Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak for a few moments on Bill C-60.

I want to focus on how I think Bill C-60 is another piece of legislation, another action, on behalf of a government that has forgotten its commitment to equal citizenship.

I am sure all members are aware that section 36(1) of our Constitution commits Parliament and provincial legislatures to promote equal opportunities and further economic development to reduce disparities in opportunities. Section 36(2) goes on to commit to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

All governments of the day supported those guarantees of equal citizenship when they were adopted back in 1982. There was even agreement on strengthening the language as part of the Charlottetown accord. Unfortunately, during the mid-1990s, the government of the day put debt and deficit ahead of commitment to sufficient revenues for the provinces, but at least it spread the pain more or less equally.

The current government, and Bill C-60 is a reflection of this, was elected back in 2007 on a commitment to fix the fiscal imbalance between the federal government and the provinces. However, since then, it has backed away from this commitment, and in a way that inflicts greater pain on the less wealthy provinces.

The first step came in 2008 when, without any warning, the Minister of Finance imposed a ceiling on equalization, essentially scrapping a formula that was the product of several years of consultation. Frankly, it was a betrayal of the equalization-receiving provinces, which had agreed to a new per capita funding formula for health and social transfers. They believed that the new enriched equalization program of 2007 would help them deal with their differing needs and fiscal capacities and enable them to meet their commitments to providing “reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation”.

The next attack on equal citizenship took place three years later, when the Minister of Finance, again without consultation, as we have seen with Bill C-60, delivered a take-it-or-leave-it health deal. This move snuffed out any hope the provinces had for negotiating a new health accord, one that would better address the challenges of providing comparable services across the country. Instead of the open-ended 6% annual increases promised during the 2011 election campaign, the deal imposed by the Conservative government provides that some provinces will be getting less than a 1% increase in the next fiscal year, 2014-15, and in 2017, if the Conservative government is still around, the 6%, which is not actually 6%, will drop to 3%. This will be further devastating for citizens of less wealthy provinces, especially those provinces with older populations.

When we throw into that the decision on the retirement age and the plan to dismantle the Health Council of Canada and its mandate for national health standards, it is clear where the Conservative government is going.

The Conservatives not only ignore section 36 of the Constitution; they will undo the 30 years of social progress that has preceded it. It is progress that was the legacy of leaders like Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson.

Having promised to fix the fiscal imbalance, the government has instead made it considerably worse. Since 2007, transfers to the wealthier provinces have gone up at a faster rate than to the less wealthy. This is despite the fact that commitments made under section 36 of reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable rates of taxation have clearly not been met.

On the services side, one only needs to look at the shocking disparity in prescription drug coverage in this country. It was described not long ago by Global and Mail columnist André Picard, who wrote that, when it comes to prescription drug coverage, “there is a basic unfairness that exists in the wide provincial variations...[that] offends the principles of medicare and Canadian values”.

That wide variation he writes about can include an individual who is receiving treatment, paying up to $20,000 a year for a certain drug in some provinces while the drug is free in others.

On the taxation side, there is also a wide variation in provincial taxation that defies the definition of “reasonably comparable”. At the two extremes are Alberta and Quebec. In one province, provincial taxes claim about 9% of personal income. In Quebec, it is over 22%. Some of that wide variation, of course, is the result of policy choices, but much of it has to do with the wide disparities in fiscal capacity.

The Constitution identifies, as I said earlier, two complementary approaches to dealing with such fiscal disparities. One is economic development. The government's approach to economic development is to say that if you have oil or gas, stand aside and let the private sector develop it. In the Atlantic provinces, for example, $30 million would be cut from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in this budget. Otherwise, they are out of luck. The second approach is equalization. The government put a ceiling on equalization. Together with the new health deal, this has left many provinces in a bind. They are looking at no-growth federal transfers and rising costs in meeting their commitments, especially in health care.

Equalization has been described as the glue that holds the Canadian federation together. The Minister of Finance decreed back in 2008 that the Canadian government could no longer afford to apply as much of this required glue. His claim was that the cost was unsustainable. However, in the fiscal year just passed, equalization was less than 1% of the country's GDP, about .86%, which is well below the historical average and lower even than in the mid-1990s, when the books were in much worse shape than they are today. Back then, when our debt-to-GDP ratio was twice what it is now, the national government was investing nearly 1.1% of GDP in equalization.

Therefore, I would argue that we can afford to increase equalization, and we must increase it if Parliament is to meet its constitutional commitments. In saying that, I am aware that equalization clearly benefits citizens in receiving provinces like mine by providing a better quality of service at lower rates of taxation than would otherwise be the case. However, equalization also benefits citizens in non-receiving provinces, not just those citizens who are altruistically inclined but those who hew to the bottom line.

Let me cite a couple of examples from Alberta economists. My first authority is Melville McMillan, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Alberta. In a recent report for Ontario's Mowat Centre, he argued that equalization enhances economic efficiency by discouraging interprovincial migration undertaken to access better services or to face lower taxes. I have seen in my own province that parents of children with autism have joined parents from other less wealthy provinces in moving to Alberta to take advantage of a wider range of services there for their children.

This, along with the disparity in drug coverage already mentioned, is an example of how we have failed to achieve the comparable level of services mandated by the Constitution.

As McMillan pointed out, differences and financial capacity can distort labour in capital markets and reduce national output, but well-designed equalization programs offer a means to correct or offset that.

For a more down to earth assessment, this is what Calgary economist and author Todd Hirsch had to say in The Globe and Mail:

Albertans...need to recognize the tremendous benefits we enjoy from Canada’s open labour market. If someone summed up every year of education that every interprovincial migrant ever brought with them to Alberta, and estimated a dollar value of those years of education, it would amount to tens of billions of dollars.... Alberta’s gain in educated workers has been other provinces’ loss, and a lot of that education was paid for with equalization transfers.

My point is pretty simple. The government fails to recognize the fact that we are a federation, that we are a country where provinces are developing at different levels.

Every Canadian, according to the constitution, deserves to receive a similar level of services at a similar level of taxation. Bill C-60 does not achieve that. It is going in the wrong direction. The sooner the government wakes up, the better this country will be.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about disabled persons and those we want to give opportunities to. Last year, we maintained the program, and we would maintain $40 million per year starting in 2015-16. That is an opportunity fund for persons with disabilities. The program would be reformed to meet more demand-driven training solutions. There is additional funding of $7 million per year proposed for social services and the humanities. It proposes to provide a time-limited investment to support the creation of a Canadian employers disability forum.

I would like to know if the member realizes that although the area of autism has disparities across the country, it is under the purview of the provincial governments. It is their responsibility to decide what their priorities are. Alberta decided that autism was a higher priority.

As a federal government, we are targeting an overall national program, and that is to give opportunities to the disabled community. I would like to hear the member dispute that we are helping the disabled.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the way the government is distributing funds across the country is affecting the capacity of provinces that do not have access to natural resources at this particular time. It is affecting the provinces' capacity to adequately deliver those resources. That is the point I was making. That is the point I continue to make.

Second, the question on Bill C-60 is whether that particular program the member mentioned is the same as the youth jobs program or the training programs the government has failed to begin negotiating with the provinces or the private sector, even to this day, to make them a reality rather than simply an advertisement or a talking point.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's insightful remarks about the government's unwillingness to actually speak with the provinces.

It appears to be an us-and-them game or approach. The hon. member is an experienced parliamentarian. He served in the Nova Scotia legislature as a former leader of his party. Has the member ever seen the kind of thing we are seeing today, with the government now running television advertisements telling Canadians about a training program in the country that actually does not even exist? There are small words at the bottom of the caption saying “subject to parliamentary approval”.

We just came out of another hockey game tonight, an NHL playoff game. The ads are costing $100,000 every time a 30-second ad is run. Has the member ever seen this kind of approach to spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars in his political life?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, although I do not know that I have ever been called insightful before. I do not know what I said to deserve that.

The ads the member referred to are a bit much, especially when they are advertising programs that simply exist on paper and that involve negotiations with the provinces and the private sector that have not even commenced. This is the kind of consultation the government has been doing all too often.

Let me say that I have been around a long time. I was sitting in the provincial legislature in the mid-1990s under the then-Liberal government, which was doing some awful things to provinces like ours as a result of decisions that had been made that the provinces were not particularly aware of.

This kind of autocratic behaviour by a federal government is being brought to a finer point, perhaps, under this government, but it has been around for a while.

Bill S-14--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The House appreciates the notice by the hon. government House leader.

The House resumed 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

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-60, the budget implementation bill and economic action plan 2013.

The opposition needs to get behind it, support it and get with it. The focus, of course, and it should be the focus, is what matters to most Canadians, and that is jobs, economic growth, and Canada's long-term prosperity.

In order for this to occur, and we hear this time and again from witnesses who appeared before our committee, we need infrastructure. Businesses need to function and expand. We need a tax system that would encourage business to grow and expand and invest. We also need the human resources, the people businesses need to provide a reasonable standard of service that we have grown to expect, to grow and expand their businesses, which in turn would provide for more jobs.

With respect to infrastructure, the economic action plan would provide the largest federal investment in job-creating infrastructure projects in Canadian history.

Since 2006, our government has made unprecedented investments in over 43,000 projects to build roads, bridges and other important infrastructure facilities.

In my riding, we have seen major water system upgrades in communities that wish to grow, but in order to do so, they need to upgrade their infrastructure.

In one case, they could not get approval for a subdivision until that infrastructure was agreed to.

It was water system upgrades in communities like Maryfield, Grenfell, Whitewood, Carlyle, Pangman and Stoughton and new sewer upgrades in places like Kipling and Moosomin.

In my consistency, we see new businesses in many small communities. We see the building of hotels, Subways, A&Ws and Tim Hortons to serve the boom taking place in the oil and gas industry. We also have potash mines, coal mining and a vibrant agricultural industry. We have also invested in recreational and public facilities.

All of this works together like a jigsaw puzzle to provide for economic growth and long-term prosperity.

Economic action plan 2013 would build on our investments and would announce a new building Canada plan, the largest investment in job-creating infrastructure in Canadian history.

The new building Canada plan would have three main components. The community improvement fund of $32.2 billion would consist of an indexed gas tax fund and the increased GST rebate for municipalities to build roads, recreational facilities and other community infrastructure across Canada. It would also have the effect of improving the quality of life of Canadian families.

Second, the new building Canada fund of $14 billion in support of major economic infrastructure projects would have a national and regional significance or scope. There would be a renewed P3 Canada fund to the extent of $1.25 billion.

Overall, the new building Canada plan would include $70 billion in federal infrastructure funding over 10 years.

Here is what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities had to say with respect to the budget 2013:

[It] delivers significant gains for Canada's cities and communities. We applaud the government for choosing to continue moving our communities forward even as it meets its immediate fiscal challenges....

It went on to say:

By maintaining and extending unprecedented investments in our cities' infrastructure, it will spur growth and job creation while laying the foundation for a more competitive economy.

Let me move to the third point, which is providing the human resources businesses need.

How do we meet the requirements of business, contractors and entrepreneurs who need both skilled and unskilled persons to maintain, grow and expand their business? Really, it requires a partnership of many stakeholders working together. In many cases, there needs to be more done to get students through high school, particularly in our first nation communities, to ensure that students have the literacy and numeracy competencies that are basic requirements to obtain jobs.

A greater emphasis is required to make known the skills and trades shortages in our schools and to encourage students to consider the trades as an option. Many of the jobs available are, indeed, very well-paying jobs.

Our government has invested billions of dollars in skills upgrading and training, particularly through federal-provincial labour market agreements, the older worker program, the employment insurance program and programs and support for under-represented groups.

The economic action plan introduced the Canada job grant, which provides up to $15,000 per person with combined federal, provincial, territorial and employer funding to help people get the skills they need for in-demand jobs.

Licia Corbella, of the Calgary Herald, on March 23 stated in her article that Christopher Smillie, senior government relations adviser for the Canadian Building Trades of the AFLCIO, had this to say: “Nothing is ever perfect but since when has a federal budget had so much in it about skilled trades”.

She adds:

Smillie says reports indicate that unless decisive action is taken now, Canada will face a shortage of 300,000 skilled tradespeople by 2017. Try building the Keystone XL pipeline then without all those labourers like carpenters, electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, welders and others....Smillie says this makes sense and will avoid job funding from winding up in a province’s general revenue fund or towards training more dental hygienists when what is needed is more welders and plumbers. It means that people will be trained for specific jobs which is a good thing. By attaching the money to an employer it means the worker will be trained for a job that actually exists. It’s about time this kind of common-sense approach was implemented...

Building on all these initiatives, we have made improvements for apprentices and employers in the apprenticeship program. Economic action plan 2013 supports the use of apprentices in federal construction and maintenance contracts. Our government will also ensure that funds transferred to provinces and territories through investment in the affordable housing program support the use of apprentices. As part of the new building Canada plan for infrastructure, the government will encourage provinces, territories and municipalities to support the use of apprentices in infrastructure projects receiving federal funding.

The Association of Canadian Community Colleges had this to say in its March 21, news release:

Federal commitments in Budget 2013 will encourage a reduction in barriers to Canada’s economic success, while maximizing the talents and advanced skills of Canadians. Virtually every opportunity that we suggested for addressing the skills shortage has been embraced...

Another source of human resources is through immigration. The use of the provincial nominee program in Saskatchewan provides an opportunity to attract the skilled people the province needs that will help it to continue to grow.

Going forward, our Minister of Immigration has indicated a new and innovative expression of interest to the immigration management system, which will allow for Canadian employers in provinces and territories to select skilled immigrants from a pool of applicants that best meets Canada's economic need.

However, all of this still does not meet all the needs we have. We need to look at ways and means to provide those through the temporary foreign workers program.

I have a letter that was written to me by a small business in southeastern Saskatchewan. It says:

We are a small community in the South East corner of the province with a population of approximately 960 people. We have been experiencing an oil boom in this region for the last 5 years and during this time I have witnessed dramatic reduction in the amount of applications for jobs posted within our organization. The jobs I mentioned are not always level entry positions but range from cashiers to supervisors and onto management positions.

Basically, what he is saying is that when all of the partners involved have done everything that they can do in places where there is a booming economy, in places where the unemployment rate is very low, we must still rely on the temporary foreign workers program. We must remember that.

Bill C-60 deals with the abuses of the program. Most can accept the fact that we need to deal with the abuses, including a small fee that would be charged for labour market opinions and permits. I think most businesses are prepared to pay that fee providing they get the service that one would expect.

The budget implementation bill addresses what we need for our economy to continue to grow, for us to continue to prosper and for jobs to continue to be created.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech, especially when he talked about temporary foreign workers and pipeline construction. Could he elaborate on this a bit?

I know the government is very keen to push pipelines through British Columbia, as well as the Keystone XL pipeline. Of the jobs it is promising in these proposals, how many of these construction jobs on these pipelines would be filled by temporary foreign workers?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign workers are meant to work where there are key shortages for labour, when the positions cannot be filled by Canadians who are able to provide the service they need. That must happen first and foremost. If there are skilled people, then they would be hired.

It is only after employers have shown they have tried everything they can and cannot find people here, or cannot train them quickly enough, or provide them through the incentive grants that we have provided and when they have done everything and there still is a shortage and it will either go forward with the business or discontinue the business, will they rely on temporary foreign workers.

In fact, in the letter I was going to quote from, but we ran out of time, he said that he would have to probably close one part of his operation because he did not have the ability to service those people and that would affect its entire operation.

If we go the NDP way and not provide the human resources, tax and spend, we will drive our economy into the ground. What we are doing is continuing on the proper path.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an easy question because the member during his speech was doing a promotional ad for the Conservative budget. I now have an opportunity to ask a question. Just like in the ads, maybe we will get some feedback.

In the ads, the Conservatives specifically talk about training credits, but it says provided there is parliamentary approval. Let us say we will get parliamentary approval. Could the member tell me exactly on what date will this program be applicable to my constituents? My understanding is that it will take two to three years before it even comes into force.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to give him the precise date, what would happen then?

We heard other speakers say that we needed to negotiate, talk and discuss. We spent billions of dollars on the labour market agreements with the provinces, specifically in relation to skills training and upgrading. This program is one that will have discussion with the players involved, with other stakeholders, with the provinces—

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

So for two, three years or four to seven years, there is no program?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, there will be a significant amount of dollars spent to ensure that when people get trained there will be a job for them. In other words, there is a job waiting to be filled and this will help that job be filled by ensuring we are training the people for the skills that are required by the workplace. That should be a common sense kind of approach. In fact, one of the people who spoke with respect to this said, “Finally we get some common sense going into the equation”. We will see the details when everyone has come to agreement on that.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, while the member is on a roll talking about how good our budget plan is for 2013, perhaps he would like to expand on what we are doing for small business, for example, the hiring tax credit or the accelerated capital cost?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the accelerated capital cost is being very well received by businesses because it encourages them to buy the needed equipment and assets to better operate their business more efficiently and to provide jobs. They are able to get a tax writeoff in a quicker fashion than normal.

If people are in manufacturing and they wish to expand their plants and buy new equipment, this is the kind of thing that will make the manufacturers do that. They would have a more efficient business, a business that was able to expand and hire more people.

Those are the kinds of things that give initiative and impetus to the economy, the kinds of things that we need to see. It is one of many of them. If we look at the entire budget implementation bill, we would see a series of actions taken in the direction of creating jobs, long-term prosperity and a better country in which to live.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-60. I would like to begin by saying that the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent are clearly not well served by the Conservatives' latest attempt to perform what the party seems to think are miracles.

Our riding is economically diverse, and I can say with certainty that none of us are happy with Bill C-60. I believe that is a significant indicator. I would like to thank all of the people in my riding who took the time to express their thoughts on this bill.

Here we are once again dealing with an omnibus bill, as heavy as an Incan inscription and just as impenetrable. The message behind Bill C-60 comes at an opportune moment in Canadian political history. The Conservatives are bound and determined to pass omnibus bills because they come to power only once every 35 years and have to focus on forcing these massive bills through. Clearly, that is their only hope.

The Reform Party can be proud of the fact that it managed to make itself a part of actual history. It became more than just a regional party. Good job, guys. Bill C-60 is the third omnibus bill that the Conservative government has thrust into the court of public opinion. At this point in time, I think there is one question we should be asking ourselves. Why did the government not bundle all of these measures into its first budget, Bill C-38? The Conservatives would have won the dubious honour of having created the biggest bill ever introduced. They could have given us a super-omnibus bill to solve all of Canada's problems in one fell swoop.

No matter what the Conservatives say, this budget will stall Canada's economy, not revive it. Budget 2013 will eliminate thousands of jobs, cut direct program spending and slow GDP growth considerably.

The government is putting positive spin on its measures so that it can spread devastation. This trademark Conservative lack of nuance, its black-or-white mentality, has plagued us for eight years. The Conservatives use the word “growth” to hide basic corporate interests.

The only thing that will grow with Bill C-60 is the Conservatives' ego, as well as the size of the attendant ethics scandals.

Although some of my colleagues have mentioned it, it bears repeating that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that these cuts are completely unnecessary to restore the structural budget surplus.

I am not in the habit of accusing the Conservative government of indulge in demagoguery in my speeches, but this time, as I said before, the ruling party has been overtaken by its own folly. Given that wages are stagnating, jobs are unstable and average households and individuals are heavily in debt, why is this cutthroat dollars and cents approach overriding everything?

Canada is not just a collection of economic indicators to be manipulated. It is first and foremost the sum of its people. When it comes to the economy, the Conservative message is clear: economic survival or economic weakness. To them, all Canadians owe their living to the economy.

Depriving people of the means to achieve economic success is a misguided approach. People are the basis of the economy, not the reverse. Economic indicators that now seem so meaningful and crucial will not be voting in 2015. It is the very people the government has abandoned who will undo legislation like Bill C-60.

Since we are on the topic, Bill C-60 obviously meddles in a wide range of separate and unrelated issues, each time with the government's pervasive iron fist.

For example, and this did not go unnoticed by the public, a number of crown corporations will have their ability to bargain collectively eroded, practically stripped away. From now on, during negotiations, our crown corporations will have to deal with unavoidable advice from the President of the Treasury Board, who will sit at the head of the table, as proud as Bashar al-Assad. There will be no getting away from this oh-so-valuable government input. Is that supposedly august presence really necessary?

No, but while we are at it, we might as well follow through with that logic. We should create a department to oversee union negotiations. After all, Canada's future depends on it. Talk about ridiculous.

The Conservatives are keeping up their attacks on Canadian workers, believing they will win over an undetermined social class to which no one belongs. It is like the Arabian Nights, but without the magic, because the magic has run out.

In the last budget, the Minister of Finance, gleaming like Prosecco, used a very effective diversion tactic. When he was announcing the convoluted content of Bill C-38, he announced that he would eliminate the penny. That was the price they had to pay for getting Canadians to accept the enormity of the bill. Just like that, it all came down to getting rid of the penny. The Conservatives took on a modern look for a very low price.

This year they are coming back with a budget bill every bit as big and callous, but without the handy distraction the penny provided. However, the metaphor lives on: Bill C-60 will not grow the economy by a single penny.

Bill C-60 is just a litany of punitive measures against workers and crown corporations and a series of tariff adjustments that, at the end of the day, will have no major impact on people's budgets in this country.

The figures quoted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer amaze me. In total, budgets 2012 and 2013 will slash 67,000 jobs, which in turn will trigger a 0.57% drop in the GDP, as one might expect. If we compare those figures with the rhetoric the Conservative government has been spewing ad nauseam about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs since the recession, we see that this is total madness.

My impression is that the 900,000 jobs that the government has created—because I believe that is the new number members are using these days—are in China, not here. That is wonderful for China, but when the manufacturing sector in Ontario completely disappears, like the Etruscans, what then? Does Bill C-60 try to remedy this situation? The question remains, but I believe that the bill speaks for itself, and it is quite sad.

As we have already said, the NDP strongly opposes the idea of omnibus bills like this one, legislative measures that, frankly, are offensive because of their size and how underhanded they are. The government wants to quickly pass legislation on very complex issues that are not even connected to one another, for the sole purpose of being able to boast about having done it. It is irresponsible and childish.

The NDP would never do that to Canadian voters. However, I am afraid the precedent has been firmly set and the Liberals will be thrilled to take their turn if they ever regain a shred of power.

As we have heard over and over, the Conservative government wants to sneak things through right under our noses by ordering the drafting of these kinds of omnibus bills. However, it will not work. We sit down and dissect them for hours on end. We find all their flaws, large and small. The Conservatives cannot fool us. Everyone knows what they are trying to do. Perhaps the government thinks that it has managed to completely mislead voters with its cryptic manoeuvres. Perhaps it thinks that it will have its cake and eat it too, and then sell it back again at a profit. However, that is not what is going on. The official opposition sees right through the government's game, and the people are fully aware that the Conservatives are trying to trick them.

In Brazil, the word “omnibus” means “public transit”. In this case, that is quite appropriate, because I have a feeling that in 2015, many members across the floor will have to use public transit to get to work. However, the members opposite need not worry, since I am sure they will be able to find something among the 900,000 jobs they supposedly created. I find it appalling that this government has so little regard for workers, people who can never take advantage of the measures in the budget.

The government does not seem to understand that there is an emerging middle class in this country. Even thought these people make up the majority of Canadians, the government continues to ignore their interests, while claiming to defend them. That is deplorable.

Bill C-60 shows little respect for the average Canadian and the provinces fare no better, as was to be expected. The bill hits too close to home.

Without any excuse or explanation, the Conservatives are attacking a program that all of Quebec is extremely fond of. The Fonds de solidarité FTQ is a national resource for all Quebeckers, and it cannot be attacked with impunity.

Our province has developed its economy in a competitive, imaginative and sustainable way through the use of the FTQ fund. By attacking this fund, the Conservative government is attacking Quebec itself. I would really like the five Quebec Conservative MPs to have the courage to rise and defend this deplorable decision while they still have the opportunity to represent Quebeckers in the House of Commons. I know my people, and this is the final nail in the coffin for Quebeckers' dalliance with the Conservative Party.

I cannot refrain from using an accusatory tone in my speech because I am speaking on behalf of my generation, young people between the ages of 18 and 35, who are not fooled by the monumental fast one that the government is pulling on our society for mercenary interests. It is my duty to speak for those who do not have the opportunity to sit in the House. The young people of this society, who the Conservative government tries so hard to control, has such drive that all the C-38s, C-45s and C-60s are so ridiculous as to be offensive.

Young Canadians must not be underestimated. The government would not believe what our young people are capable of. Look at what Turkish youth are doing right now. What will the Prime Minister do if the tenor of the Quebec protests convinces the rest of the country? Is he, too, waiting for his Taksim square?

[The member spoke in another language.]

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a question for my hon. colleague regarding her speech, but I do have a concern about the integrity of our debate.

I am certain that the Minister of Finance would have no problem with being referred to as gleaming like Prosecco, but to deal with the arguments rather than the personalities would be important for really raising the level of debate here.

Comparing anybody to Bashar al-Assad is really over the top. I would give the member the opportunity to withdraw that.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing insulting about saying that someone is gleaming like Prosecco. I think it is rather nice and is an amusing comparison.

As for Bashar al-Assad, I am not comparing him to anyone here. I do not think that anyone in the House is at that level, obviously.

However, it is important to preserve the integrity of our union negotiations. It is very important that these people are able to negotiate in a clear and simple manner. It is unacceptable for the government to respond that that is not how it works and that it will sit down at the table and negotiate for them.

The government should reconsider the decisions it makes in its budget bills.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my community needs jobs. Each day at least one young person calls our office looking for work, and we help young people find jobs week after week. The youth unemployment rate remains a staggering 14.2%, nearly twice the rate for other Canadians. Today, 404,000 young people lack a job and another 171,000 have simply given up and dropped out of the labour market.

Bill C-60 creates an illusion of action regarding jobs and training. The government proposes to claw back $2.5 billion per year in labour market money, which it now sends to the provinces, and renegotiate it with provincial governments. This amounts to recycling of existing money.

I am wondering if the member sees anything new, any additional funding, when it comes to job creation.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Etobicoke North for her question.

She brought up one of the biggest problems right now with the youth unemployment rate. She explained very well that a number of young people from my generation are having a very hard time finding work. As she said, this bill creates an illusion of stimulating job creation. Yet it is all smoke and mirrors.

The reality is that companies are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars and they do not have any real incentive to reinvest that money in creating jobs. In reality, no jobs are being created, and this is all a bunch of nonsense.

It is as though the government is giving a cake to one person and some crumbs to another. If I say that that is an injustice, will the government criticize me and say that I do not want to give that person those crumbs? That is crazy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for her excellent speech. I understand that her riding also includes an aboriginal community.

It seems to me that there is nothing in this budget to address the real and urgent needs when it comes to housing, drinking water, infrastructure and schools. Am I mistaken? The 30% gap between funding for aboriginal children on reserves and that for children elsewhere in the provinces is still there.

Am I wrong? Is there anything in this budget to address this?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, for his question. He raised a very valid point.

Yet again, there are no measures for first nations or to close this ever-present gap in education, access to drinking water and many other areas of concern.

Recently in Montreal, for a while people had to boil their water to make it drinkable. Everyone was angry and said that this did not make sense, yet that is the reality facing tens of thousands of people in our own country.

Very little is being done to try to help these people and close this completely unacceptable gap. There is nothing in this bill that addresses these problems. Once again, it is a major omission, and this will not work.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be speaking so close to the hour of midnight. I think this is probably one of the few times I have had this opportunity to speak this late at night. Let it not be said that members of Parliament do not work hard in this country. I have visited many parliaments around the world, and this is one of the finest examples of Canadian democracy at work.

Let me be the first to say the words “omnibus bill” have been bantered around. I take exception to that. I do not think omnibus bill is a bad descriptor of what we are trying to do here. However, in my consultations with the business community in my riding of Willowdale, the omnibus bill really is not what is said. We call this a comprehensive bill, a bill that looks at every single aspect of Canadian human resources, of capital resources, of intellectual resources, our natural resources and how we tie all that together to make this country work.

I will go through some small concerns I have with our bill. I appreciate the opportunity to talk today to Bill C-60. Economic action plan 2013 is a positive plan that is focused on creating jobs, promoting growth and supporting long-term prosperity.

As Canadians know, our global economic reputation is strong. Canada has earned the trust of global investors for its responsible fiscal, economic and financial sector management. Canada is alone among the G7 countries to receive the highest possible credit rating from all the major credit rating agencies, which contributes to low borrowing costs.

As a recent Toronto Sun editorial noted:

Since the Tories took over, no other G-7 country has surpassed Canada in per capita job growth. Canada has added 1.5 million net jobs since 2006. ...Canada is in good shape compared to all the other industrialized countries of the West.

The economic action plan 2013 would strengthen this record with actions in all areas that drive economic progress and prosperity by connecting Canadians with available jobs, helping manufacturers and businesses succeed in the global economy, creating a new building Canada plan, investing in world-class research and innovation, and supporting families and communities.

While it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic strengths, we recognize that Canada still faces a challenging global economic environment. Today's legislation would help to address these concerns.

First, for instance, communities would benefit from Bill C-60 through investments that address accessibility and affordability of housing. Our government has made a firm commitment to ensuring low-income families have access to quality affordable housing. Two major Government of Canada housing initiatives are set to expire in 2014: the investment in affordable housing and the homelessness partnering strategy. Since 2008, these programs have provided significant financial support to provinces, territories and communities to increase accessibility and affordability of housing for low-income Canadians.

To ensure we continue to meet these needs, our government would renew its commitment to the investment in affordable housing and the homelessness partnering strategy with a nearly $2 billion investment. This new investment has been welcomed by many across Canada for both the amount of the investment and its length.

Indeed, here is what Habitat for Humanity Canada had to say:

The...government's renewed investment in affordable housing comes as great news for low-income families looking to buy a safe, decent and affordable Habitat home.

Toronto City Councillor Ana Bailao of ward 18, Davenport, who is the chair of the city council's affordable housing committee, commented, “We are very pleased to see (the programs) renewed, and for a five-year term, which is the longest we have ever seen”.

In addition, economic action plan 2013 proposes to support the construction of new housing units in Nunavut, which faces unique challenges in providing affordable housing due to its climate, geography and dispersed population.

Helping individuals and families obtain affordable housing and avoid homelessness creates broader economic benefits for all Canadians.

On another subject we will be protecting our environment, which brings me to my next point. Protecting the health and well-being of Canadians by promoting a clean and sustainable environment is a key priority for our government. Canada's unique natural heritage contributes to a high quality of life for Canadians today and in the future. That is why the legislation before us would provide $20 million for the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land.

Support for the Nature Conservancy of Canada would allow the organization to protect Canada's most important natural areas and the species they sustain by continuing to conserve ecologically sensitive land under the natural areas conservation program.

Additional funds for conservation would be leveraged by requiring each federal dollar to be matched by two dollars in new funding from other sources, creating even greater value from taxpayer dollars. It is measures like these that will significantly enhance Canada's long-term economic sustainability by supporting a healthy environment.

Before I conclude, let me touch on two more key initiatives that represent investments in our communities.

First, economic action plan 2013 would introduce a temporary first-time donor's super credit designed to encourage new donors to give to charities. The FDSC would increase the value of the federal charitable donations tax credit by 25 percentage points if neither the taxpayer nor his or her spouse has claimed the credit since 2007. The FDSC will apply on up to $1,000 in cash donations claimed in respect of any one taxation year from 2013 to 2017.

This new credit would significantly enhance the attractiveness of donating to a charity for young Canadians who are in a position to make donations for the first time. By helping to rejuvenate and expand the charitable sector's donor base, it would have an immediate impact on supporting that sector.

Second, to address the needs of Canadians with a print disability, such as an impairment of sight, today's act proposes funding of $3 million in 2013-14 for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind in support of a national digital hub. Incidentally, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is in a riding just south of my riding.

The national office of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is located in Toronto, but the services of the organization, including the digital hub, benefit Canadians across the country. The CNIB's national digital hub would provide improved access to library materials for Canadians who are blind or partially sighted, supporting their ongoing educational development and their quality of life. This would allow the institute to increase the number of new titles available to the print-disabled and would increase the number of end-users benefiting from the national digital hub.

Finally, I would be remiss if I closed without quickly reviewing other important initiatives in Bill C-60. They include providing funding of $3 million over three years to the Pallium Foundation of Canada to support the delivery of training in palliative care to front-line health care providers; expanding tax relief for home care services; and improving the integrity of the tax system by, for example, streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks.

As I noted this evening, economic action plan 2013 contains a host of benefits for every part of the country. Through this comprehensive and ambitious plan, we will maintain and strengthen our advantages by continuing to pursue those strategies that made us so resilient in the first place: being responsible, being disciplined and being determined.

This act marks an import milestone and the next step in creating a brighter future for our country. I urge members opposite and all members of this House to get behind this legislation and get it passed so that it can do just that and put Canada in a position to meet the challenges of the 21st century.