House of Commons Hansard #136 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.
The House resumed from October 30 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.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park had eight minutes remaining in her comments.
The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise once again on behalf of the riding of Parkdale—High Park and my constituents to speak to Bill C-43, which is the second budget implementation act introduced for the 2014 budget.
I would like to focus my remarks in my remaining time on three areas. First of all, I would like to focus on the nature of this omnibus bill that is before us and some of the problems I see within the bill. There are many, but I will focus on just a couple. Then I would like to look at some of the things that should be in this bill but are, in fact, missing. That is also extremely problematic.
Let us begin with the bill itself, Bill C-43, which is a rather large tome. Once again, it is 450-some pages. It is called the budget implementation act, but it actually contains a number of things that are not in the budget. It contains a number of items that ought to be separate bills and that have nothing at all to do with the budget.
My Conservative colleagues across the way will say that I am talking about process, that no one cares about process, and that I should be talking about substance. I will talk about the substance of the bill in just a moment, but let me say that what the Conservatives slough off as process is, in fact, the essence of our democracy. It is about the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of the people of Canada, to adequately scrutinize, debate, and horror of horrors, on Halloween, possibly even amend some of the provisions in a bill.
The reason the government puts everything in one big omnibus is the following. There are two reasons. The first is that there are some changes the Conservatives would make that even they are embarrassed about. They do not want to shine the light of day on those changes, so they put them in an omnibus budget bill that faces very little scrutiny and that has time allocation so that the people of Canada will not fully see what is in the bill. At least, the Conservatives think they do not see what is in it.
The other thing is that, of course, there are some positive things in this massive tome. Goodness gracious, the dart has to hit the dartboard sometimes, and the Conservatives do actually have a couple of good things in there. However, they will then take this back to their communities and say that the NDP voted against x, y, or z, which we ourselves advocated.
For example, our New Democrat members for Sudbury and Davenport have been campaigning on behalf of consumers specifically to end the practice of pay-to-pay billing, where people have to pay a couple of bucks just to pay their bills if they do not want to do it online. The Conservatives are bringing in a half-measure. They are eliminating it for telecoms and utilities, which we of course support, but they are not going all the way and doing it for the banks. A member opposite was mistaken about that yesterday. Even he thought that they were, because there is so much in this omnibus bill.
Fundamentally, it is anti-democratic to have these omnibus bills brought before the House again and again. On this side, we say that it is wrong and it is undemocratic, and we will not stand for it. We will keep protesting that.
Let me move, in the limited time I have, to some of the problems in the bill as it is presented. I would like to spend time on two of them.
The first one concerns refugee claimants. Canada has had a reputation in the past of being a compassionate country and one that cares about its role in the world. With so much conflict and so many natural disasters taking place, sadly, there are a growing number of refugees in the world, the majority of whom are women and children. The majority end up fleeing by foot or over land across the border, so they end up in a neighbouring country. Often these are countries that really do not have adequate resources to care for the number of refugees they have, but they are taking on the burden of the majority of refugees in the world.
Canada has to play a role in accepting refugees. I think even the Conservatives would agree that Canada has to play a role.
However, through the bill, the Conservatives would further crack down on refugees and their being able to survive here in Canada. In a past budget implementation act, the Conservatives removed the ability of some refugees to get health care, which the Federal Court called cruel and unusual. The medical community, human rights activists, and many others have been protesting against that. Now the government would impose residency requirements for people receiving basic social assistance.
I know what the Conservatives are doing. Someone asked me at a community meeting a week ago why it is that these refugees can come here and get money from the government, social assistance, when Canadians cannot. I told the person that it was because refugees cannot work, and if they do not get this money, they cannot live. The person said, “Oh, I didn't know that”. It is basic human decency and common sense that these people are able to get this help.
I also want to criticize and point out the small business job credit the Conservative government would implement, which has been condemned even by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would take $550 million out of the EI fund, which is money that workers and employers have put in to get EI benefits, but it would create only 850 jobs. This is rather outrageous for that amount of money. My goodness, I do not think even the Conservative and Liberal senators cost us quite that much. There are many more effective job measures the Conservatives could be bringing in without taking money from the EI fund.
What is missing from this? The Conservatives would not create one job, except for their $550-million jobs, which is a ridiculous program. They do not have a manufacturing strategy. We have lost over 400,000 manufacturing jobs. They do not redress the cuts to EI; the vast majority of people who are unemployed do not get EI. They do not create one single child care space for Canadian parents. They do not address the housing crisis that forces too many people into poverty, especially in my community. There is nothing for the environment. They do not take away the more than $1 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector.
The budget implementation bill, like the Conservatives' budget, is a failure. It does not address the key issues facing Canadians today. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my community and denounce the omnibus budget bill, denounce the contents of it, and say very proudly that we will be voting against it.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of my colleague about the fact that the budget implementation bill is an omnibus bill.
One of the things in the bill that was not mentioned in the budget is the repeal of the Canadian Polar Commission Act and the incorporation of the Canadian Polar Commission into the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. The new act would also remove the wording in the act that gave the Canadian Polar Commission the ability to take initiative. The new act does not use the word “initiate” or “on its own initiative” or any of these things. It seems to me that it is another example of the Conservative government taking more control of researchers.
I would ask my colleague to comment on the fact that this is another example of an abuse that is occurring in the omnibus bill.
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for that question, and he is quite right. I did not have enough time to address all the problems in the bill, but certainly the collapsing of these two bodies dealing with the Arctic is problematic.
The Conservative government has a history of muzzling scientists and not allowing independent thought and independent action by government scientists. There is real concern, given the rapid environmental and development changes that are taking place in the Arctic.
Will there really be independence for scientists? Will we get the information we need to make proper decisions? Because of the centralization of power in the hands of ministers that the government is well known for, there are real concerns, which I think may well be justified.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's framing of what is in the bill. She mentioned a few items that are supportable, like the DNA database for missing and murdered people and a couple of smaller items, such as cracking down on pay to pay, but not all pay to pay, because the banks are let off the hook yet again.
There are a number of things in the bill that are just outright bad ideas, such as the employment insurance scheme, which is going to cost more than half a billion dollars to create so few jobs. It is more than half a million dollars per job. This is an outrageous offence to those who pay into the employment insurance program, which is every working Canadian and employer.
My question to my colleague is on the third phase of things that were not in the budget, the opportunities missed. Manufacturing is of great concern to those living in Toronto and southwestern and southeastern Ontario, who have suffered such great damage over the last number of years. She mentioned 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs, almost 700,000 lost in a decade. This is a failed opportunity to bring forward some kind of comprehensive strategy.
People are looking for proposals. What kind of ideas do we need to see that would help those value-added jobs, good-paying jobs, that have helped Canadian families for so many generations?
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his pertinent question, because we see across the country far too many of what I would call precarious jobs: part-time jobs, temporary jobs, low-wage jobs, and jobs with no benefits. There is no hope associated with those jobs. I think of young people coming into the job market today who are sometimes carrying thousands of dollars of debt. They cannot afford to get a home or start a family, because they cannot get a decent job.
In most developed countries, governments prize their manufacturing sector. They defend it and fight for it. They work hard to make sure they have those jobs, because they are high tech jobs, value-added jobs. It is where they get the great spinoffs. For example, in the auto industry, there are seven jobs for every auto assembly job.
Under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government our country has fallen from one of the top four auto-producing countries to number 10. Australia lost its auto industry altogether.
We do not see any plan. There is no auto strategy. There is no manufacturing strategy. We do not see anything except giving more money back to companies and hoping they have a nice day.
John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the budget implementation act and to talk about our economic action plan 2014.
I am eager to support the budget implementation act today because it is an example of the commitment and focus we have had on the budget benchmarks and priorities that our government set earlier this year.
Those priorities include returning to a balanced budget in 2015, creating jobs, economic growth, supporting small and medium-sized businesses, and ensuring that hard-working Canadian families have more of their own dollars in their pockets. In fact, the government's commitment to tax relief meant savings of about $3,400 for a typical Canadian family of four in 2014.
We reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. We introduced income splitting for seniors, tax-free savings accounts, and expanded on successful programs, such as the child fitness tax credit and the universal child care benefit.
However, what is most exciting about our government's economic action plan is that we are able to offer these critical programs that Canadians have said they want and support, but at the same time pay down our debt, balance our budget, and make unprecedented investment into infrastructure and small business.
We have been blessed as a result of the decisions that our government has made, and as a result Canada is the envy of the world. We have one of the strongest job growth rates of any G7 country, with nearly 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession in 2009. In fact, Bloomberg ranked Canada as one of the best places to do business in the world, and both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development are projecting that Canada will have among the most dynamic growth of any country in the G7 over the years to come.
This success does not just happen. It takes hard work, leadership, sound financial planning, and, perhaps most importantly, decisive and timely decision-making.
We have shown good financial planning and we have shown good leadership. We reduced the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%, and we lowered the general business tax rate from 21% to 15%. We have expanded our global markets by reaching crucial free trade agreements with the European Union, as well as the Canada free trade agreement with Korea, which was just given third reading on Wednesday.
The budget implementation act will continue to build on the successes that our government has achieved through our economic action plan, and that is important. The global economy remains fragile. We are not immune to the economic challenges around the globe and outside of our borders. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue to focus on building a strong, vibrant, and robust economy here in Canada.
A healthy economy starts at home. I am proud to stand in support of the bill today because I know it would benefit the families, the small businesses, and the communities in my southern Alberta riding of Macleod.
Alberta is built on dynamic entrepreneurs, farmers, ranchers, and business owners, who are willing to take risks to find success. We understand that we must support the economic engine that is driving our country right now. To do this, we must continue to support small business, the economic backbone of our country.
Our government is supporting small businesses through programs such as the recently introduced small business tax credit, which I believe is a vital piece of the legislation we are talking about today. The credit would lower small business payroll taxes by 15% over the next two years. That would be a savings of approximately $550 million for small businesses over the span of that two years. This initiative has been called a big win for small business by groups across the country, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
The introduction of this tax credit will build upon our government's strong support of small businesses since 2006. For example, we froze EI premiums to provide certainty and flexibility for small businesses. We have cut red tape by eliminating 800,000 payroll deduction remittances to the CRA each year for more than 50,000 small businesses. The results are clear: a typical small business in Canada is seeing savings of about $28,000 a year. In total, since 2006, small businesses have seen their taxes reduced by 34%. That is substantial
Fittingly we celebrated small business week earlier this month, and, in speaking with business owners in my riding, their message was clear: we must continue to reduce their tax load and the red tape and bureaucracy that they face. It is important to do so because it shows our support for small business. The better off that our small businesses are, the better off the Canadian economy is as well.
A healthy economy is vital, but so too are healthy communities. Time and time again, studies have shown that being active improves focus in the classroom, reduces crime, and aids in the development of vital social skills for the children in our communities. Sports contribute to healthy communities, and I believe being active should be a habit that is encouraged for all of us here today, but particularly children.
Knowing this, our government introduced the children's fitness tax credit in budget 2006, which provided a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 for children under 16 years of age to register in sports and activities. I distinctly remember when this program was introduced and how important it was to my family. As a father of three, I know how expensive it is to pay for registration fees in hockey, volleyball, and dance, and to purchase equipment. I know how difficult it is on families to afford to keep their kids healthy and active. This tax credit provided a financial means to ensure that all of my children could participate in the activities they love. I want to ensure that other Canadian families share the same benefit that my wife and I enjoyed when our children were younger.
Therefore, I was pleased when the Prime Minister not only committed to continue this program, but announced that our government is doubling the children's fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 and making it refundable. That means it will increase the benefits for low-income families who want to access this tax credit. This will help children across Canada to lead healthy and active lifestyles, and teach them the life skills that will not only benefit them and their families, but will also be of long-term benefit to the communities in which they live.
My colleagues in the House today understand the devastation that my riding in southern Alberta went through in June 2013. Albertans are resilient. We will come back stronger than ever. However, it is critical that we protect these communities long term, to ensure that we never have to go through a disaster of that magnitude again. Therefore, I was extremely pleased to see that the economic action plan included $200 million over the next five years to establish a national disaster mitigation program, as well as $40 million over that five years for disaster mitigation in first nations communities. This was one of the worst disasters in Canadian history. There were hundreds of people who lost their homes, and key infrastructure was destroyed when the waters overwhelmed our communities in southern Alberta.
The $200-million natural disaster mitigation program will provide vital funding to help these communities prepare for national disasters, prepare emergency readiness plans, and invest in innovative technology and infrastructure to protect these communities. It will give the residents of southern Alberta a renewed confidence, and will certainly play a key role in the recovery process.
This program will not only help Albertans, as these dollars will also be available across the country. I know my colleagues from Manitoba and Quebec have faced similar flooding issues over the years and need our support as well. The mitigation funding is a critical investment from our federal government and will protect communities and infrastructure across Canada.
Macleod has a rich agricultural history, and the family farm continues to be a backbone in my riding as well as many others across Canada. The economic action plan includes a number of measures to support Canada's farmers, including an extension of the tax deferral program for livestock producers when they undergo drought or overland flooding. We have always offered farmers a tax deferral for up to 12 months if they have to liquidate their herds. However, rather than having to pay it off as income tax, they will have the cash on hand so they can purchase replacement stock, which is vital to the health of family farms.
In rural Alberta, access to high speed internet can be a challenge. If we want our small business owners, farmers, ranchers, and rural communities to succeed, they must be able to market their goods and services worldwide and online. Therefore, the connecting Canadians program, which commits more than $300 million to expanding broadband Internet services in rural communities across Canada, is a vital infrastructure initiative. This will provide residents in southwest Alberta with the keys to the global marketplace and will re-energize these economies and innovative communities who are eager to expand their horizons.
The initiatives that this government has implemented in this budget will ensure Canada's economy remains vibrant and robust at a time of global uncertainty. I encourage all members of this House to support the budget implementation act.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in some ways, I appreciated my Conservative colleague's speech. I would like to ask him a very simple question, since he brought up the children's fitness tax credit. I encourage the idea of children participating in sports. I have children, and I am very happy that they can play sports. However, it needs to be made clear that this is a non-refundable tax credit. It will help only the families who already have the means to sign their children up for sports.
I would like to know what his party or the member himself is proposing for people who do not earn enough money to pay taxes and therefore do not have access to this non-refundable tax credit. It is available only to some Canadians. However, for all the other families that would like to see their children do sports—
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2Government Orders
Pierre Poilievre
It is refundable now.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Why, hello sir.
Mr. Speaker, since it is a non-refundable tax credit, how will it help families? I would like to hear his thoughts.
John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but obviously he has not read the economic action plan or the budget implementation act that we are talking about today. The new children's fitness tax credit is refundable. It is $1,000, and low-income families are able to access that tax credit. It is refundable, and that is why I support this so passionately.
Ted Hsu Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, because we are debating an omnibus bill in which there are things that are not related to the budget, I have to ask the following question.
Budget 2014 says there would be some legislation to implement certain treaties, and in particular there is a piece which amends the Industrial Design Act. There is a part of this legislation we are debating today that says with respect to the Industrial Design Act,“A design is registerable if [...] the design is not contrary to public morality or order”.
My question to the member is, are we implementing a treaty here, or is the government trying to say something about public morality and order?
John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague. I think he understands that this budget implementation act will focus on the economy, promote jobs, and be there to help young families and families across the country.
If he reads that, he will see that in there.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, this week we learned the sad fact that 20% of children in Canada live below the poverty line.
I looked closely, but I did not see anything in this budget that will change that. The government supposedly has billions of dollars to give and is handing it to the rich, so why did it not simply raise the tax-exempt threshold for low-income individuals?
It is a very simple solution. That is all the government had to do to drastically reduce the number of poor children. Why did it not do that?
John Barlow Conservative Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has an opportunity to look through the budget implementation act that we are talking about today, and the economic action plan, there are a number of programs and initiatives in there to help low-income families, to ensure they have the means and capabilities to pay their bills, and to ensure their children have the necessities of life, whether we are talking about increasing flexibility and access to employment insurance, providing more health care products and services, or expanding tax relief under the municipal expense tax credit.
There are a lot of opportunities and options in this budget, and I think it is worthwhile for my neighbour to stand up and supports this. This will support Canadian families, and that is what we are here to do today.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to share a few thoughts and express some concerns I have with regard to the general direction the Conservative government is taking Canada. I have a number of concerns.
First, when I listen to many Conservatives speak about the budget, I cannot help but notice that they talk a lot about the economic action plan. Whenever I hear the economic action plan being referred to, the first thing I think of are the hundred of millions of tax dollars being used to advertise the so-called action plan. If we look at the baseline numbers of the government's economic track record, nothing could be further from the truth of an economic action plan.
One thought I would like to share with members is the fact that the government spends a great deal of tax dollars trying to convince Canadians that it is doing a good job. I suggest that money could be far better utilized in supporting a wide spectrum of programs that are of critical importance.
I want to talk about the government's resistance to good ideas.
Back in September, the Conservatives came up with the small business job credit idea to try to get small businesses to hire more people. The government talked about the potential of how it might be able to generate 10,000-plus jobs at a significant cost. The leader of the Liberal Party made an announcement about the EI premium exemptions for new hires. This program would create tenfold the types of jobs the government's initiative hoped to create. In fact, the government initiative, in a bizarre way, would be a disincentive for small businesses to hire and might ultimately lead to some small businesses having to let employees go.
The Conservative plan was questionable at best, but that is not the case with regard to what the leader of Liberal Party was espousing, a plan that would have the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs all across our land. It would take advantage of the greatest potential for growth in Canada, and that is small business.
We have emphasized how important it is that government policy start focusing more on the middle class. The middle class has not done well under the Conservative government over the last half dozen years. We are trying to get the government to recognize that fact, to start making policy decisions that are going to allow the middle class to do better, to prosper and have more hope going into the future.
The Liberal Party is committed to acting on this. We believe in the middle class and if we want the Canadian economy to do well, we have to start to focus more attention on that. That is one of the reasons we shared ideas with the government and encouraged it to adopt the EI premium exemption for all new hires that small businesses and others would engage in. Ultimately, it would lead to a great deal more jobs being created.
The Liberal Party has talked a great deal about the importance of infrastructure. The government says that it is investing record amounts in infrastructure. When it says that, what it is really saying to Canadians is that it has a plan where it will spend billions of dollars in infrastructure, but what it does not to Canadians is that plan does not kick in until two or three years from now. The infrastructure is needed today, but that does not necessarily fit the political agenda.
Come springtime, the Prime Minister wants to say that the Conservatives will spend $100 million here, $50 million there on infrastructure. He want to make these commitments in the 2015-16 budget, as opposed to doing it when it is really necessary. It should have been brought into this budget.
We have municipal elections. Toronto has talked about the importance of infrastructure dollars and how badly it is needed. The successful mayoral candidate in Winnipeg, Mr. Bowman, has said that infrastructure is the number one issue. We need infrastructure dollars.
However, instead of trying to deal with the issue that Canadians need addressed, not only in this budget but even in the previous budgets, the Prime Minister 's objective is to put a hold on projects, not spend money and wait until the election year before committing to spend this money.
If we can learn anything by previous expenditure promises by the government, all we need is to reflect upon the current budget. We have passed budgets that have allowed the government to deliver on projects, but it does not spend the money, so the money lapses. On the one hand, the government gets to say that it will spend millions of dollars on this or that, but when it comes down to the actual reporting, we find out that it has not spent that money.
Infrastructure is important because it generates opportunities, such as opportunities for businesses to look at and expand upon exportation, which generates literally thousands of jobs. It contributes to valuable GDP increases, such as dealing with the real issues of potholes in the streets. These are the types of things which we believe are important, and the government has missed the mark by not investing in Canada today.
I talk a lot about health care. I know my constituents of Winnipeg North. I often canvas their opinions through petitions and questionnaires. They have emphasized how important health care is to our country. They want strong federal leadership.
We saw that when Jean Chrétien got rid of the tax point shift in the favour of direct cash, which saved indefinite financial contributions going from Ottawa to the provinces. The provinces need the cash to sustain their health care systems, but they want us to do more than that. They want to see a stronger leadership role coming from Ottawa. Paul Martin brought in the health accord 10 years ago. That accord expired this year.
Every time the Minister of Health and the government talk about record dollars going into health care, it has absolutely nothing to do with them. It is 100% because of Paul Martin and the health care accord that was signed 10 years ago. The Minister of Health has done nothing to protect health care going forward. Canadians are concerned about that.
I challenge the Minister of Health. Where is the new health care accord? Where is the federal commitment going toward health care?
The government has been found wanting on the important issues, whether it is the infrastructure, or health care or the unemployed. We challenge the government to step up to the plate and start to address the needs of Canadians.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, that was interesting at the least. It is important to understand that infrastructure generates economic activity and that is exactly why, since forming government in 2006, this government has invested more money in infrastructure spending than any other government in the history of our country. We are proud of that, and we understand the value of investing in infrastructure. That is why we are committed to investing even more.
However, we will not invest this money on the Liberal schedule, because they have shown very clearly in the past that they do not have a schedule that makes sense. We will be investing it on our schedule because it does make sense and it is going to go directly to infrastructure that is badly needed in our country. We understand that, and we are going to do it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member says the Conservatives are not going to invest it on the Liberal schedule. The Liberal schedule is the Canadian schedule, and that is when the need is there. The need is there today. That is not the Liberal schedule, that is the reality.
The government should have been investing in infrastructure today. The Conservatives actually cut back 90% in terms of expenditures going into infrastructure for this year. That is, as the member has pointed out, because they want to base their expenditures on the Conservative schedule. The Conservative schedule deals strictly with political re-election in 2015. That is their schedule. We are suggesting they have missed the mark.
When he talks about the economic activity, we talk about the freer trade agreements signed with Korea, the European Union and so forth. If we had a better, healthier infrastructure, we would even be able to do that much more in terms of exportation.
Why do we have to wait for the election year for that to take place? Cities are demanding and need the infrastructure dollars today. They do not have to wait until the next federal election. The Conservative Party has the wrong agenda. The Liberal Party is challenging the Conservatives to do what Canadians want, and they want the money now.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a way, I did appreciate the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, but I have to say that he was stepping a little out of line with his party.
He talked about the Liberal Party, its values and the importance of taking care of people and giving power and money to the provinces so that we can have effective health care services in this country. He also said a lot about former prime minister Paul Martin. I would just like to remind him that it was the Liberal government that slashed provincial health transfers.
The Liberals saved money at the expense of the people of this country by downloading their deficit onto the provinces. That is exactly what the Liberal Party did when it was in power.
I think that the member is in no position to talk because his own party did not do what he is talking about today.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is not necessarily true. I was in the Manitoba legislature when the issue came to the provinces. The issue in the 1990s, in good part, was that if Mr. Chrétien did not change the funding formula on health care, there would be zero contributions coming from Ottawa to the provinces by the time we reached to 2015. That is the reality.
Mr. Chrétien changed the formula that enabled guaranteed cash flow for health care transfers indefinitely from Ottawa to the provinces. If we have health care transfers today, it is because Jean Chrétien and the Liberals during the 1990s are the ones who put it into place, and guaranteed it. The member might not like that, but that is the reality.
Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak this morning in favour of Bill C-43, economic action plan 2014 act no. 2, and specifically division 3, which includes the proposed Canadian High Arctic Research Station act.
The establishment of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, more commonly referred to as CHARS, is yet another example of our government's record investments and our ongoing commitment to promoting the Canadian Arctic as a vital part of our national identity, our sovereignty, and our economic security, as outlined in our 2007 northern strategy.
I am thrilled for the people of Cambridge Bay, who will benefit from our government's investments for years to come. As the member of Parliament for Nunavut, as someone who was born and raised in Canada's north, and as someone who still calls the north home, I know first-hand how this vision for a strong and sovereign Canada has benefited northerners in our day-to-day lives and continues to do so.
As the minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, I am particularly excited about the leadership role that this new world-class research facility located in the Arctic will play in the development and dissemination of Arctic research, both at home and abroad.
The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will serve as a year-round hub for scientists and scientific research and will anchor an existing network of smaller northern research facilities. This network, with CHARS at its centre, will allow Canada to exercise stewardship and sovereignty over our northern lands while strengthening Canada's role as a global leader on Arctic issues. It will also seek to establish partnerships and bring together industry, academics, aboriginal and northern governments, and international stakeholders to leverage their expertise, experience, and resources.
CHARS will not only promote Canadian sovereignty and stewardship of Canada's Arctic lands, waters, and resources but will also support the local economy by generating employment and service contracts in the region.
It is estimated that the construction phase will introduce 150 jobs across the north and in various other specialized sectors throughout Canada. Of the 15 construction subcontracts tendered to date, over $18 million has been awarded to Inuit-owned companies or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated registered firms.
Once CHARS is in operation, the research, capacity-building, and outreach activities will provide northerners with the skills and experience to better participate in the labour force, from mining and energy through natural resources and wildlife management to health and life sciences. CHARS will also develop highly qualified personnel and leadership in the north and across Canada.
CHARS will also build upon the work of the existing Canadian Polar Commission. The commission works to promote the development and dissemination of knowledge in respect of the polar regions, which strongly complements the research and infrastructure aspects of the CHARS mandate and aligns with the goal of mobilizing Arctic science and technology.
The proposed act will combine the Canadian High Arctic Research Station with the existing Canadian Polar Commission under the name of CHARS to create one larger, stronger champion for polar knowledge and Arctic science and technology in Canada.
CHARS will function as a departmental corporation, just like the CPC. This is also in line with other organizations that perform world-renowned research in Canada, such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. This model will provide CHARS with the necessary flexibility to compete on a global scale with other science organizations, but also with the resource development sector operating in Canada's North.
In addition to allowing CHARS to become a viable destination for world-class scientists, our government will ensure CHARS is positioned to address any Inuit employment and training requirements, including those arising from the Nunavut land claims agreement.
I would like to briefly review the steps that our government has made and is making to move this project from its initial inception to the establishment of this world-class research centre.
In the 2007 Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister committed to build a world-class high Arctic research station that would strengthen Canada's sovereignty over the north and raise the profile of Canadian Arctic research both at home and abroad.
Since that time we have moved quickly. In 2008, consultations were held with partners and stakeholders, leading to a needs assessment. This brought together northerners, aboriginal organizations, research organizations, and territorial governments to share their ideas, their values, and their vision for this institution. It was at this stage, arising from discussions with stakeholders, aboriginal people, and northerners, that the vision for CHARS began to come to light.
In 2009, Canada's economic action plan provided $2 million for a CHARS feasibility study and $85 million for the Arctic research infrastructure fund. This infrastructure fund was a significant investment toward maintaining and upgrading key existing Arctic research facilities in order to improve the network of science and technology facilities that deliver benefits to northerners and all Canadians.
Following consultations and assessments in 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the CHARS facility would be built in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. I was pleased to be in Cambridge Bay, joined by the Hon. John Duncan, Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs Development at that time, to make the announcement in the community—
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order. I would remind the minister that she cannot refer to her colleagues by their given names.
Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Nunavut, NU
I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister made the same announcement from Churchill, Manitoba, due to unforeseen weather conditions.
Cambridge Bay is an ideal place for the construction of this new world-class facility. It is centrally located and provides easy access to all parts of the north. It is also located right on the Northwest Passage, an invaluable location for the purpose of demonstrating our Arctic sovereignty.
The community itself is also very excited about the station. They see CHARS as creating economic opportunities, strengthening community infrastructure, sharing knowledge, and opening the community of Cambridge Bay to the world.
I would like to quote a friend, Fiona Buchan-Corey, a Cambridge Bay resident, who works at the Nunavut Arctic College. She said:
This multimillion dollar project is going to have a huge economic impact on Cambridge Bay, and we have been very proactive as a community in terms of trying to maximize the benefits to it....
And we're excited about the employment opportunities, not only during the construction stage, but also afterwards....
During the construction of the CHARS facility, it is anticipated that 150 people will be employed locally across the north and in more specialized sectors across Canada, and there will be permanent jobs when the station begins operating.
More recently, on the Prime Minister's ninth annual northern tour this past August, I was privileged to be back in Cambridge Bay with the Prime Minister to witness the launch of the construction of CHARS with a groundbreaking ceremony.
Once built, the station, which incorporates Inuit-inspired design principles, will be one of the largest buildings in the territory. These buildings will showcase green building technologies and serve as a test bed for future research and technology testing for infrastructure and renewable energy approaches from the north.
The day when the CHARS facility will be completed is coming more quickly than many people believe. Already the steel structure for one of the first buildings of the CHARS campus has been erected. I was very excited to see this in person while attending the Kitikmeot Inuit Association annual general meeting just a few weeks ago.
Establishing the governance for this facility is the last key piece that needs to be put in place in creating this important new institution in order to have it fully operational by 2017.
I urge all members in the House to take another important step by passing this important legislation and supporting Canada's vision for a strong and sovereign Canada.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member was in a very interesting position when she was the former minister of health. Given the importance of health care to all Canadians, Paul Martin, back in 2004, signed a health agreement with the provinces that ultimately led to what we have today. Those were the highest health care transfers in the history of Canada, all because of Paul Martin working with the provinces and getting that agreement.
When the member was the minister of health, she had the responsibility of coming up with the next agreement, or an agreement that would provide assurances to the provinces that Canada would continue to support health care. Within this particular budget, there is no indication of it whatsoever, even though many Canadians, my constituents included, as shown through petitions and surveys, all want to see a higher priority.
Why does she believe, as the previous health minister, that the government just does not seem to understand the importance of health care?