful consideration of this bill.

However, the independence of crown corporations, in particular the Bank of Canada, was raised in committee in relation to the proposed amendments in division 17.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on this. We wanted to have a special meeting to consider the question of the independence of the Bank of Canada and its impact, but the Conservatives refused.

I would like her to explain to the House why the Conservatives refused to study this specific issue of the independence of the Bank of Canada.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a very important measure that is in no way going to challenge the independent ability of crown corporations to do what they are supposed to be doing. For example, CBC has protection under the Broadcasting Act.

What we are simply saying is that there are things like the agreement with the postal workers, whereby if a post office closes down and there is no work within 40 kilometres, we maintain a responsibility to continue to pay these workers. Most Canadians would agree that this kind of negotiation does not make sense. We need some flexibility. Ultimately, we are responsible for the taxpayers' dollars.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill C-60 today. I know that many of my colleagues would have liked to have the time to speak today because the bill is quite complex. It is important that our voices be heard here in the House so that we can discuss the bill and have a healthy debate.

I want to begin my speech with a personal comment that I think is appropriate here. With this budget, the government is forcing Canadians to tighten their belts. It is asking workers, parents, youth, the unemployed, seasonal workers, seniors, middle-class families and so on to get with the program and accept a budget that is clearly not in their interest and will require an even greater effort on their part to make ends meet. I find that appalling.

There are a number of scandals, not just one, currently plaguing the government. While Canadians work to pay their taxes, senators are spending wildly and claiming ineligible expenses. Unelected senators have no respect for Canadians. While senators are banking an extremely generous salary, taxpayers are paying for their antics. As if that were not enough, the government has lost track of $3.1 billion. Honestly, how it is possible to lose $3.1 billion? I simply cannot get over it. It is incomprehensible.

A number of my constituents telephoned me personally, in a panic, when that hit the news. They are asking me to do something, to take action. My opposition colleagues and I are doing everything we can to get some clarification, and we want answers. Canadians deserve answers.

The government should be ashamed of this budget. We are obviously going to vote against it. The budget should contain measures that make life more affordable and create jobs for Canadians. Instead, the government is raising taxes on a number of consumer items, such as hospital parking, safety deposit boxes, labour-sponsored investment funds, bicycles and baby strollers. These tax hikes will cost Canadians nearly $8 billion. That is far too much. People have had enough.

One important point caught my attention: the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This decision will affect the middle class and its ability to save for retirement. It will deprive Quebec SMEs of significant support for their development. Instead of creating jobs and supporting local initiatives, the Conservatives are going after the unemployed, families, seasonal workers and especially our regions.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer analyzed the economic situation and the government's bills. She found that budget 2012, the 2012 update and budget 2013 will result in the loss of 60,000 jobs by 2017 and will cause a 0.58% decline in the GDP. Needless to say, this will have an impact on our country's economic growth.

I would like to talk about transparency and control of the CBC. The Conservatives are trying, for the third time since the beginning of their mandate, to circumvent parliamentary and public oversight by trying to sneak this budget through. This week, they went even further by imposing a gag order to shut down debate. This is the 39th or 40th gag order we have seen in the House. Parliament should be a place where elected officials can show respect for their constituents and have a good discussion, a good debate. What are the Conservatives afraid of? Transparency is definitely not part of the government's values.

Another change this bill makes would enable the government to compel a crown corporation to have its negotiating mandate approved by the Treasury Board so that it can reach a collective agreement with a union, particularly in the case of the CBC. Canadians do not want to see the government exercise that kind of control over our national public broadcaster. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and the CBC must be able to retain its independence.

On this topic, my colleague, the NDP heritage critic and member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, had this to say:

The federal government already appoints CBC’s directors and determines its annual budget. That’s already a lot of control over a public broadcaster that must remain independent in its role as watchdog of democracy...Bill C-60 is another attempt by the Conservatives to interfere in CBC’s affairs and we cannot let it pass.

The government is flying in the face of common sense and ignoring protests by moving forward with these misguided measures. Cuts to environmental research are another weakness of the budget. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, AAFC, is one of the departments that is most affected by the budget cuts. Close to 700 workers just recently found out that they will lose their jobs and that a number of research centres will close.

At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, several witnesses told me that research and development are key to the future of agriculture in Canada. When the government eliminates funding for public research, it lets the private sector—often big, multinational companies—do its own research. That is alarming.

AAFC will eliminate 350 jobs: 144 commerce officers, 79 scientists, 76 information technology officers, 29 engineers, 14 biologists, 5 research directors and 3 procurement officers.

This also makes me think of the decision that will affect the Montreal Biosphere, the only environmental museum in North America. This is another one of the Conservative government's attacks on science education. When most of the staff was laid off, this institution lost scientific and environmental expertise. Through this decision, the Conservatives are failing to live up to a 25-year agreement between the Government of Canada and the City of Montreal.

Making a budget is all about making choices. I, personally, decided to keep the same car I had before the election and pay off my student loans. I make responsible choices. Presenting a budget is a choice. It is not easy. I understand that it is complicated. However, in this budget implementation bill, the Conservatives are failing families, workers, the environment, job creation and science. At the end of the day, Canadians are the ones who are going to have to pay the price.

I hope the government will realize how inconsistent it is being. It is asking people to tighten their belts at a time when it is involved in scandals, such as the ones in the Senate. Making cuts in areas as important as science and the environment does not make sense, especially when we know that this government lost track of $3.1 billion. Instead of putting research into the hands of industry, the government should be investing in research and making more of an effort to find the missing $3.1 billion.

Nevertheless, I am sure that the NDP will be able to turn things around. Canadians need to feel like they can trust the people they vote for. They need to be able to identify with the people that they vote for and that is where we come in. We are voting against this bill.

I am ready for questions and comments.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very thorough speech. One point she touched upon in her speech was the issue of the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In my riding, Nanaimo—Cowichan, on Vancouver Island, the CBC is much loved. I have received hundreds of emails expressing concern about what Bill C-60 proposes to do with regard to the CBC. In fact, a number of people have raised concerns about having far too much government control over the CBC in terms of its collective bargaining and in terms of perhaps interfering in journalistic freedom.

The NDP proposed an amendment to the bill that would have seen us hive off the aspect dealing with the CBC as a separate piece of legislation, which would then have enabled us to debate it fully and study it fully at committee.

I wonder if the member would comment specifically about the government's intent to limit debate and to limit scrutiny of these key pieces of legislation that would be impacted by Bill C-60.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not on the finance committee, but I know that we did have 33 amendments. I think the Liberals put up eight at one point.

It is very important to have a full debate, but every day now we see time allocation. When we are being shut down in the House, we do not have a full debate, and we are still feeling the effects of what we saw last year.

I said in my speech that Canadians will pay the price of these decisions. We have to do better for future generations. We have a responsibility, and I do not think we are doing enough. It is very sad to see what is going on right now in Parliament. Canadians deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for her speech.

I have the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We proposed 33 amendments. The NDP often moved very reasonable amendments. We wanted to make sure that the parts of the bill we agreed with were amended so that they could be properly enforced.

It is absolutely unbelievable that the government representatives had already decided what they were going to do. They systematically rejected all of the amendments proposed.

How would my colleague explain the government's actions?

The Prime Minister has been calling on the opposition to collaborate and make suggestions for years. However, we keep hitting a wall. I thank the member in advance for her comments.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for his work on the Standing Committee on Finance. I congratulate all of my colleagues because we work hard.

I am not talking just about the members of Parliament, but also about our research team and all of the assistants who help us every single day with our work. We truly do work hard and take our jobs seriously.

It is very sad and disappointing to see that the Conservatives will not accept any of our amendments. We work very hard, but when we show up in committee to move our amendments, they have already decided, as my colleague indicated, that they will not accept anything. They have decided that their bill is perfect as is.

I have a hard time understanding why they refuse to accept anything. There were witnesses who supported our values and many of our amendments. I have several testimonies, but I do not have the time to read them all. It is very sad.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to focus on what matters to Canadians: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. In my riding of Calgary Northeast, I have heard time and again that one of the most important issues is jobs. I stand today to help outline how our Conservative government's economic action plan 2013 would help connect settled Canadians as well as new Canadians with available jobs.

The hardest-working riding in the country, Calgary Northeast, is a very diverse place indeed, with 45.6% of my constituents being first-generation Canadians and 43% of the population being immigrants. We have one of the highest numbers of immigrants in Alberta, if not the highest.

Economic action plan 2013 also promises to reopen the federal skilled worker program and update the points system over the coming years. It would give more weight to factors that are directly related to economic success. This would help ensure new immigrants, such as those in my riding, are well suited and prepared for the jobs in their adopted home of Canada.

We are also introducing the new start-up visa, which is the first of its kind in the world. This visa will help attract innovative immigrant entrepreneurs to launch their companies in Canada to help create new jobs and spur economic growth.

New Canadians come here wanting to work and contribute to this great country. The start-up visa, as well as the “expression of interest” immigration management system, will help them realize these goals and become productive, proud members of our society.

The “expression of interest” immigration management system would allow Canadian employers, provinces and territories to select skilled immigrants from a pool of applicants who best meet Canada's economic needs. This will help to ensure that new Canadians go where the jobs are. It would also help to promote integration since it is much easier to integrate into our Canadian society when people are educated and able to work in their field, to contribute and have a sense of accomplishment.

Let me say that the hard-working riding of Calgary Northeast will be welcoming these enterprising new Canadians with open arms. Voting against jobs, growth and long-term prosperity not only for Canadians but for future Canadian citizens is not a good idea. I hope the NDP and Liberals will join with me in supporting budget 2013 instead.

In my riding of Calgary Northeast, 12.6% of my constituents have post-secondary credentials from outside of Canada, many of which are not currently recognized here. This inhibits the ability of these new Canadians to find gainful employment.

Economic action plan 2013 recognizes that this is a very real problem not only in my riding but from coast to coast to coast. Over the next two years, our government will work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to support improvements to the foreign credential recognition process and address the demand for skilled workers in Canada in additional occupations.

This will help individuals who were educated and trained abroad to find employment in their fields when they come to Canada. It will also help support employers by supplying them with qualified workers in occupations facing labour shortages.

One sector that faces a major labour deficit is apprenticeship and skilled labour jobs. I have the pleasure of sitting on the human resources and skills development committee, which recently undertook a study on how to encourage apprenticeship programs in Canada. We heard time and time again from witnesses that there is a high demand for apprentices, a group our government has a proud history of supporting.

Our government recognizes the important contributions to the Canadian economy that the skilled trades make. It was our Conservative government that introduced the apprenticeship incentive grant, which provides up to $2,000 in financial assistance for apprenticeship training in a Red Seal trade. There is also the apprenticeship completion grant of $2,000 for registered apprentices who successfully complete their apprenticeship program and receive journeyperson certification in a designated Red Seal trade. These programs have proven to be a huge success, with a projected expenditure for 2013-14 of $114.6 million.

Our Conservative government is continuing to support apprentices in this budget by introducing measures that would support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing and infrastructure projects receiving federal funding.

The committee heard from witnesses that there are labour shortages that should be filled by young apprentices, and our government is helping to ensure that young apprentices are given those opportunities. By working on government projects, they will gain invaluable experience on their way to becoming skilled tradespeople.

Key stakeholders representing Canadians of all walks of life endorse measures like this in economic action plan 2013.

This very measure was endorsed by average Canadians like James St. John of the Hammer Heads Program, who told the committee on February 7, 2013:

We want to see the government tie infrastructure dollars to apprenticeship opportunities for the youth of our communities. In doing that, there is no cost to the government whatsoever. The cost is really zero to the employers, who are going to need workers to build the renovations or the new buildings that you're constructing through infrastructure dollars.

The passing of this budget in a quick and timely manner is of the utmost importance.

There is another important measure I have to mention. First, though, I will mention a constituent, Tom Pollon, who worked at a company for 25 years before it went bankrupt and he had to be laid off. He told my office how the targeted initiative for older workers will help him in his job search.

The targeted initiative for older workers focuses on older workers aged 55 to 64 who are unemployed and require new or enhanced skills to successfully transition into employment. It is aimed at helping people like Mr. Pollon, who may face difficulties due to age in finding gainful employment. Since 2007, this program has provided employment assistance services to over 28,000 unemployed older workers.

Let me share with my colleagues what Mr. Pollon told me: “In fact, I believe it would do much to negate the age concern of prospective employers if I could say I qualify for TIOW in resume and use it in my job search.”

In economic action plan 2011, our Conservative government promised $50 million for the targeted initiative for older workers over two years and extended the program until 2013-14.

Economic action plan 2013 is about connecting Canadians with available jobs, be they apprentices, elderly workers, or new Canadians.

I call upon the opposition to support this budget and for once stand on the side of jobs, the economy and common sense.

Canadians have told us what they need. We listened. We are here to help. I wish the opposition would do the same.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The five minutes for questions and comments for the member will take place when this matter returns before the House.

Statements by members. The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

The Senate

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment of Canadians over the abuse of taxpayer money by some members of the Senate. There is no excuse for any politician of any political party to take advantage of public finances or public trust. I support a full investigation by independent authorities into this matter.

It is also imperative that every cent of every dollar spent by anyone who holds public office, whether in the House of Commons, Senate or otherwise, must respect taxpayer money. Integrity and accountability are absolutely vital to the institution of Parliament.

We made a promise to Canadians to fix Senate expense rules. We have done just that. The Senate now has adopted our government's 11 tough new rules governing Senate travel and expenses.

Our government is focused on delivering meaningful reform to the Senate, including Senate elections, Senate term limits and tough spending oversight. Canadians understand that our Senate, as it stands today, must be accountable.

Humber River

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Conservative government removed most of Canada's rivers and lakes from the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Out of our hundreds of thousands of rivers and lakes, only 62 rivers and 97 lakes remain protected. What a travesty.

Bordering my electoral district of Parkdale—High Park in the city of Toronto is the Humber River, one of Canada's great heritage rivers, which is part of the historic Toronto Carrying Place trail used by aboriginal populations dating back over a thousand years.

The Humber River is the only Canadian heritage river accessible by subway, in the middle of our largest city, yet people can kayak and canoe on it, and in the spring when the steelhead run it is a wildly popular fishing spot.

Last week I seconded Bill C-502, presented by my colleague from York South—Weston, which aims to re-establish protection for the Humber River.

In recognition of June 9, Canadian Rivers Day, I will join with my community to protect the Humber River for today and for future generations.

British Columbia General Election

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a general election was held recently in British Columbia that introduced many new faces to the legislative assembly of British Columbia and a record amount of female MLAs will be heading to Victoria.

In my area, I would like to congratulate first-time MLAs Linda Larson in Boundary-Similkameen and Jackie Tegart in Fraser—Nicola, along with Penticton Mayor Dan Ashton being elected to the provincial level for the first time and Ben Stewart also being successfully re-elected in Westside-Kelowna.

I would also like to take a moment to sincerely thank former Fraser—Nicola Valley NDP MLA Harry Lali for 18 years of service to his community and retiring Penticton MLA and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, Bill Barisoff, for 17 years of service to the South Okanagan.

I greatly enjoyed working with both Harry Lali and Bill Barisoff and would like to wish both gentlemen well in their future endeavours.

I look forward to working with our new and re-elected MLAs in the years ahead.