Debates of June 3rd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the remarks from the member for Ottawa Centre. When he talked about the Canada job grant and that the program does not actually exist, I think that is symbolic of a lot of things in this so-called budget. It is a lot of fiction. What we also have in this so-called budget is a statement from the Minister of Finance that he will balance the books in 2015. It is as if it has already happened when we listen to them, but we know that it is fiction too, because this Minister of Finance has not hit a budget target yet.

My question really relates to the other aspect of the member for Ottawa Centre's critic portfolio, and that relates to CIDA. It definitely should not be in a budget bill. What does the member see as the implications for international development assistance as a result of it being transferred to Foreign Affairs, more for business interests than development interests?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this could be done in a way that is responsible and responsive. The problem is that the government is just throwing it all together and throwing it in the budget.

In responding to the member's question, let me just state what Secretary of State Clinton did. She had a committee representing 16 departments and agencies that were consulted, and they worked on how they were going to change development in that country. In the U.K., they had a white paper process, which as we know, in the Westminster tradition, is a way in which we take a policy, go out and consult and actually lay it out. This government has done nothing, not even with its own employees.

I am deeply concerned that the Conservatives could take what could be a good idea and make it a bad rollout to start with and something I guess the rest of us would have to fix later.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my hon. colleague a question. He gave an excellent speech on CIDA and its merger with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Since he is the member for Ottawa Centre and might know more than I do about public servants, I wanted to ask him what he thinks of what was revealed in the budget regarding the Treasury Board's political interference in collective bargaining with government employees, particularly employees of crown corporations like the CBC, Canada Post and so on.

Could he comment on the government's interference and meddling in crown corporations' collective bargaining?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is right. There is a lot of concern in this town about the Conservative government. It is not only about its track record but about going forward.

The power grab we see in this budget is interfering not only with the collective agreements but with management. It seems as if the government does not trust the managers of crown corporations, let alone the people who deliver all the public services we rely on.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today not only in support of economic action plan 2013 but of Bill C-60, our budget implementation bill.

We come to a discussion about the economic action plan in this bill at a time when our economy is creating job growth in quarter one in 2013 at a very robust 2.5%. There is an adjustment to quarter-four growth last year. We have now had seven consecutive quarters of growth. In total, we have well over 900,000 net new jobs, 90% of them full-time, with 75% to 80% of them in the private sector. All of that is just since July 2009, which was the depth of the recession.

The IMF and OECD have predicted that Canada will experience some of the strongest growth in the G7 projecting out quite a way. We have the lowest overall tax rate on new businesses in the G7. That is a serious competitive advantage for the country. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, by a country mile, as we would say in Essex, or two, in this case. We are headed to pre-recession levels in due course. We have a deficit that has just come in lower than forecast and a sterling AAA credit rating with all of the major credit rating agencies.

Of course, we recognize that when we look to Europe and south of the border, or from where I live, north of the border, to the United States, there is more to do. There are still very real threats in the global economic landscape. That is why we need economic action plan 2013 and why we need to get on with the business of implementing the economic action plan here with Bill C-60.

It is important to put economic action plan 2013 in the context that it builds on previous work we have been undertaking. For those of us in the auto sector, which is where my roots are, we had a national auto strategy in 2008, including the creation of the auto innovation fund. Now we have the renewal of the auto innovation fund after major investments to create jobs.

The growing forward 2 program builds on growing forward 1, which was to strengthen the farm gate. Growing forward 2 is targeted at the food processing industry to get the sector into the export markets and to expand it and create jobs.

We had the original build Canada plan in 2007, which was $33 billion. Later we had the gas tax fund, which we made permanent just a couple of years ago. The new infrastructure plan in economic action plan 2013 would be long term. Included in Bill C-60 is the fact that we would begin to index the gas tax fund. We lay that program out in the bill.

With respect to a new border crossing between Windsor and Detroit, which is a vital economic lifeline, if we look back at past budgets, we lay aside the funding for the Herb Gray Parkway, which is currently under construction. Those funds allowed us to go ahead and acquire the land on the Canadian side for customs and the toll plaza. In this budget, funds are set aside that will help us begin some land acquisition over there, now that there is a presidential permit on the U.S. side.

We are also building on our elimination of red tape and are streamlining the regulatory regime to spur economic growth. I could go on and on, but I want to focus on a few measures that I think are extremely important. If we look first of all at the Canada job grant, we are tackling the skills mismatch, which is a critical problem we face in the labour market.

Even in Windsor-Essex, where we have had chronically high unemployment for a number of years, we have a machine tool, die and mould sector, for example, in which we have hundreds of jobs that have been open and unfilled. Many of them have been unfilled for as many as six months or more. Why is that? It is because those who may be unemployed in that area, and who may even have good skills, do not necessarily have the appropriate skills.

We know this from experience in Ontario. We can look at the second careers program, which retrained a lot of unemployed workers through the recession and out of it. People were training to be chefs and truck drivers. These are not unimportant jobs, but they are not hitting the labour market as it exists. The great benefit and the beauty of the idea of the Canada job grant is that it would put the employer, who has an actual opening and a plan for short-term training, at the centre of the equation to meaningfully train someone in a specific job to fill that opening. That is a major step forward.

I also like the fact that we are embarking on a major long-term infrastructure plan. That is extremely important for municipalities. As I said earlier, the gas tax fund has been made permanent. In this economic action plan, we did not stop there. We are going to be indexing that fund at 2%, and then in increments of $100 million.

If members talked to any municipality, including rural municipalities like ours, they would find that this is vital. Municipalities can borrow against it if they want to build a project now, because it is permanent and they know what the transfers will be. They can pool it and wait, if the municipalities choose to do that. They can apply these funds to their own priorities with respect to their local infrastructure.

The government is expanding the categories for the municipalities so that they can do more with that particular funding Maybe the municipalities have already invested heavily in upgrading their waste water infrastructure, as they have in Amherstburg, and it may be time to move on to something different. Those funds can be used in those ways.

I am surprised that the opposition is not supporting that. Bill C-60 lays out a schedule for indexing and a formula for how that is going to occur. It will be a significant blow to municipalities to find out that not everyone in the House is going to be casting a vote in favour of that.

The economic action plan is also really important because there are a lot of tools for the economy in Ontario, particularly southern Ontario, where I come from. We are still concerned about the economy in Ontario. The provincial government is pursuing high-tax policies that have driven up the cost of electricity, which used to underwrite the strong manufacturing sector in Ontario. Our businesses are grappling with that as they try to function in a global economy.

I am encouraging our provincial counterparts not only to get on board with the Canada job grant, in terms of better retraining, but to follow the example we have been setting with consecutive budgets, including this one, by lowering taxes.

In Bill C-60, we extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for an additional two years. That is critical. It is allowing our auto sector and our food processors in Ontario, which happen to be the largest manufacturing sectors in Ontario, to retool and invest in the equipment they need to not only increase their productivity but to lower their costs over the long term.

We are renewing the auto innovation fund, as I briefly mentioned earlier. It is a critical fund as we look to secure the automotive footprint in North America. I have to say that for a government that participated on behalf of taxpayers in restructuring Chrysler and General Motors, the auto industry is coming back with pent-up demand. They have a business case that works. A fund like this will allow them to tap in and help with creating jobs for innovative products that are rolling off the assembly line.

We have extended FedDev Ontario an additional five years to help diversify the economy. That is a significant step forward. The creation of an advanced manufacturing fund is going to really help in that regard as well.

The promised overhaul of the National Research Council to commercialize research and development is important to the sector but in a way that is going to allow small and medium-sized businesses that may not be able to develop the in-house R and D capability to access all of this great public infrastructure we have built through successive investments in our science and technology fund. To be able to do that to create jobs is a very good thing.

The one item I want to close with is one that is personally important me. It is the expansion of the adoption expenses tax credit. Many will know, since my Motion 386 of a couple of years ago and the study on federal support for adoptive parents and children, that this has been an area of passion for me. It would look at families who choose the path of adoption. There would be a recognition in our budget that there are 30,000 children waiting to be adopted in Canada.

This is a measure that would allow some of those costs to be underwritten or subsidized to get more of these children into the loving permanence they need. I encourage the opposition to get behind measures like this and get behind the economy and support Bill C-60.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Essex for that mixed bag of Conservative talking points on Bill C-60.

My question is on the part of his speech that had to do with infrastructure. If possible, I would like the response not to start with “There has never been a government that has done more for infrastructure”, because, really, if the measure the Conservatives are putting forward does not fix the problem, then we are hardly any further ahead.

The program was originally supposed to be for seven years and now the government is extending it to 10 years without doing the math and increasing the amount of money allocated to the program so that the objectives are at least maintained. What is more, most of the money will be spent at the end of the program instead of at the beginning.

Does the hon. member not see that this is basically a cut disguised as a new program?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the degrading tone of the member's intervention. He has brought debate down a level with some of his characterizations about whether they are Conservative initiatives or the rationale behind them.

We put forward a budget in good faith, with lots of consultation, particularly on the infrastructure aspects, with municipalities of all sizes. Bill C-60, which the member opposite, unfortunately, will vote against, would implement the indexation of the gas tax fund. That would be immediate and it sets out the formula going forward for how it would be indexed and increased. Whether it is a small municipality or a large-tier municipality, they are all going to get an instant injection of infrastructure funds that they can put into their priorities right away. I am very sad the New Democrats will oppose that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the need for skilled workers in the province of Ontario. That is not new. I hear it quite often from my Ontario colleagues in the Liberal caucus who are really concerned about the skilled jobs that have not been filled and remain vacant.

There is the provincial nominee program. It is believed that by better utilizing that program and having Ottawa provide more certificates to the province of Ontario, it would better ensure that immigrants coming to Ontario would get some of those skilled jobs. However, that is only one important aspect.

We also acknowledge the importance of ensuring that Canadians, first and foremost, are filling jobs and that educational facilities are provided, whether they are of a provincial nature, in the private sector or those to which Ottawa contributes. Filling those jobs is important. However, specifically with regard to the provincial nominee program, does he believe the province of Ontario should be issued more certificates, something the province itself would like to see?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am stunned to hear the member has a preference for immigrants filling the labour market than connecting Canadians directly with those jobs. We have underemployed people at home who want to work and are eager to acquire the kinds of skills they need to get into these well-paying jobs. I am stunned. The member will back that up by voting against these measures and the Canada jobs grant.

I appreciate that is what he supports, but I want Canadians who are underemployed and unemployed to acquire the skills training they need. We have seen programs like the second career program that I mentioned earlier. People were being trained, but not necessarily to get them into the labour market. This is going to change the approach by providing employers with short-term plans for training people for the jobs they need filled.

We want to connect Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, into the labour market so they get the jobs they need to have long-term prosperity.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf my riding, Sherbrooke, to speak to Bill C-60. The budget was brought down in March. The budget implementation bill, which is 100 or so pages long this time, followed.

We might say this is a small budget implementation bill compared to the last two, which were 400 pages each. However, if we look at the history of budget implementation bills, we realize that a 100-page bill is still quite voluminous. This approach does not allow parliamentarians to do their job properly and analyze the bill in detail.

In the Conservative government's last two budget implementation bills, there were hundreds and hundreds of pages of measures that were not necessarily related to the budget. Are the Conservatives afraid of public opinion? Is that why they rush to pass measures in a document that is so voluminous that it is hard, even for experts, to see all the details in it? That is my theory, but I think most of my opposition colleagues see it that way as well.

I am somewhat sad to speak to this bill for a number of reasons, including the fact that this budget contains a lot of bad news. It would take a long time to rhyme it all off, but I will mention a few items that affect my riding in my speech.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I am obviously here to talk about the impact that this bill could have on my riding and on the beautiful city of Sherbrooke, the capital of the Eastern Townships. Sherbrooke is a fairly large city that has a population of 160,000 and many needs. I am honoured to serve the city in this House.

I would also like to mention the correspondence that I received from the people in my riding on various subjects. I will talk about those subjects today, since they garnered the most attention from the people of Sherbrooke, even though it may have been for the wrong reasons.

In a question I asked my colleague earlier, I talked about the Treasury Board's political interference in crown corporations' negotiations. In the last budget implementation bill, we learned that the President of the Treasury Board was going to give himself the right to interfere in the business of our crown corporations, for example the CBC. This crown corporation is a fairly well known entity in the field of journalism, and it must be as independent as possible. It is vital that the CBC, more than any other crown corporation, be independent.

The government would interfere primarily in negotiations with CBC employees, which include journalists. According to many people and even witnesses who came to comment on the budget, this is a direct attack on the CBC, as well as on other crown corporations, such as Canada Post and VIA Rail, and the list goes on.

This measure will make it possible for the Treasury Board to give guidelines to administrators of crown corporations and tell them how they should manage and pay their employees or how they should manage their day-to-day operations. Earlier, I mentioned negotiations with employees of this crown corporation, and then there is the announced $115 million in cuts to the CBC, which is another Conservative attack on our crown corporation. Unfortunately, that is $115 million less that the crown corporation has to do its job.

There is another topic that has been the subject of a lot of talk in my riding, and that is the elimination of the tax advantage that was offered by labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ and the CSN—the most well-known funds in Quebec.

According to the figures, the government will save $350 million by eliminating this tax advantage. It will save $350 million, including $312 million in Quebec alone. It is no coincidence that we have been hearing from the media and other sources that this is a direct attack on Quebeckers. In Sherbrooke, there is an FTQ office just a few metres away from my office.

Labour-sponsored funds, such as the Fonds de solidarité FTQ, allow the workers who participate in the fund to invest in small and medium-sized businesses. These workers are encouraged to do so because they receive a 15% tax advantage from the federal government. This tax advantage does not exist for other savings plans, such as ordinary RRSPs, which are done through banks. Investors would choose to go through a labour-sponsored fund to make use of the tax advantage. The government now wants to make some gradual cuts. Labour-sponsored funds will no longer be able to offer that advantage. They will unfortunately have to fight even harder with the banks to compete for investors.

The direct investments made in the regions of Quebec through these funds enabled small and medium-sized businesses to start up and helped other businesses to keep jobs. This is really a shame. Many people have reacted to this, and that is why I want to condemn it. I hope that the government will pay close attention to this issue. As I said, there will be negative repercussions, particularly for Quebec, because it is the province with the most labour-sponsored funds.

Another issue that my office has received a lot of correspondence about is the merger of the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, with the Department of Foreign Affairs. People in Sherbrooke are very concerned about this. Like me, they wonder how Canada's economic and trade interests, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs, can be reconciled with CIDA's humanitarian aid mandate. I hope that CIDA will continue to deliver that aid despite cuts to its budget. How can the two be reconciled? How can the government believe that everything will be fine, that there will be no problem when it merges the two? Many people in Sherbrooke are deeply concerned about this.

Another issue we have been getting a lot of feedback about since the budget was tabled is the higher tariffs on some commercial goods. Countries that want to export their goods to Canada will have to pay higher tariffs that will apply to hundreds of thousands of consumer goods.

As the member for Sherbrooke, it is clear to me that higher tariffs are in fact a new tax, a hidden tax. There is no need to study economics for years to realize that if the cost of exporting goods to Canada goes up, companies will raise the retail prices of the goods they export to Canada. In the end, Canadians will pay more.

Canadians, including the people of Sherbrooke, will have to pay an estimated $8 billion more because of the Conservatives' tariff increase. That is in addition to higher costs for hospital parking and the attack on credit unions, such as Desjardins, which is a pillar of the community in Sherbrooke. There is one on nearly every corner. That is yet another thing the Conservatives have taken aim at.

I will be happy to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised and somewhat amazed that the hon. member opposite would suggest that $1 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money going to the CBC should be handed over without accountability and some kind of oversight by this government, which was elected by the people to ensure that their hard-earned dollars are not in any way, shape or form squandered, wasted or otherwise misdirected.

I wonder if the member opposite could explain his value system with respect to how we deal with taxpayers' hard-earned money.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, I have dealt with the CBC many times. Indeed, we are conducting a study right now.

It is obvious that the Conservative government is attacking the CBC, and it is also clear that Canada needs the CBC. It is a public broadcaster, like those in many other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan and Australia. These countries have public broadcasters. Canada is one of the countries with the lowest costs per capita for what is in our case a crown corporation, the CBC.

This corporation prepares annual reports that are tabled in Parliament. It justifies all its expenditures. It is absolutely necessary for all Canadians to have a broadcaster in both official languages everywhere in Canada, whether they are in northern Ontario, where they can receive services in French, out west, or in eastern Canada. This is crucial, and it is important that this service be maintained as much as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on the member's concluding remarks, in which he talked about the issue of tax credits for credit unions.

Credit unions have been a wonderful alternative to some of the traditional banks, whether in terms of the services they provide or in their locations. In rural communities out west they are exceptionally popular and provide a service that many of the banks have not been able to provide. In my riding of Winnipeg North, the only real growth within the industry has been that of a credit union opening on McGregor Street, whereas we have seen a number of banks actually close.

This budget is going to deal with getting rid of a tax credit on which credit unions have traditionally relied. That will have an impact on our credit unions. The member might want to conclude the remarks he had started just before his time expired.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question, which gives me an opportunity to talk about a point I did not have time to elaborate on.

I mentioned them, but I did not go into detail about credit unions, which, as the member said, are found in almost every riding in this country. They are also economic instruments that fund numerous local projects. Credit unions are important because they are located in small communities and they help those communities by providing funding, by giving back. They are not ordinary banks.

As a Desjardins credit union customer, I wonder why people would opt for a bank when they can use a credit union. We are lucky to have these businesses, which do not put profit first, but also look to help the community. Unfortunately, they are being attacked by the Conservatives.

We were invited to a breakfast meeting with credit unions just last week. We talked, and they were clearly disappointed in the government's attitude and lack of co-operation. They would have liked to maintain their advantage. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. The Conservatives do not believe that credit unions are important. However, the NDP believes they are very important, and we will support them when we form the government in 2015.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House tonight on behalf of my constituents of Pickering—Scarborough East to Bill C-60, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act.

As a professional engineer, I highly support the bill, as it would truly provide a concrete foundation addressing real Canadian issues and would build Canada's future economic strength for many years to come, in order to maintain our country as one of the best places in the world to live, raise a family, work and start a business.

My expertise in the engineering profession and service in the army engineers has allowed me to explore this bill from various aspects. Bill C-60 focuses on the well-being of Canadians, and as a member I can assure the House that it includes a variety of measures to implement certain provisions contained in Canada's economic action plan 2013.

My constituents in Pickering—Scarborough East are supportive of Bill C-60 as it addresses some of the key issues that they have been facing.

As we all know, youth have been financially neglected in our system for a long time by previous governments. Canadian youth are struggling to find jobs within their area of study. Our Conservative government has a plan for young Canadians seeking employment in the job market. Our Conservative government understands the needs of today's youth population and has proposed to provide $18 million in funding in multi-year support for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to enable the foundation to continue supporting young entrepreneurs between the ages of 18 and 34. This would not only be an opportunity for young people to grow in their career-oriented horizons but would also help to boost our Canadian economy, leading young Canadians toward innovation.

Just to give an example, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation has worked with 5,600 new entrepreneurs, helping to create 22,100 new jobs across Canada. This plan is working and will work for Canadian youth; they are the leaders of tomorrow. The New Democrats indeed have some ideas, but they are not delivering accordingly to the needs of our Canadian youth.

Furthermore, Canada's temporary foreign worker program needs reform in order to ensure clearly and without doubt that Canadians are given first chance for available jobs. This is an issue that my constituents in the riding of Pickering—Scarborough East are concerned about, and Bill C-60 is addressing it. This program provides employers with access to foreign workers on a temporary basis to assist sectors and areas that experience labour shortages. Reform should ensure that this program is used in the way it was intended and not otherwise.

In this connection, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also needs to be amended. It needs to provide authority to revoke work permits issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and to suspend and revoke labour market opinions provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada if an employer is found to be misusing the program.

In addition, under economic action plan 2013, the Government of Canada announced that it will be introducing user fees for employers applying to hire temporary foreign workers through the labour market opinion process. The government would use existing regulatory authority and would establish authority for a privilege fee in respect of work permits. This would ensure that taxpayers no longer subsidize the cost of processing these applications.

Many constituents in my riding are supporting this amendment, which is designed to avoid abuses of well-intended legislation.

Many newcomers reside in my riding of Pickering—Scarborough East. For these newcomers, becoming a Canadian citizen is a significant milestone, creating stronger bonds to the economic, cultural and social fabric of Canada. I am pleased to see that economic action plan 2013 is aiding in ensuring a flexible and robust citizenship program. I have volunteered and lectured at many citizenship classes in my riding and surrounding ridings, and I am aware of the waiting times and the program's increasing costs.

The citizenship application fee has not been adjusted for almost 20 years. The current $200 fee only covers 20% of the actual cost to process a citizenship application, which means that our Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing 80% of the actual processing costs. The Citizenship Act would be amended to provided the expanded authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting fees for services provided in the administration of the Citizenship Act and for the waiver of such fees.

The enactments would also provide that the User Fees Act would not apply to fees for services delivered in the administration of the Citizenship Act. This would indeed serve both newcomers and taxpayers, and fix mistakes made by past governments.

Canadians want clean, reliable and safe energy. That is why our Conservative government has proposed, through Bill C-60, amendments to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

In my riding of Pickering—Scarborough East, we rely on the Pickering nuclear generating station for safe and clean power. The aforementioned reform would allow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to continue to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians and would provide reassurance of Canada's international commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology for power production.

The problem right now is that with the current fee structure, payments are collected from licence holders to support regulatory activities that may take place in a subsequent fiscal year. If this is the case, the dues received but not used can result in a lapse at the end of a fiscal year. The legislative amendment would provide the commission with the authority to carry forward unspent revenues collected through licence fees from one fiscal year to the next.

As an engineer, it is easy for me to see that this reform would allow all of my constituents to be assured that their health, safety and security would be protected at all times and that there would be no financial difficulties for the commission in order to do its job to its full ability.

Canadians want concrete actions and ideas on how to keep the economy on track and create jobs and prosperity for their families, not empty statements or promises. That is why our Conservative government introduced economic action plan 2013 to amend parts of the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, 2011.

The amendments would allow for a series of increases, starting in 2014-15, to the sum that may be paid under this statute for the purposes of the gas tax fund. Currently that sum sits at $2 billion a year, and it is proposed that the amount be raised by $100 million when an underlying calculation, the initial sum of $2 billion increased annually by 2%, reaches the next $100 million threshold.

Canada's gas tax fund provides predictable, long-term funding for Canadian municipalities to help them build and revitalize public infrastructure that achieves positive environmental results. More specifically, the fund supports municipal infrastructure projects that contribute to cleaner air or water or to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fall into the following categories: drinking water, waste water infrastructure, public transit, community energy systems, solid waste management and local roads.

Our Conservative government has put forth logical reforms in Bill C-60 that will make Canada continue to be a beacon of enlightenment, freedom and prosperity the world over.

I rise today to ask all members of this House to join me in voting in favour of this measure so that Canadians can continue to prosper.

The measures I have highlighted today are significant examples of this government's commitment to a strong economy and responsible management in the name of all Canadians. The commitment represents our longer-term view of how we can become more efficient and more prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned money. The steps we take today will indeed give us the tools and strength to withstand challenges that we may face in the near future.

This is why I say that our Conservative government's focus has been planning according to what Canadians are asking us to do, and implementing Canada's economic action plan 2013 through Bill C-60 will achieve exactly that. To me, it is obvious that Canadians from St. John's to Yellowknife to Vancouver Island, including those in Pickering—Scarborough East, will benefit from the policies this bill lays out.

This is a reminder of what we are here to do first and foremost, which is to represent our constituents. Therefore, let us pass Bill C-60 for prosperity. Let us pass this bill not because it helps us sitting in this chamber today, but because Canadians need it. Canada needs this bill.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

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

Earlier, we said that will be voting against Bill C-60. We will vote against it because it is an omnibus bill. We also opposed Paul Martin's omnibus bill in the 1990s.

However, I do have a question. I would like to know when the Conservatives will stop haphazardly slashing the budgets of the economic development agencies for Canada's regions.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague opposite. However, I would like to concentrate on the new building Canada plan. It is a huge plan that is meant to rebuild our infrastructure. Over $53 billion would be invested in this plan over 10 years: $32.2 billion over 10 years for a community improvement fund; $14 billion for the new building Canada fund; $1.25 billion for the renewal of the P3 Canada fund; and $6 billion in current infrastructure programs for provinces, territories and municipalities. These are the ideas we have. We are delivering for Canadians. These are our plans and what is expected of us by Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I asked a Conservative member a question, he chose not to answer it and then distorted the question itself, making reference to the Liberal Party not wanting Canadians to be employed.

That reminded me of what the government has actually done with regard to this particular issue, and that is what my question is about, the temporary foreign worker program. There are 338,000 temporary foreign workers through the government, a record high number. At the same time, there are huge unemployment problems in all regions of Canada, with a particular emphasis on youth. A lot of young Canadians are looking for jobs and yet the government has seen the need for 338,000 temporary foreign workers.

My specific question for the member is this. Does he believe that Canada requires 338,000 temporary foreign workers, or did the government make poor decisions in issuing temporary foreign worker permits or did it mess up on immigration? Which one is it?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members heard in my presentation, the temporary foreign worker permit legislation needs to be improved and we are doing just that in Bill C-60. I cannot say whether we need a certain number, a smaller number or a larger number of temporary foreign workers. We know the temporary foreign worker permit legislation must be fixed so that it is used as it is meant to be used.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the intervention by the member opposite. Clearly, he is a believer. He supports his government's budget and this bill. He believes everything that is being said about it, but I would ask him to consider the fact that this budget implementation act changes upwards of 50 different pieces of legislation. It has been suggested by economists, Conservative commentators and the Parliamentary Budget Officer that parliamentarians are not given nearly the information they need in order to make the important oversight decisions because of the implications of the measures that will be passed in this bill.

I appreciate the fact that the member is a believer, but is there not room in the House, the people's chamber, for all members to have the opportunity to properly scrutinize such an important piece of legislation as this?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, indeed, but I will tell him what the most important thing is. We have to amend this budget. We cannot wait time and time again to implement it. Canadians expect action from us. I would remind the member that there is the gas tax fund for infrastructure, which is indexed now, and some of the provinces are following our example, like the province of Ontario.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House of Commons to support economic action plan 2013.

This is our government's eighth budget since 2006. Over this period of time, our country has met with some unmatched economic challenges, many of which are beyond our borders. Throughout the life of this government, we have never wandered from our commitment to strengthen the economy for all Canadians and the determination to see our plan through.

Economic action plan 2013 marks the next phase in keeping that commitment to Canadians to create jobs, increase long-term prosperity while keeping taxes low for families and businesses, and balance the budget by 2015.

Economic action plan 2013 sets out a plan that I know constituents in my riding of Simcoe—Grey will benefit from this year and for years to come. Let me highlight some of the key components.

The economy and job creation remain job one for our Conservative government. That is why our major focus of economic action plan 2013 is connecting Canadians with available jobs and providing them the skills they need to fill those jobs.

To accomplish this, we have a three-point plan on skills training. First, it introduces the new Canada jobs grant that would provide up to $15,000 or more per person, including a maximum federal contribution of $5,000, to be matched by provinces, territories and employers. The grant would directly connect skills training with employers and available jobs in the current market.

Second, the plan would create opportunities for apprentices by working with provinces and territories to harmonize requirements for apprentices, and examine the use of practical, hands-on tests as a method of assessment in targeting skilled trades.

Finally, it will provide support to the groups that are under-represented on the labour market, such as persons with disabilities, young people, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, to help them find good jobs.

Our government recognizes the ongoing uncertainty in the global economy. Economic action plan 2013 announced an extension of the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for new investments in machinery and equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector for an additional two years. This would enable manufacturing and processing companies to plan and invest over the coming years to help create jobs in a sector that was particularly hard hit by the global recession. The 50% straight-line depreciation rate would be extended for two years to include investments in eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment in 2014 and 2015. By allowing a faster writeoff of eligible investments, this measure would provide concrete support to businesses in the manufacturing and processing sector to help them retool, with new machinery and equipment so that they can remain competitive in the current global environment.

What does that mean for manufacturers in Simcoe—Grey, my riding? For companies like Reinhart Foods in Stayner, it would mean significant deductions that would allow them to remain competitive. This government would enable them to continue their manufacturing and processing, and plan and invest over the coming years to help create jobs in my riding.

While job growth remains a key pillar of economic action plan 2013, our government believes that family is the foundation on which Canada rests. We have taken action to support Canadian families year after year.

The Conservative government delivered the children's fitness tax credit to help families with the cost of enrolling their children in activities and sports, as well as the children's arts tax credit. The tax-free savings account is a versatile option for parents and families, whether they are saving for a house or a vacation.

We have cut taxes over 150 times, including cutting personal income taxes and the GST, resulting in the average Canadian family of four saving over $3,200 a year.

In addition to this, we would also be enhancing the adoption expense tax credit. This government recognizes that strong and stable families are critical to Canada's long-term prosperity. Families provide children with support, community and a sense of well-being, and yet an estimated 30,000 children a year are currently in the care of child welfare agencies in Canada, waiting to be adopted.

The adoption expense tax credit recognizes costs unique to adopting a child. To provide better tax recognition of the costs incurred by those adoptive parents, economic action plan 2013 proposes to allow additional adoption-related expenses, such as fees for provincially required home studies or mandatory adoption courses, to be eligible for the credit.

Families in Simcoe—Grey who wish to adopt, many of whom I know, can now feel a little bit of that weight of adopting a child lifted off their shoulders so that they can commit to doing this. I commend the government for supporting this effort.

In order to encourage charitable giving by new donors, our government introduced the first-time donor's super credit. This tax credit would provide an additional 25% for a first-time donor on up to $1,000 in monetary donations. An individual would be considered a first-time donor if neither the individual nor the individual's spouse or common-law partner had claimed the charitable donations tax credit or the first-time donor's super credit in a taxation year since 2007. The super credit could be shared between spouses and common-law partners.

What does this mean for charities in my riding? A first-time donor who gives $500 to charity would now receive $285 as a tax credit, versus $160 before. The super credit would provide an additional incentive to people who donate for the first time to benefit charities like the YMCA in Collingwood, Habitat for Humanity in Wasaga Beach, the Hospice Georgian Triangle or Matthews House in Alliston.

Getting first-time donors on board is often the most costly and challenging part of an equation on getting charitable donations. If we engage young donors and new donors, we can create a culture of giving and that can only benefit all of our communities.

Our government is also streamlining the process for providing tax relief for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers deployed on international moderate-risk missions. This process would allow the Minister of Finance, upon the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, or the Minister of Public Safety to designate a mission for purposes of the Income Tax Act. This would replace a lengthy process that delays timely implementation of tax relief for these families.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, it is extremely meaningful. For CFB Borden in Simcoe—Grey, where we have stationed thousands of men and women who support and are a part of the Canadian Armed Forces, many of whom spend time away from home on international missions, they would be able to save a little bit more and make things a little bit easier on their families left at home in Canada.

I strongly believe that all of the initiatives I mentioned will help Canada by creating a better standard of living for Canadians today and a more prosperous nation that will continue to be a world leader in the future.

I strongly believe that all the initiatives I have highlighted today would greatly benefit all the people of Canada by creating a higher standard of living for Canadians today and a more prosperous nation that will continue to be a world leader today and tomorrow.

This government's aim is to deliver the very best to Canadians. I ask all members to support the swift passage of Bill C-60 and to facilitate the implementation of Canada's economic action plan 2013. It would benefit my constituents in Simcoe—Grey and Canadians across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. We are talking about the economy here today as we go through Bill C-60. It is interesting to listen to members on the other side try to paint a rosy picture about what is happening with Canada, but I will point to two key indicators that are worth paying attention to that are not being addressed by the government.

The first is productivity, which has virtually collapsed under the government. Now we are 28th out of 35 comparator countries and it is getting worse under the government. Second, is the R and D investment. The latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council report said we have dropped from 16th when the government took power in 2006 to now 23rd in terms of R and D investment.

I am wondering when the government is going to admit that its plan is not working and Canada has fallen behind.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government has created 900,000 net new jobs since the downturn of the recession. This government has provided unparalleled opportunities for jobs for Canadians. Whether that be our 5,000 new internships in economic action plan 2013, or the 36,000 jobs for young Canadians every year through the Canada jobs plan, this is an opportunity for Canadians. I encourage the opposition members to get on board. Let us create jobs for Canadians and make sure that all Canadians have an opportunity to work.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would increase taxes on safety deposit boxes, totalling $40 million a year, would put new taxes on credit unions, amounting to $75 million a year, and the list goes on. The good people in my riding do not want the cost of baby carriages to go up 3%, bicycles 4.5%, blankets 5%, ovens, cooking stoves and ranges 3%, plastic school supplies 3.5%, pillows 6% and vacuum cleaners 5%. I have heard from Canadians battling cancer, who must fight their disease every day, that costs of their cosmetic wigs will go up by an astonishing 15.5%. That is absolutely shameful. How is this not a tax?