Debates of April 3rd, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for York South—Weston, Employment.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I will use my time today to express my general disagreement with yet another omnibus bill, now the trademark of the Conservatives, unfortunately. I will talk specifically about some provisions in the bill that are particularly worrisome and disappointing to the people in my riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

First of all, I would like to loudly and clearly denounce much of the content of the bill and the process used by the Conservatives to make radical legislative changes at lightning speed. Not only does the budget implementation bill contain no real job creation measures, but Parliament cannot do its job, given that the Conservatives introduce omnibus bills and use gag orders to excess.

How can Canadians expect us to do our jobs thoroughly and be able to measure up to their expectations if the government is constantly cutting off the debates we are supposed to have here in the House? Why has the Conservative government imposed gag orders 60 times since the beginning of this Parliament, if not to muzzle parliamentarians and Canadians, in addition to setting the sad record of having the highest number of gag orders in Canadian history? How can we look our constituents in the eye when they know that it is impossible to thoroughly examine the changes that the government is imposing because it is burying them in bills that are more than 350 pages long and amend over 500 sections and dozens of acts?

Once again, the bill is about to drastically change the face of Canadian legislation, and it deserves to be studied carefully by parliamentarians, together with civil society and experts who must be consulted. This is something the government seems to ignore every time it introduces a new bill. In addition to omnibus bills, the second trademark of the Conservatives seems to be imposing unilateral decisions, without consulting anyone other than perhaps Kijiji when the time comes to justify their misguided economic policies.

That said, in recent weeks, I have spent a lot of time in my riding taking the pulse of the constituents and finding out what their real concerns are. The first of their real concerns is that the government continues to impose radical austerity measures, simply because the Conservatives want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers and the provinces just in time for the next election. My constituents know very well that all the cuts and the austerity measures are basically all about electioneering and do nothing to improve our standard of living in the long run.

The constituents of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles are also concerned about employment, health and the economy. In my constituency, many small businesses are struggling to grow, be profitable and contribute to the economy of our community. However, the government is not renewing the hiring tax credit for small business that the NDP first proposed in 2011. Moreover, the Conservatives still have no strategy to propose that will help the 1.3 million Canadians who are currently without jobs.

The government can blow its own horn about being a champion of economic policies, but the figures are clear. We have 6.3 unemployed Canadians for each available job; in the Atlantic provinces, that figure rises to 10 for each available job.

My constituents want good, full-time jobs with salaries that can provide a decent standard of living. However, from what I hear in the street, they are having more and more difficulty making ends meet. They often have to turn to credit so that they can make it to the end of the month, because their salaries are stagnant, their costs are going up, and they are not able to provide themselves with a cushion in case of unforeseen expenses.

The debt-to-GDP ratio has climbed by almost 10% since 1999. During that time, credit card and car loan debt has doubled, and debt held in lines of credit has quadrupled. The government just twiddles its thumbs, though. Why has it not adopted the measures proposed by the NDP, designed to make life more affordable and to reduce household debt by means of solid regulations that will put a stop to the abusive practices of banks, money lenders and credit card companies?

The budget implementation bill also unfortunately highlights the fact that the Conservatives have grasped nothing and have learned no lessons from the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic last summer. Whole families were shattered forever and the community had to endure one of the worst railway disasters that Canada has ever seen.

Instead of enhancing rail safety measures, the government is now allowing many rail safety regulations to be changed or repealed without public notice. This might involve engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance or performance.

Worse yet, cabinet decisions on changing safety standards for the transportation of dangerous goods will be kept secret from now on. This might involve the classification of dangerous goods, inspector skills and training, or rules on importing and exporting such goods.

From now on, with these changes, the public will not be informed when the Conservatives water down safety measures, and experts will not be able to provide their opinion to the department before the changes come into effect.

This change is rather ironic considering that at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a member, we are currently studying ways of improving access to government data in order to promote economic development. In my opinion, this is a rather underhanded way of applying a double standard on data sharing. From what I understand, the government wants more transparency when that suits its agenda, but it is tightening its grip on information that should be available to the public. After all, it is their safety we are talking about.

Still with the dangerous goods registry, this bill makes substantial amendments to the Hazardous Products Act, in order to harmonize it with American laws and apply only some of the new international standards in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. I think consumers and workers have the right to know what is in the products that they use every day. I cannot imagine why the government is refusing to apply the strictest international standards.

All these changes are in Bill C-31, and they do not meet the needs of the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. My constituents are also exasperated with other measures being introduced by this government, such as the electoral “deform”, which is grossly undermining our democracy, the senseless cuts to Canada Post, and the Conservatives' inaction on important issues such as the Quebec Bridge, the environment, and the tax havens where well-off Canadians are hiding their money.

Let us not forget the $36 billion in cuts to health, which will have a huge impact on the quality of the services provided to individuals and our seniors.

All these things combined are causing the public to become disillusioned with our role as parliamentarians and with our institutions. Unfortunately, this is creating cynicism that only the Conservatives can take pride in fuelling.

Before I finish my speech, I would like to repeat what the NDP thinks makes sense in terms of public policy and, at the same time, what should be in a budget when Canada is facing the kind of economic, environmental and social challenges we are facing today. Unfortunately, our recommendations fell on deaf ears during the budget consultations.

In the NDP, we believe that the government needs to invest in innovation, economic development and high-quality jobs for the middle class. It needs to work with the private sector to help Canadian businesses grow, create jobs and increase their exports. It should continue to use the current job creation credit for SMEs.

Canada should also work with the provinces to develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle unemployment and recurring structural underemployment among young people and strengthen sectors where labour shortages are anticipated.

In terms of energy, Canada would benefit from doing a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production. The government would also do well to reintroduce the eco-energy retrofit--homes program, which was very popular and helped homeowners save money while protecting the environment.

With respect to workers at the end of their career, the retirement age needs to be brought back to 65. People who have worked hard all their lives need to be given access to old age security benefits and the guaranteed income supplement so that they can have a decent retirement.

Once again, is the government going to listen to Canadians and agree to what they are asking for? I wonder. In the meantime, I can only fiercely oppose this bill, which offers nothing that will help the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles prosper and improve their situation.

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

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

She said that she had talked to her constituents. The Conservative government has gotten into the habit of introducing massive bills and throwing other measures in with the budget. Moreover, the government blatantly refuses to discuss these measures. We saw that earlier when my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques suggested that we create a budget bill and that all the other measures be removed from the bill.

I would like to ask my colleague what her constituents have to say about the whole idea of massive bills. Do they like that the government chooses to proceed in this way? What do they think?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

People are not happy that the government is hiding all kinds of sub-measures in a massive bill, so that they do not know what the effects will be. The Conservatives do not give the public enough information, so the public cannot take action.

For example, SMEs will lose the hiring credit, but they will have no way of knowing because the government will not make a big announcement about that. The government is taking away that subsidy, but has hidden that in a bill.

This massive bill eliminates all kinds of measures that helped SMEs, local and regional development, and Canadian society.

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget is rather disappointing because it does not present a vision of society. Does my colleague agree with me?

For example, in the Quebec City region, we have Université Laval, and the lack of investment in research and development, especially in basic research, is causing us to lose ground within the OECD, particularly in the area of research practices.

What does my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles think about investments in research and development?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know how research and development can aid a society's development, as well as the development of small, medium and large businesses.

We see this in very specific sectors like health and education. It is very important for chemical discoveries and the development of new projects.

Our universities must be better subsidized when it comes to research and development. Education is under provincial jurisdiction and the government looks after higher education, but investments are crucial to research and development. We cannot abandon the regions as the Conservative government is doing.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I am finding interesting is that we are hearing about issues over and over again from the Conservatives regarding this budget, but we are not hearing enough about what they are going to do for small businesses. What they have done, I should mention, is get rid of the small business tax credit. They wrote about merchant fees in the budget back in March, but in the BIA they did not talk about them. Small business owners are having to pay up to $20,000—even higher in some cases—to the big banks and credit card companies because of all of the extra hidden fees costing them money, and the government chooses not to act on that.

I know my hon. colleague has a lot of small businesses in her riding. I would like to know from my hon. colleague what those small businesses are saying in relation to how they are struggling to get by, with the government refusing to pick up the mantle and support small businesses.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, cancelling the hiring tax credit is bad for businesses. Not putting a cap on credit card interest rates is also bad for retail businesses. Furthermore, the government's excise tax increases in recent budgets are bad for our businesses, too.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the bill. It is just unfortunate that the bill is what it is. We have seen yet another giant omnibus budget bill arrive from the Conservative government, which really does nothing to correct the major flaws that the government has imposed upon Canada and Canadians since taking office.

As for the major flaws, I have just written a few of them. We have seen a reduction in many of the things that we think of as part of what Canada holds dear, the things we treasure as part of Canada. The Conservative government has systematically dismantled or reduced things like VIA Rail, Canada Post, the CBC, Veterans Affairs, EI, and Service Canada behind it. All of those things have lost something since the government took office.

In health care, there is a new reduction in the amount of money the provinces will get. The Canadian Wheat Board is gone. The gun registry is gone. Elections Canada is now having its powers taken back, and voting will be more difficult for many Canadians under the Conservative government, if not impossible.

The environment took a huge hit under the Conservative government with the first of these mammoth budget bills when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was eviscerated. That was two years ago, and the regulations for that act have still not been published, so we still do not know how an environmental assessment will deal with human health.

Rivers in this country have lost their protection. Almost all of them across the country—rivers, lakes, and streams—are no longer covered by environmental protection. We think that is because the government wants the pipeline companies to transport oil across them more easily.

Rail safety has taken a big hit under the Conservative government. One only has to think about the tragedy that befell Lac-Mégantic and the fact that, when that train was operating, it was operating with a one-person crew that was authorized by the Minister of Transport.

Food safety has taken a hit under the government. In addition to the listeriosis outbreak, we also had the largest ever recall of meat in Canada after many hundreds of people were made sick by the government's inaction.

Regarding airline safety, we heard today that the government is suggesting there will not be flight attendants for every door on a plane. Does that mean that, when I get on a plane, I am going to be told which door will not have somebody to help me out? Will I get a discount if I take an unsafe seat on an airline? It makes no sense, and we cannot continue to allow this kind of reduction by the government in what we hold dear as Canadians.

The OAS, or old age security system, has been reduced by the government. People will now have to work until they are 67. The Canada pension plan disability has had its definitions changed again. The new regulations have never been promulgated, so we still do not know exactly how that is going to work, but there is a gap between the Canada pension plan disability and OAS that the government has not yet filled. People are going to go for two years without any income.

The government has defunded or taken away money from such organizations as CIDA, KAIROS, and women's groups in this country, which used to have government funding to help them express themselves and take legal action where necessary.

Drug safety has taken a hit with the government's refusal to make sure that the OxyContin-like drugs are as safe as they can be.

Transparency and accountability have taken a big hit under the Conservative government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer had to go to court to get the government to tell us what the budget really means in terms of how many cuts there will be.

The national childcare program was, of course, the first thing the government tore down. Affordable housing is taking a hit every day as the amount of money the government is spending on affordable housing—of which my riding is in dire need—is dwindling as time goes on, every day and every week. Of course, the government voted against the Jack Layton budget that would have put in some money for affordable housing. That money is going to disappear.

We have a situation in my riding of York South—Weston where 90% of the people who live in the concrete apartment buildings that were put up in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—and there are a lot of them—are in precarious housing. They have some kind of precariousness about them. That is an enormous number, and about 60% of the people in my riding live in them. They are not receiving government subsidies. There is no government amount that is going to disappear, but they are already in need.

There are 33% of those individuals who are in critical need and are an eyelash away from being homeless. That is thousands of Canadians in my riding of York South—Weston. This budget has absolutely nothing for that critical need of many Canadians.

This budget and this budget implementation bill is another big mess of things that have nothing to do with the things that Canadians need to have happen.

In fact, several of the things that the government promised, in this budget and in the last, have never been implemented. For example, in 2013, the former finance minister stood in this House and promised that whenever the government spent money on infrastructure, it would incorporate apprenticeships into that infrastructure spending. I thought, “Great. We've been pushing for this for a long time. Let's look for it in the budget implementation bill”.

One budget came along, and it was not there. Another one came along, and it was not there. This one came along, and there is still nothing to tie infrastructure spending—the government does spend some money on infrastructure—to training and development of the youth in need in this country.

We have a promise that was made by the government in this budget speech to do something about pay-to-pay billing. It is not there. It is not in the budget implementation bill. Phone companies, cellphone companies, and Internet companies are still going to be able to charge extra money for people to get their bill in the mail. To add insult to injury, those individuals, when they get their bill in the mail, are going to have to walk several blocks to get it because mail delivery to their homes is going to be stopped.

We have the Minister of State for Democratic Reform suggesting that persons can take a utility bill, a phone company bill, and use that to prove their identity. They cannot do that if it is from the Internet, though, because Elections Canada has already ruled that is inadmissible.

We have the government suggesting that people will be able to get their bills for free in the mail, which it did not provide for in this budget implementation bill, and at the same time suggesting they can use that same utility bill to prove their identity in an election. The government is being hypocritical in its suggestion that one thing can do one thing and one thing can do another. It does not make sense.

The government has also promised transparency and accountability. Where have we seen that? Nowhere.

One of the things that is most frightening about this budget implementation bill is the attachment to FATCA. For those who do not know FATCA, it is the way that the U.S. government is going to tax some Canadian citizens, about a million of them. Some of them are accidental Canadian citizens, who have never lived in the United States in their lives. They were born in Canada, lived in Canada all their lives, and now are being told that they are somehow American citizens because of their parents.

The government has in this bill suggested that it will now be all right, without notice to the individuals, for the banks to give information about the RRSPs, RDSPs, RESPs, and other assets that individuals have, to CRA, for the purpose of giving that information to another country. One assumes that the reason they are giving that information is so that somebody can come and take that money out of their bank accounts.

This is outrageous. We are a sovereign nation. Canada is a country unto itself. The ability of this country to protect its citizens should include the ability against another country coming after those citizens' money. I am talking about Canadian citizens here, not persons who are living in the United States and who are American citizens. Let the U.S. government come after them, but not Canadian citizens. We should not be assisting another government to manufacture a reason to come into a Canadian citizen's bank and take that money. That is not something we should be doing, and it should not be in this budget implementation bill.

If we need to have that discussion, let us have that discussion, but let us not do it in a budget implementation bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what about what the member is not saying? He is not telling the rest of the story here, about the moves our government made to negotiate with the United States to ensure it was not able to impose the sanctions it was looking at imposing, which would have been highly detrimental to all Canadians with dual citizenship. If it were not for our government's intervention and action on this, the consequences to Canadian banks and to Canadians with money in American banks would have been tremendous.

However, the member is not saying that. He is not talking about the intervention by the Canadian government to save a lot of dual citizens a lot of grief. The United States of America has the ability to create its own legislation and to oppose those things as it wants. The damage done to dual citizens would have been astronomical if our government had not taken the steps it took, and had it not been prepared to take these immediate measures that we are putting in this budget.

The hon. member needs to tell the rest of the story when he stands up and talks about that because the consequences he has not outlined would have been dire.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what went on behind closed doors in the negotiations with the Americans. All I am aware of is what is in this bill. If somebody wants to say it could have been a lot worse, well, there are lots of things that could have been a lot worse.

The problem is that this bill imposes an obligation on Canadian banks to eventually disclose to American authorities Canadian assets, Canadian dollars in Canadian banks. That is deserving of a much fuller discussion than this bill is ever going to get.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on that particular point in terms of the additional discussion that is necessary.

When we take a look at this massive budget bill, as I said earlier, the government is making changes to dozens of pieces of legislation through the back door by passing it through a budget implementation bill, when in fact it should be stand-alone legislation.

Some of that stand-alone legislation, for example, deals with rail safety, which is a very important, very topical issue. There needs to be a lot more discussion on that aspect of this bill. There are other things, including dealing with food safety.

I am wondering if the member could provide comment in terms of how he feels that the bundling of all that legislation, and then bringing it in under the budget bill, will have a negative impact in terms of giving due diligence on legislation that should be debated and have consultations with Canadians. Through committee work, we can hear stakeholders. Many opportunities have been lost because we have bundled all that legislation into one budget bill.

This seems to be the Conservative norm since it has had a majority. It bundles in as much legislation as possible in order to avoid true accountability on the wide and varied important issues facing Canada.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that the member talks about rail safety immediately after the discussion about FATCA.

The minister has suggested that the reason for the change is to make it quicker for her to change Canada's rail safety regime, and to change it without consultation and discussion, to harmonize it with the U.S.

We live in Canada; we do not live in the United States. It is true that the rail networks cross the border, but I would like to think that the Canadian government would want to protect its citizens in a way that is at least as good as they are doing today, not water it down to make it amenable with some U.S. regulation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious. Our families are carrying too much debt, and the Conservatives laugh and heckle during question period when we talk about the decline in the manufacturing industry or when we talk about the middle class.

Could my colleague tell us whether we should not be taking care of the middle class and the manufacturing industry in this country in order to create jobs?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good that my hon. colleague raised that issue. In my riding of York South—Weston, the middle class used to be supported by manufacturing jobs. There used to be good manufacturing jobs, tens of thousands of them. They are all gone. Where did they go? They went to other countries. They went out of the riding.

The people who used to be supported by those jobs are now supported by part-time, temporary, minimum wage jobs, if they have a job at all. They cannot get EI because they have not worked long enough.

It is a dire situation, and there is nothing in this budget to help recreate the kind of middle class that we used to enjoy, particularly in the city of Toronto.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

I enjoy listening to the debate in the House of Commons, and I like to hear the different points of view, but I would like to point out one observation that I have made over the last nearly six years. If we are here that long, we find that we hear everything at least twice or three times.

I think back to 2009, at the height of the economic downturn. Some of the New Democrats used to sit down here. I can remember the member for Halifax at the time, when we were debating a bill and talking about the home renovation tax credit. The NDP was totally against it, at least at that point in the debate, and hon. members can check the blues from that day.

I remember the NDP member's comment about the home renovation tax credit, saying we were giving people a bunch of money to build a bunch of decking for homes. However, that program and that tax credit was one of the single largest reasons why we came through the downturn as well as we did.

I have heard other comments here today about the size of the bill and what is in the bill. I think back to at least last year, or the year before, when we were talking about environmental screening and whether we would need to do an environmental screening in a national park if we were installing a cedar bench. That is what we used to have to do. The opposition fought tooth and nail to keep that in.

The world has not come to an end, and the environment is probably much better. Municipalities have more money, and certainly civil servants have a lot more time to do more important work than doing environmental screenings on cedar benches.

My only comment to the opposition members would be for them not to get so wound up. Things are going in the right direction, and I will get into the direction that this country is taking in a few moments.

Where is Canada relative to G7 nations, debt to GDP, for example, deficit to GDP, job growth, employment insurance, some of the key drivers, key indicators, of an economy's health? If we look at debt to GDP, obviously in G7 countries, Canada is far and away the best. With regard to deficit to GDP, we are absolutely the best, with a near balance this year and a surplus next year. No other country in the G7 can even come close to that. In fact, most of them are in structural deficit positions at this point.

On employment and records, and I am not a partisan person, I can assure hon. members of that, the opposition has failed to recognize there has been over a million new jobs created since July 2009. Those are the indisputable facts.

It is the leadership of this government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister and the members of caucus, who have led us to this point. We should not forget the economic downturn in 2007, 2008, and 2009. We should not forget the budget that was delivered in 2009, which saved the day, in my opinion, for this country. We need to focus on that.

What have we done? People say that we have ridden the coattails of the U.S. out of the recovery. That is not true. We came out of it much sooner than the U.S., and in much better condition. What have we done? Long before I came to this House, we lowered taxes for businesses, families, and individuals. That has allowed people to keep more of their own money. A dollar in the hands of business, or a dollar in an individual's or a family's hands, is far more productive than it is going through the inner workings of government.

We have the lowest corporate tax rate of any other developed country. We have expanded trade. We cannot point to one trade deal that saved the day; we have trade deals with 43 countries. They are not all fully implemented, but regarding the ones that we have fully implemented and the ones that will be implemented, for example, Canada-Korea, the benefits of these will be felt for decades. Long after I am gone from this House, the impacts and the benefits will be felt.

Let us take, for example, tariffs. I live in a rural riding. The tariffs on pork products, the tariffs on beef products, the tariffs on identity-protected soybeans, adzuki beans, navy beans, white beans, et cetera, are all over 400%. The tariffs on pork products are over 30% or 40%. The tariffs on beef products are in that same range.

The U.S. and the European Union have signed agreements with Korea that are being implemented now, being phased in, and what has happened? Our trade with Korea has dropped 30%. That is not good. Some of these tariffs would come right off immediately, and over the next number of years tariffs would be reduced. This is going to help our economy.

This is not creating fake economies through quantitative easing or by injecting money into frivolous things. This is making investments, reducing tariffs, and letting business do what it does best, which is create jobs and economic prosperity.

What else have we done? We have invested in innovation. When I first came to the House, the member for Cambridge was the minister for FedDev and science and technology. Look what took place in southern Ontario. There were investments from one end of the province to the other that made a difference. There were investments in universities from coast to coast. The universities are still very appreciative of those investments because the investments made them more competitive. They are more attractive to international students when those students know there are world-class campuses right here in this country.

Let us take a look at the member for Brant from Brantford. Wilfrid Laurier University has a campus there. Look at what that has done to the downtown of Brantford. I used to work in Brantford.

Through the auto innovation fund, we have invested in the auto sector. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in increased productivity, capacity, and performance in auto assembly plants here in this country, in spite of my good friend Ken Lewenza.

Border perimeter agreements with the United States are another one. Years from now, when we look back at how we got to such a favourable position with the world, this will be another one. Rules and regulations that cause burden, red tape, and encumbrances on business are being improved and streamlined to allow products to cross our border each and every day at lower cost and with less labour and less burden.

Just wait until the bridge is built in Windsor. That will make a big difference, as I know the Speaker will attest to. We have reduced red tape. I have already announced some of our initiatives to reduce red tape, but we are continuing on.

For example, in the budget this year alone, we are talking about payroll deductions, such as Canada pension and employment insurance deductions, that come off at source. The employer or an employee has to take time out of the day to do these deductions from the payroll. We intend to raise those limits, those thresholds, so that CPP and EI remittances would not have to be sent in every two weeks. Now it would be every month.

I want to talk about what a decade will do. Let us take a look at what a decade in Ontario has done to the Ontario economy. An Ontario Liberal government has absolutely destroyed the economy in Ontario. That is the truth. What has a Conservative government done in Canada in the last eight years? We have set this country up for economic success and prosperity for, I am guessing, probably 40 or 50 years. It is the clearest example I can give. It is why I entered politics, and I am sure it is why most of my colleagues have. I am sure that 40 years from now our grandchildren will have great jobs because of what this government has done.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked what a decade will do. If we look, we see that the health care accord has expired after 10 years, with nothing in its place. The member's constituents are asking questions about this situation. Mary Straus of Walton, one of his constituents, is asking about it. With the absence of a health care accord, she is concerned that there will be increased privatization.

She cannot receive an answer from the member because she says he toes the party line. Therefore, I am asking for her, in her place, in the House of Commons, what the government will do about health care. Will our children be better off 10 years down the road without a health care accord that has guaranteed funding to health care for the past 10 years?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know Mary, and not surprisingly, Mary is a member of the retired CAW union. Therefore, we will take that in context.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

She is your constituent.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know she is a constituent. I am telling the House her background. I talk to Mary all the time by email. The member can be assured that if she has any questions on health, she can come into my office anytime.

However, let me tell you what we have done. We have increased health care transfers every year by 6% per year. Look it up. You will be very interested to read about it. I will also tell you that there was hardly a comment from the provinces about the funding. Why is that? What do they want? They want stable funding that applies to the five principles of the Canada Health Act. It is pretty straightforward. I am not surprised.

I will tell you one thing you could do. You could tell people like Ken—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

Order, please.

The member for Huron—Bruce must address his comments to the Chair and not to other members.

I do not know if he wants to complete his answer, which he has time to do.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

What I was going to say is you can talk to people like Ken Lewenza and tell them to stop wasting money on organizations like Leadnow and actually protect the union workers.

I am going to tell you a story. I have gone to bat for the CAWs in my riding. I have gone to Kitchener with them, fighting for them for WSIB. Guess what national members like Ken Lewenza said? They said to hire a lawyer. That is what they said.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member. In his speech, he gave us an entire history; he talked about 40 or 50 years from now, but we are talking about a budget that has been tabled. I would like to hear what he has to say about this budget.

In his view, what in this budget will help individuals in my riding, middle-class individuals, immigrants and newcomers? I had the same question for the Minister of Finance. Does he feel comfortable with this omnibus bill, a catch-all that includes everything from the Champlain Bridge to measures with the United States, hiding the economic importance of the economic plan that Canada needs to have?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question, one of them is skilled trades. We have this huge skilled trades deficit in our country, particularly in Ontario. I would suggest that the Ontario Liberal government is at the root of that problem.

However, we have $100 million in this BIA, which the opposition will vote against, that would help young men and women who want to get into the trades to have interest-free loans.

He asked about things in the budget, so I will give you one item from the budget: rural broadband. I am from a rural riding. In order for rural businesses to conduct their business in the year 2014 and beyond, we need rural broadband.

There are two examples in about 15 seconds. I could go on for 45 minutes. I do not think you are going to let me do that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The member is correct.

Resuming debate, the member for Sarnia—Lambton.