Debates of Oct. 31st, 2014

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a topic as important as the act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

That said, I must stress that I think it is shameful that as we debate such a broad and complicated bill, we are under our 83rd gag order. The Conservatives have imposed this gag order, and the Liberals are complicating things even more by making irrelevant objections that prevent us from having real discussions.

As I mentioned, today we are debating a document that is around 460 pages long, includes 400 clauses and amends several dozen pieces of legislation. This document even includes measures that were not mentioned in the budget speech.

This bill is the kind of thing we have come to expect from the Conservative government. The government ignores middle-class families, workers and people in need. Instead, it manages to find a way to help out the banks.

The content of the bill is worrisome, and so is the way it is being presented to us. By refusing to split this omnibus bill, the government is once again demonstrating how little respect it has for our democratic institutions. On that note, I would like to quote Manon Cornellier, who writes a blog for the well-known magazine, L'actualité. This is what she had to say about the government's practice:

For the Conservatives, the omnibus bill process is too useful to step away from. It is the perfect way to succeed without having to be overly accountable. The fact that Parliament feels marginalized is the least of their worries.

How can the government ask MPs, who represent millions of Canadians, to make a decision on dozens of legislative measures with one single vote?

The Conservatives know all that. It was not that long ago, when they were in opposition, that they were the ones tearing their hair out over Liberal omnibus bills. In fact, the Prime Minister himself made a passionate argument against these types of bills. I would like to quote what he said in 1994, when the House was debating a 21-page bill, not a 400-page bill like the one we are looking at now.

...in the interest of democracy I ask: How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

When I look at the 460 pages of this bill, I wonder whether, after 10 years in power, the student has managed to surpass the teacher in the art of holding this Parliament in contempt.

We must also talk about some of the measures that we support and that is what really does not make sense in this whole undertaking, in this entire exercise. We could easily work together to pass measures that both parties support.

Nevertheless, it is true that the Prime Minister's comments apply to the current situation. There are indeed some measures in this bill that meet the NDP's demands. For example, since 2007 we have been calling for the creation of a DNA data bank to help the authorities solve missing persons cases. I am pleased to see this measure in Bill C-43, even though we can question why it was included in a budget implementation bill.

The government has finally admitted that it was time to put an end to pay-to-pay fees, the fees charged to consumers who want to receive a paper rather than an electronic invoice. These fees are being abolished for broadcasting and telecommunications companies, but, and this is very odd, not for banks.

That is about it for the good things. This bill has dozens of problematic measures though. For example, the government is using this mammoth bill to sneak in its private member's bill to let the provinces restrict access to welfare for refugee claimants and people who are not permanent residents.

This measure is a direct attack on women, men and children of all ages who are already vulnerable. Over the past three years, I have met a number of refugees and asylum claimants at my riding office. These individuals have often gone through incredible ordeals, and when they get here, they have to keep being brave so they can integrate into our communities

Considering that it takes months or years to process asylum claims in Canada, it is not surprising that some claimants might need a little help from time to time while they wait. If the government wants to scrimp and save at someone's expense, maybe it should start by asking corporations and banks to do their fair share rather than go after the poorest people around.

I will give another example of worrisome measures included in this bill. The Conservatives decided to go forward with their plan to introduce a tax credit to create jobs in small businesses. Let us be clear. The NDP has been saying for a long time that the government needs to provide proper support for small and medium-sized businesses, which make an enormous contribution to our economy.

However, the Conservative Party is whistling in the wind with this measure. We already know that it will not be effective even though it has not even been implemented yet. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already warned the government that its plan will create at most 800 jobs in Canada.

The current government is certainly not behaving responsibly by spending $500 million to create 800 jobs. We have said this a number of times and we hope that the public will hear this message: spending $500 million to create 800 jobs is not at all effective. Why are the Conservatives insisting on moving forward with this bad idea?

I could go on and on listing examples of the negative measures set out in this bill. When it comes to a budget or a forecast for the coming years, it is really important for the parties to work together to find solutions to our economic problems, particularly with regard to stable jobs and lower-paying jobs. Unfortunately, we cannot do that because of the gag order and the attitude of the Conservative government.

I could also talk about what these 460 pages do not contain, namely initiatives to address youth employment, increase access to social housing, improve our health care system or protect our environment, for example.

This bill once again proves to Canadians that they cannot count on the Conservatives to stand up for their interests and respect our democracy. Canadians know that they deserve better than what we are currently seeing in this bill.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

In this huge, 460-page omnibus bill, the only measure that has to do with the economy or the budget is a program—perhaps that is not the best word—that takes $550 million out of the employment insurance fund, even though that is not the government's money. Who is it for and what is it for?

Is it fair that the government is using that much in contributions to create only 800 jobs? We have a problem with that number. This will hurt our economy. We need a government that believes in the role of Parliament and small business in Canada.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the issue of the money being siphoned off the EI fund. The Liberals did it, and now the Conservatives are doing it, all at the expense of workers.

At the same time, EI services have been cut back. Workers have unstable and poorly paid jobs, and are often entitled to fewer weeks of EI benefits. It is very unfortunate, especially knowing that 800 jobs are going to cost $550 million.

It is unbelievable and unacceptable that the Conservatives are doing this and are governing a country this way. It is very unfortunate, particularly when we could be improving our legislation and regulations. That would help Canadians, and especially the manufacturing sector, which my colleague talked about this morning.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

Yesterday I listened to the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He wondered whether some of the members opposite actually knew what was in their omnibus bill, because they did not seem to have an answer to the more specific questions we were asking them.

I think that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley even said that not a single government member showed up to the technical briefing that was offered. Only opposition members did.

Does my colleague have the same concerns as I do regarding the government introducing an omnibus bill without seeming to grasp the seriousness of the situation?

For example, it was clear that some aspects of the last omnibus bill had nothing to do with a budget. Take, for example, the issue of appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court. I heard a Conservative member say that the Conservatives had talked about it eight months ago. No, eight months ago was when the budget was tabled.

As my colleague just mentioned in her speech, there are some things in this bill that were not in the budget speech. Could she talk about these concerns?

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observations on the current situation, on previous budgets presented here and on the fact that Conservative members are not responding to this.

I cannot believe that the members opposite are not getting any feedback or questions from their constituents. How can they explain to their constituents that the government is making cuts everywhere, preventing new jobs from being created and introducing unethical regulations or rules?

We cannot forget that the Conservative government was elected with just 39% of the vote. In other words, there are a lot of people who are opposed to this government's policies.

I am very concerned that the government is not showing any flexibility or any semblance of respecting democracy.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the big vision that millions of Canadians will be able to carry out in their own lives as a result of the tax relief that would permit them and empower them to make decisions about their own futures.

Let me set the context for the conversation about taxes and families from the outset. Before I can talk about the Prime Minister's family tax cut yesterday, or his increase in the annual child care payments that he announced less than 24 hours ago, it is important for me to discuss where he started off.

Prior to that announcement, this government had already cut taxes 160 times.One million Canadians had been removed from the tax rolls as a result of the government's decision to raise the amount of money that people can earn before federal taxes kick in at all.

The government increased the amount that families in the lowest personal income brackets could earn before paying taxes. As a result, 380,000 seniors no longer pay any taxes to the federal government. That is in addition to targeted tax breaks for bus passes, children's sports, and students' textbooks. It is in addition to the elimination of all taxation on scholarships for hard-working, high-achieving young people who are rewarded for their academic achievement.

That was the status of our tax changes prior to yesterday.

What were the results at the end of the line for the Canadian taxpayers? What did it mean for families? The median net worth of Canadian families had increased by 45%. For the first time, and this is according to The New York Times, middle-income Canadians are better off than Americans. As well, prior to yesterday, the average Canadian family paid $3,400 less in taxation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, often a critic of the government, acknowledged that this tax relief had actually been targeted at low- and middle-income families. He said, “Cumulative tax changes since 2005”—which is when this government took office—“have been progressive overall” and most greatly impacted low-middle income earners, meaning households earning between $12,000 and $23,000, effectively resulting in a 4% increase in their after-tax income.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said:

In total, cumulative changes have reduced federal tax revenue by $30 billion, or 12 per cent. These changes have been progressive, overall. Low and middle income earners have benefited more, in relative terms, than higher income earners.

As a result, real after-tax disposable income has increased by 10% since 2006.

I will return to quoting The New York Times article on the very question:

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada—substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Often we ask ourselves how the lowest-income earners among us are faring in this society of ours. How are they doing, particularly during the aftermath of the global recession that struck so terribly all around the world not so long ago? We can ask UNICEF, which studied the matter and concluded that Canada's child poverty rate decreased during the recession, pulling 180,000 children out of poverty.

UNICEF's president said that the report attributes the decrease in Canada to initiatives by both the federal and provincial governments, such as Ottawa’s National Child Benefit supplement, which gives monthly payments and benefits to low-income families with children.

He said, “[These benefits] kept money in circulation. ... Money goes to poorer families, and that tends to be spent on children, and then it kept money circulating in the economy as well. That kind of investment in children is so important.”

In other words, when we brought in the universal child care benefit, the $1,200 a year we send to every family per child under six, the opposition said that it was only going to help the rich. UNICEF now says precisely the opposite. It says that people who were most in need benefited the most.

NDP members get very angry when our free enterprise policies lift people out of poverty, because it takes away their arguments to control people's lives with big, costly, bureaucratic government programs. They want more of the problem so that they can declare themselves to be the solution. We understand that Canadian families are the solution. We understand that the best social program is a strong family and the best anti-poverty program is a good job.

There is good news on that front as well. There are one million net new jobs in Canada since the depths of the recession. That is the best job creation record of any of the G7 countries.

What is it doing to our nation's books? Are we drowning in deficit and debt like the entire European continent and the states to the south of our border? Are we facing the kinds of downgrades that, for example, the Liberal government in Ontario faces? The answer is no. We are on track to balancing the budget in this coming year. In fact, according to all the experts, our budget is in even better shape than promised by our government originally.

To whom does that future surplus belong? It does not belong to the politicians who want to spend it on behalf of Canadians; it belongs to the hard-working men and women who pay the bills.

Luckily for them, our government will give it back. We will allow them to keep that money so that they can invest in their communities, raise their families, and help create local jobs.

That brings me to yesterday's announcement.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced three things. First, he would increase the universal child care benefit from $1,200 a year to just about $2,000 per year per child. Second, no longer would that benefit be restricted to families with kids under six. All children would qualify for the universal child care benefit, and every child six or over would be entitled to receive $720 per year.

Just as an example, the universal child care benefit for a middle-income family with a stay-at-home parent and two kids will be worth $4,000 per year. Those are important dollars that they can invest in raising their children, whether through a stay-at-home parent who works hard to keep the home strong and the kids healthy and active or through a daycare like the one I was raised in during my early years as a child in Calgary. The reality is that we are giving the choice to parents, which brings me to the next item in the proposal.

Families will be allowed to share their income. The spouse with the higher income will be allowed to give up to $50,000 to the one with the lower income to save up to $2,000 per year on taxes.

Finally, the amount of money that families can claim in child care expenses such as daycare will go up by $1,000. Whether a parent chooses daycare or a stay-at-home option or something in between, the money will go into the pockets of parents. There are millions of child care experts in this country, and their names are mom and dad.

Parents, not politicians, should decide how to raise children, and that is the fundamental debate in this country. I appreciate that the other side wants big, unionized, institutional, one-size-fits-all daycare, but on this side we trust parents, and our tax cuts allow them to make their own decisions.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but not so much the particularly jingoistic, offensive ones in the last couple of statements.

He is suggesting that parents who choose a child care option are somehow, in his words, institutionalizing their children, that the two-thirds of Canadian families who choose to put their kids in either public or private child care are somehow not being, in a sense, good parents, which I do not think he was meaning to insinuate. This institutionalized aspect of child care I find offensive, as someone who has used child care services in the past and who seeks out, as many parents do, good child care options for their children. We are not bad parents. We believe in choice.

The member kept raising the prospect or the spectre of income splitting as one of the options for the government, a $2.5 billion program it overwhelming favours. However, in the budget bill of 460 pages, we find so many items that have nothing to do with the budget at all.

When the Conservatives were in opposition, they hated omnibus bills. They said they were undemocratic and unfair. What changed? What happened to those Conservatives, like the Prime Minister and all his ministers, who said that it was a bad way to govern and was unfair to MPs representing their constituents?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my own remarks, when I was a child, I went to a local community-based child care centre. No, it was not institutional. It was not a government-run day care program, as the member across the way suggests.

He believes that parents who have a stay-at-home mom or dad are not doing their jobs. That is what the NDP believes. The member believes that community-based neighbourhood child care providers are not good enough. He believes that grandmothers, aunts, and uncles who step in to raise children throughout the day, while parents are at work, are not of high enough quality.

The NDP and the Liberals believe that there is only one kind of child care that is acceptable, and that is government-owned, government-run, government-provided bureaucracy that in the past has not only failed to meet the demands of people but has failed to actually meet the promises of the politicians who made them.

The Liberals promised such institutional day care. Over 13 years, they did not create a single space. They spent billions of dollars, but it did not result in any benefit for parents on the ground.

We believe that regardless of the choice parents make, the dollar should go in their pockets, and they should decide how to raise their own kids.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will turn the question back to my colleague. Do you not think that there are people who would like to have a universal system and that the the way you are presenting things is not—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I want to remind hon. members that they must address the Chair and not their colleagues directly.

The hon. Minister of State.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all method for raising children.

In fact, that is the whole idea behind our position. We are giving money directly to parents so that they can decide for themselves what is best for their children. It is the opposition, the Liberals and the NDP, who believe there is just one way to raise children. The opposition wants all the money to go toward a bureaucracy that excludes the vast majority of the choices parents are making.

If a family has one parent who stays home to raise the children, that family is excluded by the NDP and the Liberals. If an aunt, a grandmother or a grandfather does the job, that family is excluded. If a neighbour provides the child care, the family is excluded. All the options, except one, run by government officials, are excluded under the costly plan proposed by the NDP and the Liberals. Only the Conservative Party provides parents with real choices as to how to raise their children.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard at times to sit here quietly and respectfully when members get up and say some of things like the previous speaker said.

He spoke about choice and grandparents, aunts and uncles raising and helping to raise children. At the same time, his government has prevented thousands of parents of new Canadians to come into our country and participate in that process of raising children and imparting the cultures from back home into the next generation. The government is taking choices away from families by not allowing them to be reunited in Canada for that better life.

He spoke about how the provincial government in Ontario was facing some financial struggles. At the same time, it is because the federal government has cut health care for refugees and the provincial government has had to pick up the slack. As the court said, that was cruel and unusual. That is what we get from the government. Time and time again, every budget, we find things that are cruel and unusual in it.

Now we have these new schemes coming from the government. It is hell-bent on ensuring that the cupboard is bare by the time the election happens, because another government of another sort might want to take a different approach.

He talked about being opposed to universality. We brought universality to health care and it transformed the country. From that point, no family had to decide between putting food on the table, or bringing a loved one to a hospital or to a doctor to get medical care.

That is what we want to do for child care. We want to ensure that families do not have to decide whether to work, whether to put their child into care, whether to feed their family, whether to put a roof over their heads. The government has actually taken choices away.

He mentioned that this would put money into the pockets of parents, that it would help fund child care. Child care in the Province of Ontario, depending on where one goes, costs on average between $1,000 and $2,000 a month. The government's plan, if it does everything it says it does, which it does not, would help to pay for child care for one to two months out of the year. What are parents supposed to do the rest of the time?

The government wants to expand the child fitness tax credit. That is great if one has the money. Single parents living in poverty already do not have money to put their kids into sports programs or arts programs. They want to but they are unable to. By putting all the money there, the government takes the choice away from those parents. They are forced to not put their kids into sports or arts programs. The government is in fact taking choices away.

I have sat here for the last three years, and time and time again I have heard the government boast that there are a million less people on the tax rolls. If they are for good reasons, I applaud it for that. However, a million less people are on the tax rolls because they are in fact too poor to pay taxes. Instead of focusing on a jobs plan to help get some of these people back to work, or to give them a living wage, like the NDP proposed with a $15 minimum wage, the government ignores them. It just takes them off the tax rolls and leaves them to fend for themselves.

That is un-Canadian. We look out for our neighbours, the less fortunate and those in need. A society is judged by how it treats and takes care of the least fortunate and the most vulnerable. The government, like some Conservative governments, particularly the Mike Harris government in Ontario, has really shown great disdain for people living in poverty by cutting their supports and services, and treating them like criminals. It has no place. We need to move on from that kind of behaviour.

Bill C-43 has shown to be yet another anti-democratic omnibus bill that subverts our traditional way of government and completely dismisses the role of the House in providing considered oversight and debate. The bill, as has been said, over 450 pages long, has more than 400 clauses, amends dozens of acts and contains a variety of measures never mentioned in the budget.

The Conservatives' anti-democratic haste has meant that the previous budget bills have been forced through the House and committees without adequate study, and we lament the fact that this will likely recur again. How are parliamentarians, Canadians and the people in my riding supposed to give considered thought and feedback to such Trojan horse bills that get rammed through the House by the government?

Now many of the measures contained within the bill are fixing the problems created by the Conservatives ramming through the previous bill, the one before that and the one before that. If the government would actually stop to take the time to do things properly, it would not have to spend so much time fixing problems it has created. It seems the Conservatives enjoy creating new problems, much to the contrary of what the parliamentary secretary said a few minutes ago.

We are not able to properly study these bills and the finance committee, which does very good work for the House, is then overburdened by the fact that the budget bill comes with so many clauses, amendments and things that have nothing to do with the budget. That makes the job of the committee chair for finance even more challenging, and I have to admit he does a very good job at committee. However, then he has to spend time, like committee members, dealing with amendments and clauses that have nothing to do with the budget, things that should be going to the environment committee, the industry committee, the transportation committee or to the agriculture committee. There are many things in the budget that have nothing to do with the budget itself.

It means we end up wasting a lot of time because of it. Then the government has to come back and fix it again next time. I am very curious when we get to the spring and there is a new budget and an implementation act, how many things in that implementation act will be put in to fix the problems created with this one.

The Conservatives used to lament omnibus bills, but when they came to power, instead of changing Ottawa as they said they would, Ottawa seems to have changed them. They have become exactly like the governments that came before them with respect to omnibus bills, and they have taken it, frankly, to a whole new level.

The Prime Minister used to stand when he was leader of the opposition and get very angry at the fact that there were Liberal bills that were 80 pages long. Eighty pages sounds like the good old days. Now we are dealing with omnibus bills that are 400 or more pages long, that are 370 more pages than that bill was. However, the Prime Minister has no problem with those now.

We do have a well spelled out and reasoned amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in which he states that:

—this House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-43,...because it: a) amends dozens of unrelated Acts without adequate parliamentary debate and oversight; b) fails to address persistent unemployment and sluggish economic growth; c) aims to strip refugee claimants of access to social assistance to meet their basic needs; d) imposes a poorly designed job credit that will create few, if any, jobs while depleting Employment Insurance Funds...

On that point, the parliamentary secretary talked about how the government wanted to keep money in the pockets of people. The government was complicit with the Liberal government before it in raiding the employment insurance fund, the fund and money owned and contributed by workers and employers, a mere $60 billion. That could have gone back to workers, that could have gone into skills development and training. They could have made sure that more than half of the people in Toronto, who are unemployed, could actually qualify for EI.

The Conservatives talk about employment and growing jobs. Unemployment in my riding is over 12%. It is a far cry from where it was when the Conservative government came to power.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by talking about our great announcement yesterday to help families. I have done a few rough calculations, and I would like the member to respond.

If a child under the age of six roughly gets $2,000 a year in tax credits, over six years, that would be close to $12,000. Then, from the ages of 7 to 17, another 10 years at about $720 a year, that would be another $7,200. We are talking about a child from birth through to the age of 17 and helping that family financially with tax credits worth up to $19,000. If we take a family with three children, we are talking about the government helping that family by close to $60,000.

I am the father of five children. When I was raising my young children, all I got from the government at that time, which was Liberal, was higher taxes. I am almost convinced that what I would get if we had an NDP government would be even higher taxes.

I would like to know how the member could possibly put down a government helping a family with three children by close to $60,000. Two-thirds of Canadian families will benefit from the measures that we announced yesterday, so I do not want the member to say this would just benefit the rich, because that is absolutely false.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is perfectly fine. I do not need to say that. The member just laid it out himself when he talked about the amount of money that would come back to a family for children up to the age of six.

I did some rough calculations and based on the numbers that the member himself used, it would take six years of what the Conservatives are prepared to give to parents to pay for one year of child care in Ontario. What about the next five years? Then where are they going to find the money to help them with child care?

This is where the NDP's universality in child care would actually help to provide the money to pay for child care for a child's years from the age of six, when they go to school.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the member is on the nature of the budget being very lengthy, and he made reference to that. It has numerous pieces of legislation, some of which could have been stand-alone legislation and introduced by separate ministers, which would have had more debate inside the chamber. However, the Conservatives snuck them in through a budget bill.

Then we have time allocation that has been put on the bill, which will again prevents the opportunity to have more dialogue. Then we have committees that are no longer meeting because the NDP will not allow them to meet.

To what degree does the member believe members are losing the opportunity to ultimately hold government more accountable when we see measures of this nature being taken?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the House definitely lose the ability to address the issues that matter to Canadians and deal with these budgets in the proper way when they are introduced through omnibus legislation.

However, I would quickly point out for the member that committees just require the committee chair to call a meeting. Therefore, if committees are not having meetings, maybe the member should ask the Conservative committee chairs why not.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservatives come out with a wasteful and ineffective income splitting program that will benefit only the most wealthy 15% of Canadians. The Conservatives will try to spin it that it is not what their income splitting program is, but anyone who examines it will know that.

Could the member describe the benefit of having a universal child care program? I know that people in my area are paying tens of thousands of dollars every year to get good quality care for their kids, if they can find it. The NDP will fix that. Could he describe how?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent the first five years of my working life in child care in a daycare teaching kids how to count to 10 and write their names. It is a very rewarding endeavour, but people are not paid very well in it.

The NDP's plan would create up to a million new child care spaces so parents would have the choice of whether to put their children into care or to take care of them at home.

Governing is about choices. The Conservatives call us tax and spenders, but their plans to spend money in this reckless fashion make them tax and wasters. They tax Canadians and then waste the money on the people who need it the least.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to talk about how our Conservative government is successfully implementing the initiatives in our economic action plan in order to promote jobs and growth and support families and communities.

Our initiatives greatly benefit Canadians and families in rural regions such as my riding, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

Now that we are on our way to keeping our promise to Canadians to return to a balanced budget, our government is focusing on moving forward with our initiatives so that hard-working people can also benefit from the surplus.

The Liberal Party and the NDP both want Canadians to pay more taxes. They want more revenue so that they can turn around and spend it.

The Conservatives believe that Canadians need to keep more of their hard-earned money.

It is because of the Conservatives' economic management skills that the initiatives we have already implemented are producing such positive results. Thanks to our action plan, the Canadian economy has already created more than a million net new jobs since 2009. Our country has ascended the ranks and our middle class is now among the wealthiest in the world. Considering the economic challenges that exist outside our borders, we can be proud of what we have achieved as Canadians.

We know that urban and rural businesses are crucial to our economic prosperity and growth. The 2014 budget and Bill C-43 focus on the needs of small businesses. We want to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and we are clearly offering additional support to small business owners.

One of my goals, as the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, is to bolster local economies within my riding because they create jobs and employ the people living in the region.

I hope to see the local businesses in my riding succeed because when they are successful, they grow, and when they grow, they create new jobs and hire more people.

According to a study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small and medium-sized businesses employ 70% of Canada's entire private sector workforce.

Thanks to our job credit aimed at small businesses, these companies and their employees will soon benefit from a tax credit that will lower small business employment insurance premiums by 15% over the next two years.

More than 90% of Canadian companies will benefit from this initiative, which will save them $550 million. They can then use that money to solidify their business or expand it and create more jobs.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that 25,000 person-years of employment will be created due to our EI credit.

I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister in a trade mission to the United Kingdom in September. There, I had the opportunity to meet with Dan Kelly, the president of CFIB, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, to discuss the needs of small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in rural economies such as Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

This is what Mr. Kelly said in support of our EI credit. The small business job credit “will make it easier to hire new workers or invest in additional training to help entrepreneurs grow their business.”

It is plain to see that our Conservative government is indeed supporting small businesses in very concrete ways in order to ensure that Canada's economy continues to thrive.

As I had previously mentioned in the House in the last budget debate, the launch of the Canada apprentice loan, a key initiative identified by employers and various organizations with which we have consulted, would provide apprentices in Red Seal trades with access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year. This is important in communities such as my riding, which has a great demand for skilled trades, for example, related to agriculture.

Family farming is an integral part of our rural communities and our country. Farmers and producers have greatly contributed to our many successes and have the well-earned reputation of growing extremely high-quality product, both for Canadians and international consumers.

As part of economic action plan 2014, we have allocated over $3 billion, including provincial and territorial contributions, toward investments in innovation, competitiveness, and market development for our Canadian agricultural sector under Growing Forward 2. Now we are implementing further measures to support farmers by making the tax system simpler and fairer for farmers who already work very long hours to provide what goes on our tables at every meal. Many farms, in fact, will benefit from the small business tax credit, which I mentioned earlier in this speech.

Another important initiative that I would like to highlight is the doubling of the children's fitness tax credit. We have heard the concerns of Canadian families regarding the rising cost of raising a family, and we understand that organized sports in our day and age play an important role in the health and growth of our children. Our federal government is taking concrete steps to make life more affordable, especially for low-income families. Canadians saw this with the Prime Minister's most excellent and well-received announcement yesterday concerning income splitting between parents, increasing the universal child tax benefit, and increasing child care deduction limits.

However, I digress. I actually wanted to speak of us having doubled the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000. To us, it is important that we promote a healthy and active lifestyle, especially with children. It is vital that all children of all walks of life have access to sports and athletic activities. Our youth have access to many great sports, including hockey, which, as Canadians, we consider to be our national pastime. Our child fitness tax credit would help ensure that future generations continue active participation in sports and recreational activities.

I am encouraged by our Conservative government's initiatives to create jobs and encourage economic growth, as well as long-term prosperity, all while returning to balanced budgets. Unlike the opposition, which votes against measures to strengthen our Canadian economy, our federal government continues to take action in implementing initiatives, such as supporting families and communities, and improving the fairness and integrity of the tax system, among many others. In addition, we have been transparent. The budget was tabled in the House long ago, back in February. We value democracy and have been openly debating inside and outside the House.

I urge the opposition to join us in helping hard-working Canadians. I urge them to stop stonewalling and voting against important measures that will create jobs, strengthen our economy and alleviate some of the financial challenges facing Canadians.

I know that the Liberals and New Democrats love nothing more than imposing taxes and increasing spending, but I urge them to make an exception and to vote in favour of Bill C-43.

Canadians can rest assured that our Conservative government will continue to move forward and take the necessary action to create jobs and promote economic growth, while still working toward a balanced budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

Of course, when we are debating a bill as important as a budget bill, like Bill C-43, we need to look at the whole thing before deciding whether we will vote in favour or against it. That is what I have done, as have many in this House, and I am sure that the parliamentary secretary has done so as well.

That is why I would ask him to talk about the fiscal and budgetary implications of the measure in part 4 that amends the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on this extremely important and specific measure in the government's Bill C-43.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleague that when we take the Conservatives and how we have implemented transfers to provinces, we have significantly increased the amount of federal funding that we transfer to provinces. I will give an example from here in Ontario. When we were first elected in 2006, the federal government was transferring approximately $11.9 billion to Ontario every year. That amount has now climbed to close to $20 billion. This has been an increase for Ontario of almost 75% to 80%.

He is asking what the tax implications would be. If the provincial government spends that money wisely, then it, too, could lower taxes for Canadians. This is what Canadians want. Certainly when I am in my riding, Canadians have had it with high municipal taxes, provincial taxes, and federal taxes. I am proud to be part of a government and of a party that is focused on lowering taxes for Canadians.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of a senior MP on the Conservative side, so I am glad to have this opportunity. It is a question that I asked earlier in the day and I did not get an answer. It is about the legislation, and in particular, the Industrial Design Act. I have to ask this question because this bill is an omnibus bill, so it contains things that were not in the budget.

In budget 2014, it said that there would be legislation to implement treaties. In proposed subsection 7(e) of the new Industrial Design Act, it says that a design is registerable if the design is not contrary to public morality or order. That is new.

Would this be implementing a treaty or something else that the Conservative government is trying to do?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition member for his very narrow question on the budget. I think it is important that Canadians look at the budget in its entirety and what it would do for them and for our economy.

As I pointed out, this is a good budget for Canadians. This is a good budget for our Canadian economy. As Conservatives, we have a very strong track record, in terms of creating jobs or putting in place the policies that allow the creation of jobs. We have a very strong record on lowering taxes for Canadians.

While I appreciate the question, the fact that it is so narrow makes me wonder why he is ignoring all of the other very positive measures that are contained within the budget, those types of benefits that Canadians want and ask for, that we promised to deliver and that we are indeed delivering.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of things for families in the budget. There are also a lot of things for small businesses.

I know the parliamentary secretary is very engaged on the agriculture file. Maybe he would talk about some of the tax relief for small businesses, including for farms. I know in the budget there is an extension of the lifetime capital gains exemption for farming properties, for example, and some of the other small businesses.

Would he comment on that and the host of measures for farming and other small businesses?