Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to economic action plan 2013, which is our government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Ensuring that we respect taxpayer dollars is vitally important to our government in just about every measure we have brought forward. Ensuring that the average family of four sees annually savings of $3,200 and allowing seniors to split their pension income shows that we are clearly committed and on the side of Canadians at the end of the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-60. I wish that I had more than 10 minutes, because there is so much to say about this bill.

We were not given nearly enough time at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to waste a few seconds of my precious time to express my opposition to the government's 39th gag order and the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance's study of this bill was a sham.

The committee was responsible for studying Bill C-60. As everyone no doubt remembers, we suggested splitting up the bill in the interest of serving Canadians well. We wanted each committee to have an opportunity to consider relevant parts of the bill, to study them fully, seriously and in depth, instead of looking at the mishmash of measures in this omnibus bill over what amounted to barely two and a half meetings. The committee did its clause-by-clause reading, then wrapped it all up in the blink of an eye with almost total disregard for the witnesses and the integrity of the committee process. It is truly appalling.

I would like to get right to the point and focus on changes to the Investment Canada Act. I have chosen to discuss this aspect as a reminder that, in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, White Birch Paper's Stadacona mill met with what I would call a tragic fate. I have brought this subject up several times already.

In 2003, when an American investor—more specifically, an unscrupulous investor from New York—bought the Quebec City mill, it employed 1,600 people. At this time, after a nasty lockout and numerous measures to defraud pensioners and workers, only a little over 200 people remained employed at that mill. The mill is operating at well below half of its capacity.

I would like to go into a bit of the history of what happened before the 2011 election. When the lockout was imposed, over 600 employees were working there. Given their working conditions, the work was spread over three shifts and was done around the clock. The order book was full.

This Quebec City industrial gem was altered completely. It was virtually abandoned and left with an uncertain future. It is hard to imagine that this mill could be revived anytime soon, especially since the transaction whereby White Birch Paper was sold to Black Diamond Capital is linked to one of the shareholders, namely, the son of the former owner. That kind of absolutely unbelievable manoeuvring revealed the flaws in the Investment Canada Act.

I mentioned the unfortunate complicity on the part of my Liberal colleagues who agreed, under absolutely false pretenses, to drastically raise the review thresholds for foreign investments. That threshold will now be $1 billion. For the minister involved, this will be something quite extraordinary in the course of a year, something that will be worth mentioning, given the number of transactions of that size that we are likely to see.

Meanwhile, any number of highway robbers, thieves and fraudsters can freely and openly engage in unfair competition with honest investors and real entrepreneurs who care about developing businesses, taking on missions, diving into a great business adventure and taking positive initiatives, as well as providing opportunities for workers and our young people. It is truly appalling.

Unfortunately, we know that Bill C-60 will pass, barring some unforeseen incident. We can always hope. In the event that a number of government members are regrettably absent, we will gladly vote down their bill.

I would like to talk about the Investment Canada Act and, more specifically, about expanding the criteria. The Minister of Industry will have very few reasons to review transactions in Canada, and that represents a threat to the Canadian economy.

I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade for one year. I have no problem welcoming foreign investors with open arms. However, we cannot be naive. We need to take at least a few precautions when a so-called investor tries to acquire a Canadian business. It is no different from when a business owner or our financial institutions—our banks—make enquiries about consumers who make significant transactions. That is not unusual; it makes sense.

It is common for a credit check to be conducted when someone is buying a house or car or signing a lease.

How can the government be so lenient when it comes to entire sectors of our economy? Millions of Canadians suffer, directly or indirectly. They suffer directly because the company cuts operations and business is threatened. They suffer indirectly because when working conditions worsen and businesses become filled with cheap labour, they take on other forms, creating unfair competition for business owners who play by the rules and actively participate in Canada's development. A huge number of people are affected.

The erosion of our industrial fabric, our economic fabric and our social fabric is a liability and a disturbing legacy to leave for future generations, particularly since the government is moving forward at top speed. It is absolutely incredible.

Unfortunately, another part of this pseudo-investment is the decision to terminate the pension fund for current and retired employees of the Stadacona mill of White Birch Paper. There will be new developments on that front in the coming days. I continue to watch it all very closely.

Providing our workers and retirees with much less attractive retirement benefits will also undermine the sustainability of our economy to a certain extent. The reality is that having a large number of retirees is also a stabilizing factor in turbulent economic times. We have seen that in the Quebec City area.

I could have talked about the elimination of the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds, which is not in Bill C-60, but is another bad measure. I could also have talked about the creation of private pension funds that, unfortunately, will make workers shoulder the entire responsibility by making employer contributions optional. This will also make it much more difficult to save for retirement.

I am pleased to have spoken out against the type of measures adopted. There is no need to worry that all we are going to do is complain. We are laying the groundwork for our future and for taking power and correcting this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the foreign takeover aspect. We know that for years, and I have been here since 2004, New Democrats have been calling for greater clarity in foreign investment guidelines. We have seen thousands of acquisitions for which the kinds of oversight and guidelines that should have been required were not in place.

The Conservative government committed to consult Canadians and stakeholders on any more changes to the act, but there is a concern that the coming into force of these multiple new amendments will be determined through regulations.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there has been no thorough public consultation on these changes and that the government did not move forward to do that consultation before it made substantive amendments to the foreign investment guidelines. As well, what would he like to see in terms of a consultation process?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

I will start by talking about something that happened at the beginning of the year. At a reception held at the Port of Québec in January, I had an opportunity to speak to people from the business community. One of them said something that I found especially intriguing. The individual said that the business community was looking for some recognition. I thought it was significant that after seven years in power the Conservative government had not been able to do that.

Our proposed measures would clarify the rules of the game and introduce fairness.

We are in the midst of the hockey playoffs. If we were to get rid of the rules and allow high-sticking and other infractions, the game might be more exciting, but the resulting brutality would be totally unacceptable to society. That is where we are headed with the new Investment Canada rules.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a different but very important issue. It is related to housing.

For many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, housing is a very real issue. For middle-class and other Canadians, the issue is the affordability of a house, because the cost of housing has gone up. There are also individuals, particularly seniors on fixed incomes as well as others, who want to have work done on their homes.

Whether it is residential rehabilitation assistance programs, programs that we have seen in the past need to be enhanced or looked into at the very least, or the expansion of housing co-ops and the potential that housing co-ops have, thinking outside of the box and reinforcing good solid programs seems to have been lacking over the last couple of years in terms of investing in some sort of a national housing strategy to deal with Canada's housing situation.

I wonder if the member could comment on that issue and on how we have heard nary a word mentioned in the last couple of budgets on that very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question. This gives me a chance to remind the House that the government rejected our housing strategy.

It also allows me to share a memory that is truly very pleasant, and that is my first nomination as an NDP candidate in 2005. It was a few days, a few hours even, before my late leader, Jack Layton, reached an agreement with the Paul Martin government to cancel $3 billion in corporate tax cut and adopt measures for housing, among other things.

It is funny because that was my introduction to active politics and the three electoral campaigns I ran before being elected.

Housing has been a priority of ours for a long time. I want to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for fighting for this cause. We will continue to hold up our end; that is certain.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of economic action plan 2013 and our government's budget implementation bill.

Even in the face of this global downturn, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, Canada has led the world. Our net debt to GDP ratio is the lowest in the world. All the major credit agencies have affirmed Canada's AAA credit rating, and we have enjoyed the strongest job creation record in the G7. Canada has created more than 950,000 net new jobs since 2009, and 90% of those were full time and 80% in the private sector.

Through our government's leadership and discipline, our fiscal program played a strong role in ensuring that Canada's economy stayed on the rails, moving forward. In fact, to quote an editorial from my local paper, the Waterloo Region Record:

Canada is doing better and should continue to do better than most other advanced industrial nations, thanks, in part, to the fiscal prudence....

—of the finance minister's budget.

Canada will continue to lead the world because the Canadian government has made the tough, responsible choices. It has made the choice to engage Canadians in a massive temporary stimulus program that kept our economy afloat and built world-class research and commercialization facilities and much-needed community assets and infrastructure: roads, bridges, water treatment facilities and community centres. It has made the choice to maintain our commitment to lowering taxes on individuals and businesses that ensures Canada is an excellent place to call home, to work, to build a business and to raise a family.

It is worth remembering that the average family of four is paying $3,200 less, thanks to our tax cuts. Our choice to remain on track for balancing the budget in fiscal 2015-16 is a statement of confidence, confidence in our businesses and workers that, as global markets recover, our entrepreneurs and highly skilled workforce will seize that opportunity, confidence that the prudence we practice today will earn our prosperity for years to come.

Canadians can be confident, confident in themselves, confident in this budget and confident in this government.

I want to focus, though, on the elements of budget 2013 that are most important to my home area of Waterloo Region. For those hon. members unfamiliar with the Waterloo Region, our community has a history of reinventing our economy to adapt with changing times. Our ability to reinvent ourselves has always hinged on our uniquely strong sense of community.

When there is an opportunity to be pursued, business, academia, government, labour and the community sector all work together to make it happen. The people of Waterloo Region do not look for handouts, but they welcome collaboration and support.

That is why I stand today in this House and state categorically that this budget presents great news for my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and for all of Waterloo Region. Our region is one of the hardest hit by the shortage of skilled workers, from engineers to welders, which our government continues to address. Our government is committed to providing leadership in correcting this. We will support the use of apprentices in federally funded projects and long-term infrastructure programs. We will work in collaboration with the provinces and territories to standardize requirements for apprentices in the skilled trades.

We are expanding opportunities for new entrants to the job market to get the skills they need, and we are increasing supports for Canadians with disabilities. Also, we committed to the Canada job grant, which would provide funds to help Canadians get the skills they need for the in-demand jobs. One hundred and thirty thousand Canadians would be able to take advantage of this program each year, and the direct involvement of employers would ensure the training offered aligns with the skills Canadians need.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce called Canada's economic action plan 2013, “a significant step forward in the federal government's attack on Canada's skills challenge”.

However, it was not only business organizations offering praise. The Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Canadian Building Trades and Engineers Canada all spoke highly of our approach to building the talent Canada needs, where it needs it.

Dr. John Tibbits, president of Conestoga College, noted that:

This budget clearly recognizes the important role that applied learning plays as a catalyst for job opportunity and innovation that will reinvigorate Canada's economy and put us on the path to a brighter future.

Even the Canadian Labour Congress called our plans around apprenticeships

“...a good first step in creating opportunities.”

It is not just a shortage of talent that is holding us back. Our high-tech industry faces a severe lack of venture capital.

High-potential companies in my riding, like Miovision Technologies and Clearpath Robotics, have shared the difficulties small companies face in finding the investment needed to take them to that next level. We live in a global economy and there is a very healthy entrepreneurial culture south of the border, and entrepreneurs there are very willing to purchase promising small enterprises. Too often they require that the companies' core team move to the U.S. to be closer to their funders, and the result is lost growth.

We need this amazing talent. We need these entrepreneurs to stay right here in Canada. As a government, we need these companies to stay here at home in Canada because we want the jobs they create to be created here, at home in Canada.

Iain Klugman, CEO of Communitech, Waterloo Region's technology association, noted the significance of budget 2013 stating that the two key barriers to growth for tech companies are access to talent and access to capital. Budget 2013 takes aim at helping companies overcome both of these barriers. The additional resources for NRC-IRAP and the Business Development Bank of Canada would increase the availability of much needed capital for Canada's tech companies.

Communitech was also pleased to see our government support entrepreneurship by supporting business incubators, and I would like to share a bit about the impact a business incubator can have on economic growth.

Communitech offers a business incubator program to high tech start-ups. The Communitech Hub opened in 2009 as part of a five-year digital strategy. Both were supported by this government. We see the benefits when large, established companies donate to support services for start-ups. We see the impact that peer-to-peer training and mentorship can deliver to young companies. We see the synergies that result when aspiring entrepreneurs are able to access bleeding edge technologies like the 3D virtual environment.

How do we see all of these very positive changes? Let us measure the impact against its five-year plan, just three years into that plan: 800 new digital media and mobile technology companies, eight times the forecast; 1,600 new jobs in start-up companies, 80% of the five-year goal; $350 million in equity investments, more than triple the five-year goal.

As a result of this holistic approach to business development offered by the Hub, 83% of start-ups in the Communitech network are still in business after five years. That is almost double the industry average. These are the keys to a prosperous community.

Speaking of prosperous communities, I must mention how pleased the communities that make up Kitchener—Conestoga were with this budget's commitment to renewing our infrastructure, a $53 billion program in predictable infrastructure funding. This 10-year program would be the largest and longest federal commitment to infrastructure in Canadian history.

Its components include a $14 billion renewal of the building Canada fund to support major economic infrastructure projects; a five-year plan to continue building infrastructure projects through innovative public-private partnerships, P3s; and more than $32 billion in enhanced gas tax fund payments to provide predictable, application-free funding to municipalities.

This long-term, predictable funding is something our municipal partners have been requesting for years.

Also, while keeping on track for a return to surplus, we would invest new money to help move vulnerable Canadians off the streets, out of shelters and into stable housing, and invest directly in affordable housing.

For my home region of Waterloo, it is estimated that the gas tax fund improvements alone would channel an additional $126 million to our local municipalities.

Grant Whittington, the chief administrative officer of Wilmot Township, sent me a note shortly after the budget, stating that he felt “the budget was well done and provided long-term financial support for municipal support for municipal infrastructure”. He concluded by noting that “The indexing of the Gas Tax Funding Program is very appreciated”.

Kitchener city councillor Berry Vrbanovic, also the past president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, agreed, stating that “The Federal Government has delivered to municipalities with this budget”.

The FCM was even more effusive with its praise:

We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges....

...it will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy.

From engineers to educational institutions, from big business to small business to organized labour, from our communities and our newspapers, we are hearing the same thing, that the budget is good news for Canada.

I look forward to seeing Bill C-60, the economic action plan, passed and implemented quickly. Our communities need the funds to renew their infrastructure. Our unemployed need the training opportunities. Our businesses need the talent.

I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-60, which would make it easier for families to adopt a child and provide a healthy, nurturing environment; easier for charities to attract new donors, as proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo; easier for businesses to grow and innovate to create new jobs and better-paying jobs; easier to support the development and expansion of palliative care services for those who so desperately need them.

I am proud of this budget. I am proud of how Canadians have persevered through this time of economic adversity. I am confident in Canadians. The government shares that confidence. This budget and this bill reflect that confidence. I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Bill C-60.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member spoke of apprenticeships and all the government is doing to encourage apprenticeships. Yet, it is reported that, despite the supposed measures, less than 50% of employers are providing apprenticeships.

By the way, members may not be aware, but apparently the government is the largest purchaser of construction activity in this country. Therefore, the building trades and construction workers are calling upon the government to actually require that all federal RFP bidders be required to provide a certain percentage of apprenticeships.

I wonder if the member would advise if he is willing to speak to his government and support such a directive.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that particular principle is included in this budget implementation bill. In fact I said in my speech that we would support the use of apprentices in federally funded projects and long-term infrastructure projects.

While I am on my feet speaking to that, just recently I held a round table in my riding dealing with the Canada jobs grant. It was amazing to see the uptake by our post-secondary institutions and our industries, to see how they are excited about this Canada jobs grant, which would link the people who need the training with the industry to find out what training they actually need.

It is quite clear that the action of this government would help address the skilled trades shortages in our country and, at the same time, provide those opportunities for businesses that are looking for these jobs that are unfilled right now and are not meeting the needs of our industry.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very much concerned with is the issue of health care.

When we think of health care, we know it was Pierre Trudeau who actually brought in the health care act. It was Jean Chrétien who prevented the tax shift from taking over, in terms of the funding of health care. Then it was Paul Martin who established the health care accord that ultimately led to today when we are giving billions of dollars in health care transfer cash over to the provinces.

Now, that agreement is expiring in 2014.

What is the current government going to be known for, in terms of health care for Canadians, given that even the money that is going into health care today is not because of the current Conservative government? It is because of a health care accord that was reached with the Paul Martin government back in 2004.

That agreement expires in 2014.

Where in this budget or anywhere within the government is there a commitment to health care into the future?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member has a selective memory. He went on about all the things the Liberal government implemented However, what he forgot is a $25-billion cut to health care and education transfers during the time when our provinces and municipalities were hurting. They were forced to come up with those dollars or do without.

We have committed not to cut our transfers to the provinces. The health care funding this government has provided and the increases in transfers to the provinces have been unprecedented.

In addition, in this budget, there are some new initiatives that I would hope my colleague would support, such as funding for the pallium project, to give funding to palliative care groups that are trying to provide front-line training so we can do a better job of providing palliative care to those who need it.

There are all kinds of others, Mr. Speaker, but I see you are cutting me off. Thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the palliative care. What he will not do, because I know he is a humble man, is take credit for a lot of the work he has done in respect of seeing investments like that in palliative care.

I want to commend my colleague for his discussion today on Bill C-60. Our government proposes to index the gas tax fund and that measure is included in Bill C-60. That measure is important for our communities and for our infrastructure.

Could the member comment on that? While I am at it, I am stunned to hear that the opposition will not support a measure like this for long-term predictable infrastructure funding for our communities, direct to them so they can do what they need to do.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the gas tax funding is permanent and indexed. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and municipalities have been asking for long-term predictable funding for years. This government doubled it, has now made it permanent and has also indexed it. The municipalities are thrilled with the kind of support they see going forward and the long-term predictability is the best part of it.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I must admit that when I was asked to prepare a speech on Bill C-60, I was quite interested because many of the proposed measures in the budget concern the municipality of Laval. Laval needs infrastructure and certain changes. I felt this was a good opportunity.

However, this morning, just before oral question period, the government once again cavalierly imposed time allocation on this bill. This reminded me of a session of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development that I attended. Some witnesses were clearly saying that the government was not on the right track when it came to its proposals for aid to developing countries, including wanting to merge Foreign Affairs and International Development with CIDA.

We have been opposed from the beginning to the Conservative caucus's recent way of doing things during debates and discussions. Even in committee, we can see this intransigent attitude, as the Conservatives reject outright every proposal and amendment put forward by the opposition or interested groups, such as witnesses. The door is not open. This government does not listen.

The Conservatives talk about the action plan all day long, as though it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to Canada's economic growth over the next few years. I want to point out that this action plan was designed a few years ago, when our economy was in a different situation. The timing is off with this adjustment.

The government is still using old studies and projections as the basis for omnibus bills like this one, which include all kinds of things. Five committees had to study this bill. I will list them all, since that is unbelievable. Perhaps members can tell me how these committees are connected. The only logical connection I see would be between the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The bill includes measures that affect the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration; the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities; the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs; and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

The NDP alone proposed 33 amendments. They were all rejected outright, with no explanation. The government claims to listen, but it does not. It already has a set plan for what will happen. As I already mentioned this morning, just before question period, the government moved a time allocation motion. I know that times are tough right now and that there are problems everywhere. When the action plan was designed two or three years ago, it was a good thing.

However, employers are using the temporary foreign worker program, although there is no job stability for Canadian families, who are deeply in debt. This is not about job creation, but job stability. People are losing their jobs.

The Conservatives say they have created thousands of jobs, but they can create only public service jobs. The private sector has created these jobs.

They really cannot reconcile two things: they say they want to eliminate the deficit, but they are taking the wrong approach. To them, the right approach is to reduce spending. They have hobbled plenty of organizations that should receive lasting support to maintain economic growth.

One thing that struck me is that this bill gives broad powers to the Treasury Board. After being elected in May 2011, I began to sit in June 2011, like most members. From the outset, I was really surprised to see that my new role as a member promised to be very tough indeed. There was a lot to learn. Indeed, what I was faced with right off the bat was blatant and shocking, because I had to sit until midnight when we held a filibuster during that period in June 2011.

It was about protecting the rights of workers to organize and negotiate a collective agreement with their employer without government intervention. This is dangerous. The Conservatives ignored these rights. They said that was what they wanted to do and they did it. They say that Canadians gave them a majority mandate after the 2011 election, but I think this mandate has been misinterpreted.

I am sure most Conservative members promised their constituents that they would duly represent them and defend their interests here in the House of Commons. However, what is happening instead is that in practice, policy and cabinet are governed by and firmly in line with the predetermined policies of the Conservative elite.

Bill C-60 sends the message that the Conservatives intend to keep Canadians in the dark and change a whole lot of bills without holding consultations. The consultations they do hold are pointless because they do not seem to listen to what people say. The people on the other side are not giving us logical answers. They latch onto an idea from the very beginning and will not let go.

We have reached an impasse, and they are running roughshod over democracy. Opposition members are all constantly seeking answers and solutions to problems that those in government more or less ignore. The only thing they care about is their ideology.

This is the result.

I am very disappointed, and I stand by our caucus's original position.

We will strongly oppose this bill because it makes no sense at all.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the member's speech, he said that Canada's economic action plan was probably a good thing a couple of years ago. That is what he specifically said.

I recall that he went on to say later in his speech that opposition members filibustered the passage of the bill, which I could not quite understand, because on the one hand he said it was a good thing but then later in his speech mentioned how he and his party filibustered the bill to delay what he called a good thing.

He also then talked about balancing the budget without making cuts. I am wondering if the hon. member might help me understand the formula that he and the NDP intend to use with respect to balancing the budget without making cuts. Because New Democrats have apparently studied this a great deal, I wonder if he could present to us what specific areas they would change or address in the budget, such as where, if there are cuts, they would come from, what the corresponding savings would be, and where the increased expenditures would come from in the changes that he is proposing. He has not given details. I wonder if he could be a bit more specific.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my honourable colleague's question.

I did say that the action plan was probably a good thing, but only insofar as it was a plan. The Conservative caucus's problem is that it has not proven that it has the management skills to implement the plan. The Conservatives are flying by the seat of their pants, and we can all see how that is working out.

As for balancing the budget, if our colleague knows what he is talking about, then he knows that a budget is a series of estimates. The end of the story cannot be determined in advance.

Balancing the budget is not a problem. It is all in the accounting, as they say.

There is, however, just one magic word: “management”. That is what the Conservatives are doing so poorly.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to balancing and management. I would like to point out that for Liberals, it is an issue of credibility.

We need to recognize that when the Conservatives became government, they had a multi-billion-dollar surplus. Their management ultimately led to a multi-billion-dollar deficit. That is a very important point.

The other thing that is important to note is that now the government says it is going to turn the deficit, which it created, into a balance surplus for the 2015-16 budget.

The question I have for the member is this: does he agree with me in being somewhat skeptical that the day by which the government is proclaiming it will have that surplus or that balanced budget is after the next federal election?

It seems to me that the Conservatives might be playing a bit of politics, knowing full well they have had an inability to achieve a balanced budget and now promising a balanced budget after the next federal election. Does he take issue with that?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my honourable colleague for the question. He really hit the nail on the head. I will explain the situation.

Management is certainly very interesting. If I am not mistaken, when the Conservatives came to power in 2006, there was a huge surplus, which they obliterated and turned into the deficit we have today. Now they are doing all kinds of acrobatics and chasing their own tails, like dogs sometimes do, as they try to fix the situation. They are also electioneering, of course.

Nevertheless, they will not succeed.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on our economy and our government's economic action plan 2013. The implementation of our new budget will have a positive impact on the lives of all Canadians.

Continuing to follow in the successful path blazed by economic action plan 2012, our government is squarely focused on what matters to Canadians: creating jobs and economic growth and securing Canada's long-term prosperity.

Our government continues to make common sense changes to the way government is run and the way taxpayers' money is spent. This plan will serve to create a more efficient government, one that would see Canada return to balanced budgets in 2015, while at the same time keeping federal taxes at their lowest level in 50 years.

Today we would like to highlight several aspects of how our government plans to achieve our goals of job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

To succeed in the goals we have set out, we are focused on furthering our trade relationship with the United States as well as opening up new and emerging markets for Canadians, attracting new high-quality jobs at home by keeping corporate taxes low, reducing burdens to our businesses through the removal of red tape, fostering entrepreneurial talent and ideas with increased research and development funding and better aligning our immigration system with the needs of the Canadian economy.

Achieving these goals, along with our plan to return to balanced budgets in 2015, confirms our financial responsibility with taxpayers' dollars. An important way to provide better value for taxpayers' money while creating jobs and economic growth relies heavily on public-private partnerships, or P3s. Economic action plan 2013 proposes $1.25 billion over five years to renew the P3 Canada fund.

This renewal is part of a new building Canada plan that would see $53 billion in funding over 10 years. Under P3 arrangements, governments would continue to own infrastructure assets while the private sector would play a larger role in their design, construction, operation and maintenance. Canada is becoming a leader in P3s, and our government is committed to supporting the further development of the Canadian P3 market.

The new Windsor-Detroit international crossing is a project that exemplifies what our government aims for in P3 projects. The Windsor-Detroit trade corridor is the most important international land crossing in North America, handling almost 30% of Canada-U.S. surface trade, worth $120 billion per year. This new crossing would accelerate the movement of international trade, increase the competitiveness of the Canadian manufacturing sector and create thousands of new jobs.

The United States remains Canada's closest ally and biggest trading partner. Our two countries have a tremendous stake in each other's success. The Windsor-Detroit international crossing project will include a 6-lane bridge across the Detroit River, customs plazas on both sides of the border and a connection to Interstate 75 in Michigan.

As well, the construction of a parkway that will connect the new crossing to Highway 401 is already under way as a separate P3 project, supported by a federal contribution from the gateways and border crossings fund. Economic action plan 2013 proposes $25 million over three years to advance the Windsor-Detroit international crossing project into pre-procurement.

Getting people, goods and services across the Canada-U.S. border is critical to our country's prosperity, but we all have to be working very hard to expand trade with other countries. Trade is a vital part of Canada's economy. In fact, one in every five Canadian jobs is linked to exports, and trade accounts for more than 60% of Canada's GDP.

Current trade negotiations build on a record of new free trade agreements with nine countries in less than six years. Recently, our government has also committed to increasing trade with the Asia-Pacific region, the countries of the European Union, Brazil, China and India.

In addition to opening up new and emerging markets, we also must place heavy focus on attracting responsible foreign investment here in Canada. Our government's low-tax plan serves to encourage development in existing companies while establishing Canada as an investment destination for an increasing number of corporate taxpayers.

When our government first came into power in 2006, the corporate tax rate was 21%. This was reduced to 19% in 2009, 18% in 2010,16.5% in 2011 and currently sits at 15%. As result, we have seen the creation of nearly 1.5 million net new jobs since January 2006, the best record of job growth in the G7.

Aside from our low-tax plan, small and medium-sized businesses also require the right resources and incentives to advance new ideas, allowing them to become more competitive and create and sustain high-paying, value-added jobs.

Our government's economic action plan is committed to the success of Canadian entrepreneurs, innovators and world-class researchers. Since 2006, our government has provided more than $9 billion in new funds to support science, technology and the growth of innovative ideas. Economic action plan 2013 proposes to build on this strong foundation, helping to position Canada for sustainable long-term economic prosperity and a higher quality of life for Canadians.

Venture capital plays an important role in promoting a more innovative economy by providing the investment resources needed for high-potential small and medium-sized businesses to grow. Recognizing the importance of the venture capital industry to our future growth, economic action plan 2012 announced $400 million to help increase the private sector investments in early-stage risk capital and to support the creation of large-scale venture capital funds led by the private sector. The venture capital action plan, which was strategically deployed as $400 million in new capital for the next seven to 10 years, is expected to attract close to $1 billion in new private sector investments.

To ensure that Canada remains a global research and innovation leader, economic action plan 2013 plans to advance the venture capital action plan. We will provide $60 million over five years to help outstanding and high-potential incubator and accelerator organizations in Canada expand their services to entrepreneurs. Economic action plan 2013 would also make available $100 million through the Business Development Bank of Canada for strategic partnerships with business accelerators and co-investments in graduate firms.

Of course, in order for businesses to take full advantage of these programs and services, we must continue to reduce the amount of red tape restricting economic growth. Our government is already implementing a one-for-one rule requiring regulators to provide red tape relief for businesses equal to any new burden they introduce. As a result, nine regulations have been repealed under the one-for-one rule since April 2012, saving $3.3 million in the administrative burden on businesses.

As part of the red tape reduction efforts in economic action plan 2013, the Canada Revenue Agency has created a dedicated team responsible for coordinating and addressing small business issues. With this new team, the CRA would be better able to help small businesses avoid costly and time-consuming audits by raising awareness of their tax obligations in order to help them get it right from the start. In addition, effective April 2013 the CRA will ensure that the approval process for the authorization of a third party to conduct business tax matters on behalf of the business owners is more timely and responsive.

The CRA's efforts and sustained approach to reducing red tape were acknowledged in January, when the hon. Minister of National Revenue was awarded the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's golden scissors award. Our balanced approach to business regulation and ongoing effort to reduce red tape will serve to create a more predictable environment for businesses to thrive and prosper in the long term.

A strong, stable and prosperous Canadian economy does not rely upon business investments, trade agreements or a favourable tax atmosphere alone. Our government is striving to establish a more flexible immigration system that is streamlined, highly efficient and aimed at attracting talented newcomers with the skills and experience our economy needs. We have already made significant progress in implementing long-overdue reforms to the Canadian immigration system and will continue with these reforms to make the system faster, more flexible and more focused on Canadian labour market needs.

As part of economic action plan 2013, our government will reopen the federal skilled worker program with an updated points system that would give more weight to factors that are directly related to economic success. This policy aims to fill in gaps where there are recognized skills shortages. This is why economic action plan 2013 continues our commitment to improve foreign credential recognition for additional target occupations under the pan-Canadian framework for the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications.

Through the implementation of previous budgets, Canada has experienced one of the best economic performances in the G7. We were able to accomplish this during the global recession and throughout the recovery. Canadians have put their trust in us, and we are committed to delivering on their expectations by focusing on job creation and economic growth while returning to balanced budgets.

I look forward to seeing the positive outcomes that the implementation of this new budget will bring as we continue to move toward a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague across the aisle for his speech.

With regard to the budget, I took the time to broadly consult the people of my riding to find out what they thought of the Conservatives' budget and what their priorities are. I received hundreds of replies. The people of my riding are worried about a number of things, and I promised to defend their values and priorities by asking the Conservative government some questions.

The most important thing for the people of Alfred-Pellan is to get some answers regarding the elimination of the labour-sponsored funds tax credit. This tax credit is extremely important to Quebec. It supports employment and small business development in all regions of the province. It has a tremendous impact on our economy.

My colleague opposite talked about jobs and prosperity. I would like to hear what he thinks of the fact that, with this measure, the government is attacking Quebec's small businesses and our workers, who deserve so much more than that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what we could do to create jobs, we constantly have invested in research and development. What we will not do is cut back on R and D but may we shift around what that looks like. We realize that as a country we spend a high proportionate amount of dollars on R and D spending.

In recent years the challenge has been that we have not seen the kind of value we need in terms of commercialization. We would certainly like to create more companies like RIM. That is important. We realize it has been very successful.

Therefore, as we look at how we can target our money for R and D, there will be some changes made over time, but our government's commitment is to still spend money in that field because we believe that is important for creating the jobs of the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last four or five years, we have witnessed a Conservative government that has brought a net increase in taxes. It would have us believe that it has decreased taxes when the reality is the opposite. We see that in this budget, with the number of increases in different tariffs, even with tariffs where there are no companies manufacturing the same type of product.

The government is cashing in on literally millions of additional tax dollars through things like tariffs, in particular.

As there has been a net increase in overall taxes being paid by Canadians, why has the government seen fit to increase taxes?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has continually cut taxes. As a result, families now see a difference of almost over $3,000 in their income every year.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways to elevate debate here is to ensure that any representation that is made is one that has some legitimacy.

A little while ago, the member for Winnipeg North posed a question regarding housing. The answer that came back was not one that was representative of what was in the budget. Therefore, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook about affordable housing and the landmark investments this government has made, which no other federal government made for almost the last three decades.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things this government has been very stringent on in terms of being responsible and looking out for those who are less fortunate. If we look at the commitments we have made in this budget, there are $119 million a year over five years for the homelessness partnering strategy, which continues to move forward. That is almost $600 million over the next five years just for that program alone. In terms of the affordable housing strategy, we have also committed $253 million per year over the next five years for that.

If we total up the amount of money that we have committed toward the homelessness partnering and affordable housing strategies, that money is in excess of $1.7 billion over the next five years. That quite clearly demonstrates our commitment to those who are less fortunate.