Debates of Dec. 9th, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we have far too short a day, just one day, to debate this bill. I am nonetheless very proud of the official opposition members, especially the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who told us that no analysis had been done of the fiscal consequences of this bill. There is also the hon. member for Pontiac, who asked who this budget is for, and the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who targeted some measures. That is what it takes to draft a coherent and effective budget. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what we are getting with the bill before us.

My question for my colleague from Sherbrooke is quite simple: what is missing from this budget? What would he have liked to see for his riding and what issues would he have liked this budget to address?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. The preamble is on point, but I will not speak to it because there is not enough time. I will, however, answer my colleague's specific question about what could have been in the budget.

First, the budget should have included tax incentives. I am talking about innovation in the manufacturing sector. For Sherbrooke, this is a very important component that should have been included in the budget. There should have been significant measures to help our manufacturing sector.

I was also interested in the measures having to do with airports, even though they are not necessarily budget-related. The Conservatives decided to change the airports system, but they failed to account for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority designations. However, the Minister of Transport was supposed to be working on this for the past two years. Two years ago she opened the door to the City of Sherbrooke to work on a mechanism to allow non-designated airports to have security staff. However, we have seen nothing in two years and there is nothing in this budget.

Why make a change that affects airports and leave Sherbrooke, its airport and its requests out of it? That is too bad.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss Bill C-43. The bill would implement important measures announced in economic action plan 2014. The measures in the bill would make a real difference in the lives of hard-working Canadians.

Life for all Canadians has never been better. We are blessed to live in the greatest country on earth, the economic envy of the post-recession world. However, we must also remain where we came from. We can never forget the great recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the downturn that erased $10 trillion in global market value and eradicated 62 million jobs. The great recession taught us one lesson: we can never take our affluence for granted. We must constantly and relentlessly take action to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, and that is exactly what our government is doing through Canada's economic action plan. We have recovered all the jobs lost during the recession, but far more than that, we have created more than 1.2 million net new jobs since the depth of the downturn. These are overwhelmingly full-time, high-paying private sector jobs. More than that even, more Canadians are working now than at any other time in our history.

All Canadians are wealthier for their work. A recent New York Times analysis found that after-tax, middle-class incomes in Canada, substantially behind in 2000, now appear to be higher than in the United States. In fact, the Canadian middle class is among the richest in the developed world.

Yet despite our success, we cannot afford to be complacent. Canada refuses to be mediocre. That is why our measures take action across the economy. There are many measures contained in Bill C-43, but unfortunately I cannot touch on all of them. Today I would like to highlight measures to create jobs and growth and support hard-working Canadian families.

Let me begin with creating jobs. Central to our efforts in this regard is making sure Canadians have the skills they need to get hired. In Canada, apprentices in skill trades do most of their learning during on-the-job paid employment and participate in technical training for periods ranging from six to eight weeks each year. They face a challenge. There can be serious costs to complete the technical training required by their programs. That can include fees, tool and equipment costs, and living expenses. That is why we introduced the Canada apprenticeship loan in the first budget bill. This initiative will help apprentices get registered in Red Seal trades by providing access to over $100 million in interest-free loans each year to complete their training.

The parameters of Canada's apprentice loan program are similar to those of the Canada student loan program. That is why we believe that both programs would benefit from the same tax treatment. Bill C-43 proposes that the Income Tax Act be amended to extend the existing student loan interest credit—a non-refundable tax credit available for interest payments on loans approved under the Canada student loan program and similar provincial programs—to interest paid on the Canada apprentice loan. We are proud to help Canadians gain the skills they need for the jobs they want.

To create even more good, paying jobs, Bill C-43 takes action to lower taxes for small businesses. Small businesses and the entrepreneurs who power them are the lifeblood of our economy. Under our government, Canada is open for business, and in 2013 leapt from sixth to second place in the Bloomberg rankings for the most attractive destination for business. According to KPMG, Canada's total business tax costs are the lowest in the G7, 46% lower than those in the United States. We will not rest on our laurels. Those hard-working entrepreneurs deserve more money in their pockets, money they can use to expand their businesses and create more jobs.

That is why today's legislation includes the new small business job credit. This new credit would effectively lower small business' employment insurance premiums from the current rate of $1.88 to $1.60 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2015 and 2016. Any firm that pays employers' EI premiums equal to or less than $15,000 in those years, would be eligible for the rebate. That means 90% of the employers making EI contributions in Canada, or about 780,000 in each year, would directly benefit from the credit. There is even better news for business owners. This credit would require no new paperwork. The Canada Revenue Agency would automatically calculate it on a business' return.

Overall, our small business job credit would reduce the EI premiums paid by small businesses by nearly 15%. We expect to save businesses over half a billion dollars over the next two years.

This job credit represents yet more action for our government to lower taxes for Canadians. Today, the overall tax burden is at its lowest level in over 50 years. An average family of four now pays $3,400 less in taxes as a result of actions taken by our government.

That figure does not even include our latest measures to cut taxes for hard-working Canadian families, and our strong action stands in stark contrast to the Liberals and the NDP. Unlike them, we will not raise taxes for Canadian families, drive the country into deeper deficit, and pile on debt.

There is a simple difference between our Conservative government and the opposition. They want more money in the pockets of Ottawa bureaucrats and less in the pockets of hard-working families. They need to raise taxes to pay for their reckless schemes, and that is not our Conservative approach. We believe in stronger families, more money in the pockets of those who care most about their kids, which is their moms and dads.

This past October we offered hard-working families even more tax relief, tax relief that would help literally every family with children in Canada. We increased and expanded the universal child care benefit, introduced the family tax cut, and raised the child care deduction expense limits. Before that in October, we announced our intention to double the children's fitness tax credit and make it refundable.

Bill C-43 confirms that our government would double the maximum amount of expenses that may be claimed under the credit from its current limit to$1,000 for the 2014 tax year and subsequent years. Parents would be able to take advantage of the new $1,000 maximum limit in the spring of 2015 when they file their tax returns for 2014. Making the credit refundable would increase the benefits to low-income families claiming the credit for 2015 and subsequent years.

This represents even more action by our government to cut taxes for low-income Canadians. In fact, since 2006, we have taken more than a million low-income Canadians off the tax roll entirely.

Let me conclude as I began. We live in fragile economic times. Canadians expect our government not to sit on its laurels. They expect us to take action, to create jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, not just for this generation but for our children and grandchildren. That is its top priority. Bill C-43 would do precisely that. It would deliver the actions Canadians expect from us and ensure that Canada continues to be the envy of the post-recession world.

As such, I would like to ask all hon. members to support the implementation of this important legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the member made reference to how important it is that we create jobs, and yet it was not that long ago when the leader of the Liberal Party, on behalf of the Liberal Party, talked about something that would have done just that, and that was the EI premium break for new hires in Canada.

Independents outside of this realm and apolitical types of organizations, came forward and said that the Liberal idea would create literally tens of thousands of jobs and all regions of this country would benefit.

We compare that or contrast that to the Conservative government EI plan, which in a bizarre way, could potentially even have had people losing their jobs.

If the member is right in his assertion that the government is concerned about creating jobs, why then did it not adopt the Liberal plan that would have created tens of thousands of jobs for our middle class in every region of our country? Why did the Conservatives oppose that plan? It was all about creating jobs, and he just finished talking about how he thinks it is important to create jobs.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which fantasy world my colleague is working from, but the Liberals' plan would definitely not create the jobs that we would provide here. The jobs are created by small businesses, the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that actually employ real people and create the jobs. Our way of reducing the costs of that by $0.5 billion is a real incentive for small businesses to create those jobs for the long term.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, but I was particularly interested when he talked about the government's commitment to create jobs. I just wondered whether or not he really agrees with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us that the EI job credit would cost $0.5 billion and create only 800 jobs. That means it would cost something around $550,000 per job created. When the member is talking about the government's ability to create jobs, does he think this is really good value for money for taxpayers?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think any government creates the jobs. It is those to whom we give the tax rebates who actually create the jobs. These are the small business owners who work so hard. They are entrepreneurs who make their ideas come to reality, take them to market, and create the businesses that actually create the jobs. By doing what we are doing, we will actually be doing that and creating many more jobs than this particular statement.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly simple question, because the issue of pay-to-pay has certainly come up. The New Democrats have been pushing for the elimination of pay-to-pay for years, so this is actually one small element that we like.

However, the Conservatives have gone and given the banks an exemption to this policy, and they have not explained yet why. I wonder if the member would perhaps be able to explain why the Conservatives decided to give the banks a free ride with respect to the ability to charge people to receive paper bills.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the banking system is sound. That is why banks are able to function as they do. They do a great service for all of us, including not just at the personal level but for small businesses, et cetera, and will continue to do that. The telecom industry is quite different from the banking system. Telecom companies are actually providing a service that they are already charging for in terms of paper billing, and it is just a way of increasing their profit margin on the backs of all of us individuals.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-43 and the benefits it would have for Canadian consumers and businesses.

Our government has taken decisive action on putting Canadian consumers first. We have cut taxes nearly 180 times, which is saving Canadian families nearly $3,400 per year on average. Our government has also committed to making it easier for small and medium-size businesses to invest, innovate, grow and create jobs. We are keeping taxes low, freezing EI rates for next year, cutting red tape and returning to balanced budgets. Canada is one of the most tax-competitive countries and has the best job creation among the G7, and we will continue down that path.

Budget 2014 continued with these commitments, including consumer-focused measures to ensure that Canadian families would get value for their hard-earned dollars and measures that would help small and medium-size businesses to thrive.

Specifically, economic action plan 2014 committed to introduce administrative monetary penalties for the violation of rules in the telecommunications sector; eliminated the practice of pay-to-pay billing so Canadian consumers would not have to pay extra to receive paper bills; clarified the prohibitions against violating Industry Canada's spectrum auction rules to ensure fair and competitive bidding that would achieve the greatest benefit for Canadians; modernized Canada's intellectual property framework to better align it with international practices and reduced the burden for Canadian businesses; and continued to ensure that Canadian businesses and investors would have the market access they needed to succeed in the global economy.

I would like to take a few moments to explain these important initiatives and the benefits they will have for Canadian consumers and small businesses.

Our government is committed to ensuring that companies in the telecom sector play by the rules. That is why we are introducing new enforcement measures that will increase consumer protection in this sector. Bill C-43 would amend the Telecommunications Act and the Radiocommunication Act to provide the CRTC and the industry minister with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties on companies and individuals that would violate the rules. Companies would face penalties of up to $10 million and up to $15 million for subsequent violations. These new measures would provide Canadian regulators with the needed tools to ensure companies would comply with the rules. They would protect Canadian consumers and support a competitive marketplace by promoting regulatory compliance and providing for appropriate remedies should violations occur.

Canadian consumers have been clear that they expect lower prices and better services from telecommunications providers. That is why our government committed to ending unfair pay-to-pay billing practices, putting the interests of Canadian consumers first.

More and more Canadians are finding a new charge appearing on their monthly bills, including their wireless bill. This fee is charged to those who receive their bill by mail. Increasingly, many Canadians are being charged for this new fee by companies from which they have been receiving service for decades.

In August, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre published a report in which it estimated that Canadians paid between $495 million and $734 million annually in fees for monthly paper bills and statements in the banking and communications services industries.

We believe Canadians should not have to pay more to receive a paper copy of their telephone or wireless bill. As such, economic action plan 2014 commits to ending this unfair practice. Bill C-43 would end these pay-to-pay billing practices by adding an explicit provision to the Telecommunications Act that would prohibit any person who provided telecommunications services from charging a subscriber for a paper bill. Any company that broke the rules would face penalties of up to $15 million.

Canadians have also been clear that they want their government to take action to ensure the provision of more choice, lower prices and better service in Canada's wireless sector. I am proud to note that our government has consistently introduced measures to support a healthy, robust and competitive wireless industry.

For instance, we implemented a use it or lose it policy to ensure that wireless companies that did not use their spectrum licences would lose them. We have been taking important steps to increase the amount of wireless spectrum available to provide Canadians with the access they need on the devices they choose.

In January, the government unveiled details of the 2,500 megahertz auction, which would benefit Canadians in urban and rural areas. In February, we announced the results of the 700 megahertz auction, the most successful auction of spectrum in Canadian history, generating roughly $5.3 billion in revenue for taxpayers and putting high-quality spectrum in the hands of at least four wireless providers in each region of Canada.

Bill C-43 would further ensure that spectrum auctions would be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, in accordance with rules of conduct, to the benefit of all Canadians. In particular, the bill would amend the Radiocommunication Act to require that any person who would be subject to the spectrum auction rules must comply with those rules or risk the imposition of an administrative monetary penalty of up to $15 million.

These measures would increase regulatory compliance in the wireless sector and ensure that Canadian consumers would benefit from better service.

Our government also understands that reducing red tape for small and medium-sized businesses is central to Canada's economic growth. In budget 2014, our government committed to modernizing Canada's intellectual property framework by ratifying five international treaties. Earlier this year, our government passed the first three of the treaties relating to trademarks, the Madrid protocol, the Singapore treaty, and the Nice agreement.

Bill C-43 proposes amendments to the Patent Act and the industrial design act to ratify and accede to the remaining two treaties, the patent law treaty and the Geneva act of the Hague agreement.

Overall, the amendments in Bill C-43 would harmonize Canada's intellectual property regime with international practices, standardizing and simplifying administrative processes to lower costs and reduce red tape for small businesses. In particular, these amendments would allow a company to file for industrial design protection in multiple countries through one single application, filed in one language and for one fee. The resulting administrative and financial savings to Canadian businesses would be very significant.

The amendments would also harmonize administrative aspects of Canada's patent regime with international standards. This would result in a simpler application process and reduce the risk of errors.

Modernizing Canada's intellectual property regime and bringing it in line with international standards will continue the work to foster an environment in which businesses can grow and succeed in the global economy. These measures will increase Canada's openness to trade and investment and further reduce barriers to the international flow of goods and services.

Our government is also committed to making it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to invest, innovate, grow and create jobs. Bill C-43 contains updates to the Business Development Bank of Canada, which will help small and medium-sized businesses grow and succeed in an increasingly competitive and global environment.

Amendments to the Business Development Bank of Canada would help provide even more flexibility to SMEs that wish to grow beyond our borders. Changes would also establish a wider variety of consulting services for SMEs to access and help the BDC better leverage partnerships with third party organizations to improve its reach into the business community.

The BDC is the only bank in Canada solely dedicated to entrepreneurs and the legislative amendments in Bill C-43 would allow the BDC to expand its support for SMEs.

In conclusion, Bill C-43 proposes amendments that fulfill a number of the government's commitments to a stronger and more prosperous Canada. These initiatives, along with the other measures contained in the bill, will have significant benefits for Canadian consumers, families and small businesses.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this member the same question I previously asked the member for Don Valley East

When the Conservatives talked about enabling small businesses to create jobs, they came up with the EI job credit that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said would cost half a billion dollars and create only 800 jobs. That means the government is putting out money to small businesses at a rate of $550,000 per job created.

Does he really think this is good value for money for taxpayers? Why was this program not run by the Department of Finance or the Department of Employment and Social Development and instead was allowed to be written by a lobbyist?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the hon. member would ask a question regarding EI. I wonder if the hon. member has done any research into the NDP plan to introduce a 45-day work year, supported by the Liberal Party. It would increase costs dramatically for Canadian businesses and Canadian employees.

Our government has taken measures over the years that have resulted in an increase of 1.2 million net new jobs in the country, the vast majority of which are full time and in the private sector. The hon. member's party has voted against those measures every step of the way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we hear in the media that the government will take action on the price gap between U.S. and Canadian merchandise. Coincidence has it that here we are in one of the greatest consumer spending times in the month of December and the government starts waving this thing, saying that it is going to narrow the gap.

The reality is that the government has done absolutely nothing to narrow that gap since it has been in government. There has not been any tangible evidence whatsoever that the government has been successful in doing that. Many would say that it will not be successful.

Could the member tell Canadian consumers exactly how the government will narrow the gap between U.S. and Canadian prices for consumer spending? Could he be very specific on how the government will do it, and put something on the table for us to look at? Could he tell us the law?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another interesting question from the Liberal Party. I would hope that, as we have the debate on this new legislation, the hon. member will read it and support it as it makes an impact on Canadian consumers in a positive way.

It would be unlike when the Liberal Party opposed measures in legislation we introduced over the course of time that had a significant impact on the prices in the wireless sector, for example, with Canadians paying about 20% less than they were paying in the past. It opposed those measures every step of the way.

It would be unlike when we have introduced measures that have been very positive for Canadian consumers, which have resulted in taxes coming down for an average family of about $3,400 every year and, again, the Liberals have opposed those measures every step of the way.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up on my colleague's question, because the parliamentary secretary never actually answered the question about whether the Conservatives thought it was a good idea to be spending a half a billion dollars to create 800 jobs.

The more important question is this. Why did the Department of Finance not do its own research into the benefits of that program, and left it to the lobbyists to decide for it?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member comes from a party that has proposed a 45-day work year policy in relation to EI. The NDP policies would drastically increase costs for both businesses and consumers. Every expert in the country who looks at its policy would say that it is the case and would back that up.

We hope the hon. member will look honestly at Conservative policies, which have created 1.2 million net new jobs in our country. The vast majority of those are in the private sector and are full-time. Hopefully, when he takes an honest look at Conservative policies and legislation as it comes before the House, he will vote according to his conscience and with the evidence on those things, instead of doing what his whip tells him to do.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-43. This is the 77th time the government has moved a time allocation motion. This time allocation motion is on a budget bill, which is very important. The government gave us two days to debate the bill at report stage and one day, today, for third reading stage. This is how much time we have had in Parliament to debate a bill that is more than 460 pages long, has more than 400 clauses and will amend a dozen of our country's laws.

We want to hold an intelligent debate on a budget that matters to Canadians. Ten minutes go by quickly, but I cannot ignore the comments made by our Conservative colleague, who said that the NDP wants to introduce a 45-day work year. Every time we ask a question about employment insurance, the government says that the NDP wants everyone to work only 45 days a year.

According to The Globe and Mail, the Minister of Employment and Social Development said that he would have to hire more than 400 employees to answer calls from seniors and workers, as a result of delays in processing employment insurance, old age security and guaranteed income supplement payments.

This same government wants to reduce employers' EI premiums by half a billion dollars, telling us that this will create jobs in Canada. However, Ms. Doucet, who runs a Christmas wreath company in a town in my riding, said that the EI reform was discouraging seasonal workers.

The government says that these cuts are justified. It says it wants to create jobs and help people work instead of being unemployed. The government thinks workers are lazy slackers. This is not the first time that I have criticized the government's actions in the House, and it will not be the last.

People have to wait up to 25 weeks to get their guaranteed income supplement, which helps the most vulnerable members of our society. I am talking about seniors whose only pension is old age security and who need a supplement. Can a person really live on $543 a month? These people are being made to wait 25 weeks.

This week and last week, the Minister of Employment and Social Development had the nerve to say that he had asked some Social Security Tribunal officers who were working on employment insurance files to work on old age security and guaranteed income supplement files. However, the tribunal already has a six-month backlog of employment insurance files.

Yesterday and today, the minister acknowledged this and said that 400 people would be hired. However, it takes 12 to 18 months to train a person on how to process an employment insurance or old age security file.

The government has even admitted that Service Canada offices received 10,000 complaints. The government closed offices and cut front-line staff.

In Pleasantville, Newfoundland and Labrador, 100 to 150 people are visiting the employment insurance office because they cannot reach anyone by telephone. Even if the government hired 400 people tomorrow morning to work at Service Canada, they would not be answering the telephone. The Conservatives have created a mess for Canadians. The government should be ashamed of tampering with a program and a responsibility they have toward seniors and workers, and they should be ashamed of laughing at at them.

Our colleague in the House of Commons from Madawaska—Restigouche said the following in the newspapers. I will not name the MP that he quoted, but it appears he is from Acadie—Bathurst. The member for Madawaska—Restigouche said:

The campaign of terror waged by [the member for Acadie—Bathurst] and company did not achieve the expected results. They scared people, and everyone across the region sees that.

Yes, people in that region clearly see that they cannot get employment insurance benefits. They see that they have to wait six months for the Social Security Tribunal to hear their case. In my riding, seniors see that they cannot get the guaranteed income supplement and they have to live on $553 a month. People see that they need to apply for welfare.

Rather than allowing MPs in the House to express their views, as in a democratic country, on Bill C-43, the Conservatives have imposed a time allocation motion so that we can only debate it for one day. This is shameful.

It is shameful to hear a government tell Canadians that the NDP is proposing, among other things, that people should work only 45 days a year. It is shameful that the government thinks that workers are lazy slackers. In fact, this is what they are actually saying in their speeches.

It is completely unacceptable for men and women who have worked all their lives and who want to retire. This is the same government that increased the retirement age from 65 to 67.

Yes, I am proud of belonging to the NDP and to say that we are going to bring back 65 as the age of eligibility to old age security. Yes, I am proud to say that I am with the NDP and not with the Conservatives who persecute workers, seniors and ordinary Canadians. They are going to cut $36 billion from the health care sector by 2017. Yes, I am proud of the NDP, which has said that this $36 billion is going to be returned to the health care sector.

We hope that Canadians are aware of what the Conservatives will do, if they ever get back into power.

The Conservatives are attacking the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society. It is a shameful way to treat people who are just reaching retirement age after working all their lives.

This is the kind of thing that this bill does, in addition to decreasing contributions from employers. This is not something that will create 800,000 jobs, as the government would have us believe.

What do our entrepreneurs do when the Conservatives make cuts to employment insurance for seasonal workers? They go west, but that is artificial. Our national economy cannot be based on just one element, that is, only on oil wells.

The price of oil is going down. If there are layoffs in western Canada, what will happen to all the people who take the plane every week to go to jobs out west? The Conservatives boast about creating jobs, but those jobs have only been created in one place because the price of oil was going up. Jobs were created out west, but not here at home, in the Atlantic region, nor in the rural areas of the country. If they want people to stop needing employment insurance, they have to create jobs. This is absolutely not what is in this budget. The Conservatives should be ashamed of how they are leading the country.

It is to be hoped that Canadians will remember this when the next elections are held and that they will kick them out once and for all or for a long time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments regarding the age of retirement, because it is an important issue. I can say from my personal perspective in Winnipeg North that I have not often seen such a reaction to an issue of importance. People have been signing petitions and expressing their concern. They want the government to change its policy.

Shortly after the government introduced this change, the Liberal Party and the New Democrats, from what I understand, indicated that they would not support increasing the age of retirement from 65 to 67. I know that the leader of the Liberal Party has been very clear that going from 65 to 67 was bad, unnecessary, and unwarranted. In fact, it was a crisis situation that the government itself created back when the Prime Minister was overseas and came up with the idea to change the retirement age from 65 to 67.

My question for the member is this: would he not agree that there is going to be an opportunity after the next election for us to change that policy and keep the age of retirement at 65 for individuals who want to collect OAS? At the end of the day, I believe a vast majority of Canadians support what we are talking about, keeping it at age 65.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP and the party have been very clear that the retirement age of 67 that the Conservative government has put in place will go back to 65. We are proud of that, because people who are working for big companies and the government and have pension plans will still be able to retire when they have 30 or 40 years of service.

However, there are people who have worked for many years for different companies who do not have pension plans at age 65. People will agree with me when I say that I do not see the majority of people who work in fish plants being able to work until the age of 67. They have a hard time working until age 65. The Conservative government has put the burden on the provinces, because people will end up on welfare. Instead of being on welfare from the age of 61 to 65, they will be on welfare until the age of 67.

The cost burden will go to the provinces, and it is going to be a disaster for all provinces across this country when this change takes place. I am proud that New Democrats will not do that when we become government in 2015.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his excellent speech. He is still just as passionate as ever. I enjoy hearing him speak every time.

My colleague has put his finger on some of the problem areas in this budget. I am talking about support for the regions. He spoke about employment insurance, the fishery, pensions and the exodus of young people. Indeed, young people are leaving their communities to work elsewhere, a situation that I personally find tragic.

I would like my colleague to comment on the other shortcomings of the budget in terms of providing both social and economic support to the regions.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, from an economic perspective, what the government should have done in the budget was to transfer funds to agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, or the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, so that economic development can be carried out locally, in our regions. This is something that we need.

Secondary and tertiary processing of our natural resources is necessary. Natural resources from our regions are shipped to other countries where they are processed and then sold back to us. Why could we not do the processing ourselves? Both the community and the industry would benefit from this kind of economic development. In fact, it would be profitable for everyone.

When we discuss these matters with business people in our regions, they tell us that all this red tape is an obstacle to development. This is how they see things. Regarding infrastructure investment, we can talk about ports and airports. As for our region, I can mention the port of Belledune and the Bathurst airport. How many times have we asked for money for the airport?

Investment in infrastructure is the kind of action that is needed for economic development in our regions. This is not something that is in the budget. The budget should contain measures that are designed to help our regions.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always very difficult to speak after my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, but someone must do it, so I will look upon the task as a challenge.

I am pleased to be able to speak about this bill, but another gag order has been imposed, and we only have one day to debate the bill at this stage, which is very disappointing.

This is another omnibus budget implementation bill. This is the fifth time that an omnibus budget bill has been introduced. The first time, we thought that it was outrageous to put so many things in a huge document that was very difficult for my constituents and people in general to understand. Everything must be considered at the same time. We hoped that it would never happen again in Parliament.

Unfortunately, this is the fifth time that an omnibus budget implementation bill has been introduced. I would like to point out that Parliament has been forced to deal with a total of 2,190 pages of omnibus bills because of the Conservatives’ disregard for the legislative process. This omnibus bill is 460 pages long and contains over 400 clauses. It amends a dozen laws, and the debate is being rushed.

I dare any Canadian who is well versed in politics to try and follow what is going on in Parliament and every law that is being amended. In a large 460-page document, it is very difficult for people to see what is being done. There is so much content.

We have found that it is part of a Conservative ploy to hide a lot of changes in a huge document and then say afterwards that we voted against them. In fact, we vote against them because this enormous document contains too much. There may be good things in it, but the good things are packed in with a lot of bad things. The way they operate is therefore highly problematic.

On that note, let us get to the heart of the matter and talk about the content. Employment is an extremely important aspect of the economy. All members of the House will admit that it is probably the priority; we must create jobs in Canada and ensure that people are not unemployed.

However, 300,000 people have become unemployed since the last recession, and we need to find jobs to replace the 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost. That is huge. That is 700,000 people without a job. I am very concerned about this. Last summer, I did a lot of door-to-door campaigning, and I was shocked to see how many people in their late fifties and early sixties had lost their jobs in manufacturing. Unfortunately, no one wanted to hire them. Even when they had training in another field, they had applied for jobs and they were willing to accept almost any job, they were unable to find work and they had exhausted their retirement fund. What is in store for them?

In addition, the age of eligibility for Old Age Security is about to be raised to 67. I think we are headed in the wrong direction, and several of my constituents agree. The fact that they cannot find work despite their best efforts is very worrisome for these people who are sitting at home, about to lose their homes.

In this omnibus bill, the Conservatives proposed a tax credit as a solution, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer deemed a huge expense and a waste of resources. He did not have nice things to say about this. The employment tax credit will cost the government $550 million, which will be drawn from the employment insurance fund to create 800 jobs. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that this is a huge expense for very little return.

To add insult to injury, the Minister of Finance did not even analyze the program before going ahead with it. This is unacceptable. The Minister of Finance is there for a reason.

He is supposed to scrutinize spending and to assess the programs the government wants to implement. An assessment must be carried out. It is the least we can expect. We are about to vote on a bill that has not even been properly assessed by the Minister of Finance. I think Canadians have a major problem with that, especially since we know that only 800 jobs will be created at a cost of $550 million.

What we have to do is address recurring youth unemployment and structural youth underemployment. The unemployment rate for young people who are looking for jobs but unable to find one is 13.4%. This is a really high unemployment rate for this important segment of the population. These are people who want to work and who have a great deal of knowledge, but unfortunately are unable to find a job. However, at the same time, they are being told to donate their time as interns.

That is not what we can call a real economic plan. A real economic plan, a real budget, would provide for measures to put young people to work. A real economic plan would make proposals like those of the NDP to create a tax credit that will specifically encourage employers to hire young workers. These are the types of projects that will truly make a difference.

There are many other elements missing from this bill. The Conservatives claim to want to help consumers; they have said it over and over again. They eliminated the $2 fee for receiving paper invoices from telecommunications companies, but they neglected to include bank statements. Does this measure really include all of the bills that people receive? Definitely not. The government also ignored the question of establishing regulations governing ATMs, which sometimes charge $4 to $5 per transaction. That is money that could be in the pockets of Canadian families. Considering that Canadian household debt is at 166% of their income, we should all be working together to lower expenses for families on little things like this. The government needs to establish a regulatory framework that is not just voluntary but mandatory, so that it can deal with these fees, which are hurting families. There is nothing about that in this bill.

As my colleagues mentioned, the government decided to go forward with its plan to increase the retirement age to 67, despite strong public outcry. There is nothing about this in the bill.

We would also like clarification of the concept of net benefit to Canada. We are often faced with this concept, but the definition is very vague. Important trade deals with foreign companies that want to buy our Canadian resources or companies have been approved, but the concept of net benefit remains vague. Why not work on clarifying what net benefit to Canada means? We have seen situations where it was not clear at all. If we want to ensure that there will be economic benefits or spinoffs for Canadians and the economy, it is important to clarify what a net benefit is. However, the government is not doing that.

A number of my colleagues and I participated in the fundraising drive on the weekend. The need is truly great. Use of food banks in Canada has increased by 25%. People need help. They are turning to their government for help. What is it doing? It is attacking the most vulnerable people in our society. Instead of giving them a hand, it is cutting programs that help them and turning its back on them. The government is pretending that they do not exist and is not helping them.

That is not why I was elected. I was elected to make a difference and to help these people. That is what I will do by voting against Bill C-43.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member comment with respect to trade. She made reference to net benefits and wants further explanation.

One of the nice things about the issue of the trade is that there is a significant difference in the way in which the Liberal and New Democratic parties deal with trade. In principle, the Liberal Party supports the need for trade. For example, we see the trade agreement with the European Union as a positive step, as it has the potential to create many jobs here in Canada and to add valuable jobs.

Just the other day the leader of that member's party was in Paris, of all places, being very critical of the trade agreement, thereby giving the impression overseas that the NDP does not support the trade agreement with Europe.

I wonder what she believes the NDP is today. What would the leader be saying here in Canada? Does the NDP support the trade agreement with Europe?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Liberal member may have misunderstood. Yes, it is good to develop trade with other countries, but only when there are clear advantages and benefits for Canada. That is what I was saying earlier.

At present, the net benefit remains very elusive. We are not going to give other countries a blank cheque when we sign an agreement. We are not going to say that we support all free trade agreements and sign blank cheques all around without ensuring that this trade will really be beneficial for Canadians. We need to make sure that it will create jobs here and strengthen our economic sectors. That is crucial. It is also imperative that we know what sort of government we are doing business with when we sign a free trade agreement. There was a free trade agreement with Honduras, which has an extremely dubious human rights record.

We have to look at the details and assess all the proposals and make sure that there will be real benefits for Canada. In the case of the free trade agreement with Europe, some points have been raised but we have not yet seen the full text. I am sorry, but I do not feel comfortable signing a blank cheque without knowing the details of the agreement.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her dynamic speech. A country's budget is meant to provide direction. It sets out the government's main priorities. Based on what I have seen and heard, and my colleague eloquently illustrated this, the government is out to get votes. It is bringing in piecemeal measures, hoping that maybe some of them will stick. There is some wishful thinking going on here.

I have a question for my colleague. Since she spoke about issues such as youth unemployment, for which she is our party's critic, and since she has an interest in privacy matters, what directions would she like to have seen in this budget? What does she think is missing?