Debates of April 4th, 2014

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's comments.

He spoke about his children and the impact climate change will have going forward. We recently learned that the situation is worse than we thought. The very harsh winter we had is evidence of that. It was very hard on infrastructure in northern Ontario communities. Water pipes burst. Many homes were without water, and that is still a problem right now.

I am wondering if my colleague could tell us more about the infrastructure deficit. Some of the infrastructure in Chapleau dates from the world wars. Can he talk about how we should be investing in municipalities, not cutting their funding?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, investing in infrastructure would clearly stimulate the economy in my riding. The needs of municipalities must be taken into consideration.

Municipalities are far removed from power. They need many things, including infrastructure for water, waste, roads and community centres, for example.

We need a national infrastructure strategy to ensure that municipalities with the greatest need have access to funds that would enable them to stimulate their own economy by building and renovating infrastructure in their communities.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like thank the hon. member for Pontiac for his speech here today, and I will note two things from his remarks with respect to broadband Internet.

I invite the member to look at the digital Canada 150 plan being announced by the Minister of Industry today, which has over $300 million invested for rural broadband Internet.

However, more specifically, the member suggested that the funding from the latest wireless spectrum auction be applied to some of these investments. I wonder whether he recognizes that the investments made by carriers acquiring that spectrum is not a lump sum; it is received by the government and amortized over several decades.

Would the hon. member comment on the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent, announced just today, on rural broadband Internet?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it might surprise my hon. colleague, but I actually think that the $300 million is a good measure. In fact, I ensured that all of my communities were aware of it.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and one may ask whether that investment of $300 million across a country as large as ours is targeted enough. There are concerns in my community as to where that money would go, whether it would go more to the largest corporations and businesses that deal with this kind of service and not directly to the communities for building infrastructure in those communities that are the poorest and that need it the most. I am hopeful, but I am waiting to see how the money will be made accessible to the communities like mine that truly need it.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from Pontiac on his excellent speech and his excellent presentation. He did a fine job explaining the NDP's concerns over the new budget implementation bill currently before us. I often see him rise in the House and stand up for the interests of his constituents. I want to commend him on his excellent work.

I am proud to join my voice to those of my colleagues to firmly oppose this new omnibus bill. This should come as no surprise from the Conservatives. They do not seem to know how to work any other way. This is the fifth time we are dealing with a such a massive bill and this underhanded approach to avoiding parliamentary oversight. The fact is, everyone here was elected for the same reason. Canadians sent us here to represent them and to stand up for their interests. When we look at the actions of this government and the bills it introduces, we see that it seems to be taking into account only the small percentage of Canadians who voted the Conservatives into power. Unfortunately, our system is designed in such a way that we have a Conservative majority government, but that does not mean that the majority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives. I would say that the majority of Canadians are rather disgusted with the abuse of trust and abuse of power committed by the government. The Conservatives are supposed to be working for Canadians in the best interest of the country. However, that is not what we are seeing.

The Conservatives try to hide their regressive agenda from Canadians on a regular basis. Today, we barely heard one speech, and it was a Conservative speech that was far from objective. After 25 minutes, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose and introduced another time allocation motion. Once again, he could not even get through one half hour of debate. He managed to listen to one of my official position colleagues for barely five minutes and then he said that that was enough, that he knew very well that we would just blame them and shine a spotlight on all the problems with Bill C-31. For that reason, we are once again facing closure, which quite frankly is an abuse of the House. I no longer know how many time allocation motions have been imposed, but I can guarantee you that it is a considerable number.

As I was saying, Bill C-31 is another omnibus bill. It is a massive document with more than 350 pages and over 500 clauses that will amend dozens of laws. Furthermore, the bill would impose a number of measures that were not included in the budget.

Canadians must start learning the cues. The Conservatives use the same arguments with each new budget because it is the same principle every time. They tell us that there is nothing new in there, that everything was in the budget, and so on. They really take Canadians for fools. No one in this country believes them. I do not know who they are trying to convince, perhaps themselves, by repeating the same arguments that are not very convincing. However, quite honestly, no one trusts them.

Canadians also understand that it is impossible for MPs to do a proper job in the short period of time allocated by the Conservatives. I mentioned the size and content of this bill. We have just a few hours to debate it, raise issues and ask the government questions. We rarely get answers but, as MPs, it is part of our job to ask questions and try to get answers. After that, the procedure in committee is rather complicated. Even there, there is very little the members can do.

In any case, it is a known fact that the government does not listen. The opposition could propose an excellent amendment that would remedy problems with this document. Obviously, there are some mistakes in the 350 pages that were hastily thrown together on anything and everything. It takes the government some time. The government will think about it for several months. Time and time again, the opposition will raise the various problems inherent in the government's bills.

Eventually, someone will say—perhaps in a whisper—that the opposition was right and there is a problem with the bill. The Conservatives are a prime example of this. When they decided to charge GST and HST on the parking revenue of hospitals, the NDP objected. It did not make sense to take that money at the expense of people who are already vulnerable, who are going through difficult times and whose loved ones are suffering in the hospital. The Conservatives told themselves that there was no better way to fill the government coffers and deepen human misery than to take money from the pockets of people who are visiting their loved ones in the hospital.

A few months later, the Conservatives realized that the NDP was right and decided to backpedal. However, it took time. Had they listened to us from the outset, had they been more open-minded and had they not been so uncompromising and demagogic, we would not be where we are today. I would not be wasting my time pointing these things out.

Although Canadians were aware of the problem caused by this government, the government did nothing for months until it could no longer stand the pressure. These are the types of situations created by omnibus bills, massive documents filled with regressive propaganda. I urge all Canadians to flip through this bill. They are in for some nasty surprises. The Conservatives are cutting short debate so that Canadians find out as little as possible about what is in the bill. The Conservatives are preparing for the election in 2015 and they are seeing their poll support plummet across the country.

It is not just in Quebec that Canadians are starting to push the Conservatives aside and realize that they are not a viable option for ensuring the well-being of our country and equal opportunity for all Canadians. Canada is welcoming fewer and fewer people in need and refugees because of this government's incomprehensible decisions. We are losing our identity bit by bit, an identity that people abroad appreciated and respected, because of measures that the government is hiding in various omnibus bills. That is unfortunate.

I would like to have the opportunity to consult with Conservative members to see if they know what they are voting on. I am certain that the vast majority of them have absolutely no idea what is in Bill C-31. It is more than 350 pages long, so I doubt that they have read the entire thing. It is easy for them because the Prime Minister's Office feeds them lines and then they regurgitate them in public. They have done a great job so far.

We in the NDP are insisting on our right to debate in the House and raise our constituents' concerns. We want to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. The Conservatives are becoming increasingly complacent and do not seem to be taking that aspect of our work seriously anymore. I think it is abusive.

Earlier this week, we moved a motion that clearly criticized the Conservatives' systematic abuse of public funds, specifically in relation to the use of Challenger jets. That is another ethical problem that proves that the Conservatives do not care about the real interests of Canadians.

This budget does not contain a single measure to create new jobs. What is worse, it eliminates the small business hiring tax credit that was proposed by the NDP. In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are a lot of small businesses. Once again, the government is eliminating a good idea that was proposed by the NDP. It is very easy for the Conservatives to say that we vote against all of their measures. Offering a small gift here and there in an inherently insulting document does not mean that the opposition will vote for the bill. It is outrageous. If I were the Conservatives, I would be embarrassed to use that type of argument to try and discredit the opposition.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech on the bill, my colleague did not actually say much about the measures in the bill.

She talked about the process and the number of pages and she was very partisan. I would have liked to hear her suggestions and further comments on the contents of bill. I want to give her the chance to do that in the next two minutes.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière might not really like it when I talk about the process.

The Conservatives want to convince Canadians that it is not important. They do not seem to think it is very important to let opposition members talk and express the interests and concerns of the people they represent. They want to persuade us that we should let them do as they please now that they have been elected and Canadians have given them a mandate.

Frankly, nobody buys that, and it is not up to me to mouth Conservative propaganda. We know that this budget does absolutely nothing to help Canadian families or create jobs. It is just more propaganda. It is not up to me to elaborate on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about content, since it is worth talking about.

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent said that more than 400 veterans in Canada have severe disabilities and are not eligible for the Canadian Forces pension plan.

The budget implementation bill would compensate veterans who received benefits between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012.

Why does the bill not mention the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012?

I know that the member's riding is very close to a military base.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and yes, the Valcartier military base is in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

However, in addition to that, I am the daughter of soldiers. Both of my parents are in the forces, and my grandfather is a Korean War veteran. For me, how we treat our military personnel and our veterans is therefore very important.

I am very proud to be a member of a political party that recognizes the social contract that unites us with our veterans, unlike this government, which is trying to use this absolutely appalling argument as a legal defence in Canada and set a precedent in that regard. It is absolutely inconceivable.

I am having a really hard time answering my colleague. I do not know why there is no compensation for our veterans in the bill. I cannot understand it. Actually, I would like the government to answer that, because it is completely unacceptable.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and one thing that stood out was her suggestion about the EI credit for small businesses. But is she aware that this government provided important temporary stimulus when it was needed during the global recession? When we look at the job numbers of today, we see that we are now at over one million net new jobs.

Would the member not agree that the government should be looking at getting back to balanced budgets, which this budget does? After we have put temporary measures in place for economic stimulus and economic action, how important is it for her children and grandchildren that we actually have the discipline to then have a balanced budget by the end of 2015?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time believing the Conservatives. They are always talking about the economy and all the jobs they have created. Most of those jobs are part-time, but they do not mention that. I suspect that they also got that information from Kijiji. I am therefore having a really hard time answering these questions, because I do not believe that this is coming from a credible source.

Any credible source of information that could help this government make informed decisions has been cut or pushed aside completely, because the Conservatives did not like the message they were hearing. Statistics Canada is just one example.

I have a hard time listening to my colleague's economic argument when we know very well that this government is misrepresenting itself regarding its economic competence.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would just inform the House that we have reached the five-hour point in the debate, which means that from this point forward, presentations will be 10 minutes long rather than 20.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in the House of Commons to speak on economic action plan 2014 and the budget implementation act flowing from it, because in many ways they complete a very important journey. That journey, in the next year, will see a return to balanced budgets here in Canada. What is most important to us as Conservatives is that the journey has taken place without increasing taxes, an approach and a journey that my colleagues on the opposite side, the NDP and the Liberals, would have turned to during the economic crisis. Our government was consistent that we were not going to raise taxes on families, on seniors, or on job creators. So, we have had no tax increases and will have a return to balanced budgets.

I would be remiss if I did not say that one of the key shepherds on that journey has been my colleague, my friend, and my neighbour, in fact, the member of Parliament for Whitby—Oshawa, who, working with the Prime Minister and our caucus, ensured that we kept our commitments that we started during the worst of the downturn in 2008-09 to get to a balanced budget and where we are now.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House where we are now. We are in a unique position of leadership in the G7. We have the best economy in the G7 right now. We will be the first G7 nation to have a balanced budget in the coming year. We lead in job creation, with almost one million net new jobs since the depths of the recession, and the vast majority of those are full-time. We have the best debt-to-GDP ratio among our G7 colleagues. We have the top financial institutions and regulatory environment in the world.

In many ways, we are the envy of our friends and are not only going to continue with that success but also ensure that Canada remains a leader under our government.

It is also important, whenever I stand in this place, that I recognize my role as the member of Parliament representing Durham, which is a proud part of Canada in southern Ontario, with deep century-plus roots in agriculture; a leading role in energy with Darlington Nuclear Generating Station; and with a proud history of manufacturing, both large and small. Our government has been taking the prudent steps to ensure that all of those industries and families that derive their wealth and wellness from them thrive.

Just this week, CIBC released a report showing that in the years since the great global recession, we have stronger and more productive manufacturers. We have more small and medium-size specialty manufacturers in southern Ontario that have withstood the global challenges that some of our best friends and allies are still facing but are now starting to thrive.

I would also look to the recent report by the Lawrence Centre in the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario, one of the leading business faculties in the world. It just completed a study on the future of Canadian manufacturing by looking and learning from the success of some of our leading manufacturers in southern Ontario. Its conclusion was that a revitalized Canadian manufacturing sector will rely on the private sector and that the only role for government is really to promote and support an environment that allows the private sector to flourish. I cannot think of a better report that exemplifies the leadership of our government in the last few years, and I will tell members why.

The manufacturers that are succeeding in Ontario and, indeed, across the country are not just selling their goods and services here in Canada. They are looking around the world to be globally competitive.

What has our government done? We now have 38 new countries where our exporters will have most-favoured nation status. With the work of this government and the Minister of International Trade, in particular, in delivering the agreement in principle on CETA and our first trade agreement in Asia, with South Korea, we are building new markets that will allow our exporters not just to sustain their operations but also to grow and create employment.

Looking at the budget itself, page 98 shows a variety of other factors beyond just opening new markets. We are simplifying taxes for 60,000 small to medium-size enterprises in Ontario by streamlining the GST or HST credit rebate process and creating a new class of depreciable property. That is building upon our accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing those manufacturers to become more competitive.

I also refer the people of my riding to page 124 of the budget, which talks about the auto innovation fund, our government's multi-year commitment to securing our auto sector in southern Ontario. We have just put another $500 million into that fund over the next two years, on top of the over $300 million already invested on innovation in manufacturing in southern Ontario.

We are also looking at science and technology. Canada leads the OECD on funding for research at our universities to make sure that we innovate and are creating jobs for the next generation.

Our most recent budget adds to that, with the Canada first research excellence fund, a $1.5 billion fund that will be used by researchers, innovators, and universities across Canada to make sure that Canada remains ahead in science and technology. I would like to thank Dr. Tim McTiernan and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in our area of Durham for their work in science and in training the next generation of job seekers.

Durham is also known for its rich quality of life. While my business background has me passionately speaking about business issues and our government's success on the economic front, I am also proud that we are looking at recreation, culture, and other things that make our quality of life in Durham and Canada so strong.

I am proud of our government's recreational fisheries conservation partnership program. This last budget is doubling the annual funding for that program over the next two years.

In my community, before my election to Parliament, I was fortunate to work alongside dedicated volunteers at Valleys 2000 and the Bomanville Creek Anglers Association who, for many years, had been looking at making sure that migrating fish species on the Bomanville Creek could reach their spawning grounds despite dams and obstacles in their way. With funding from this fisheries conservation partnership plan, that group of volunteers in Bomanville has created a fish bypass channel, which, for the first salmon and trout run this spring, will allow those fish to bypass a dam and spawn up creek. I have to thank those volunteers, led by the late Al Strike, Harold Hammond, Reverend Frank Lockhart, Dave Lawson, Steve Kay, Jack Hampsey, and a range of other passionate volunteers from our community who got that program to where it is at. Our government was happy to help complete some of the funding.

As a veteran myself, I have to note that, as stated on page 223, our government maintains its strong commitment to our veterans and their families. With a $108 million commitment to the Last Post Fund, we are taking this funeral and burial program intended for impoverished or indigent veterans and are expanding it beyond its mandate from World War II and Korean War veterans to modern-day veterans so that no one will slip between the cracks. That is on top of our funding increases in the last budget for those services specifically.

The budget also mentioned the Afghanistan commemoration. I will be one of many MPs here who are proud to stand with Canadians for the families of the fallen on May 9, when we commemorate one of Canada's most sustained missions abroad in which over 40,000 of our best young men and women served our country when called upon.

We are also putting a priority on hiring injured veterans. Each year, approximately 1,000 men or women from the Canadian Forces release as a result of injury. We are putting them at the top of the priority hiring list for the civil service, a measure that I hope the opposition and the public sector unions can finally get behind to put those veterans in a place that will make sure they thrive when they transition out of uniform.

We are also putting increased spending into the My VAC Account and other resources so that veterans can access their services.

It is always an honour for me to rise to represent my riding of Durham. I am happy to have highlighted a few measures that make our budget and its implementation so pivotal for Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last night I went to the veterans affairs committee and we heard from the last post fund, the people who support and try to maintain funding for veterans in difficult financial circumstances. They were very clear that the current government may indeed have put more money into the fund, but nobody can access it. The Conservatives have ensured that the lower limit for accessibility at $12,500 makes it virtually impossible for families of veterans to have access to that money.

How on earth can the Conservatives brag about something in terms of the money they have provided, when no one can get to it?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her work on that committee, and I hope she is listening, because the question gives me an excellent opportunity to show members why this fund is actually structured in a way that targets those in need.

As a veteran, I do not expect decades later to have my funeral covered. It is only for impoverished veterans. Let me say what the member neglected to say about that $12,500 cut-off.

That amount of net assets for deceased veterans does not include their house and it does not include their car. We are talking about people who only have that amount of assets at the end of their life. The car and the house could mean that veterans have more, and so we are not just talking about homeless veterans or people like that. This is a set amount that is very reasonable to make sure that those who fall into the cracks and need support get it.

I would invite the member and the NDP to stop playing games and tell the full story on how that number is calculated.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on playing games with respect to the last post fund, the member and I served together on the veterans affairs committee when the last budget was brought down, and the member would know that in the last budget the government budgeted $65 million for the last post fund knowing full well that there was absolutely no possible way that money would be spent. Therefore, that money would lapse and go against the deficit.

My question for the member is twofold. First, can he stand up and tell us how much of the $65 million that was budgeted in the last budget has actually been spent on veterans? We both know the answer. Second, with this $108 million that he speaks of, are the Conservatives going to do the same thing?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another great question from my Liberal colleague that allows me to explain to him as well how this works, because being from Charlottetown, he too likes to play a few games on this subject, although I know his heart is in the right place.

When it comes to these funds, this government cannot predict, nor could any member of this House, how many veterans who are impoverished may pass in 10 years from now. These amounts provide a contingency reserve within the fund that will provide enough flexibility over the course of the coming decades for access.

On the amount the member referred to from the last budget, the individualized costs for funeral, burial, and services around that have come up, reflecting a higher cost than a generation ago; and so the money in this budget would now ensure that the overall fund has the ability to ensure that indigent veterans post-Korea—so modern-day veterans, even potentially some of my own colleagues from my time in uniform—would be protected by the fund.

If the member has any further questions, we would be happy to answer them.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed that during every question period for the last eight years Conservative members have risen in the House to rail against the NDP for not supporting their budgets. Well, I would like to let the members opposite know that there will be no change in their speaking notes today. In fact, in question period today it was the same old tired lines from the government.

I will not be supporting Bill C-31. Here are the reasons why. I hope my colleagues across the way listen, because they should be ashamed as they listen to these reasons. Given the government's record on time allocation, of course, the bill contains amendments to more than 60 acts without the time to study those changes. It continues in Bill C-31. Once again, we see the despicable Conservative tradition of forcing legislation through without adequate parliamentary debate or public consultation.

New Democrats believe that healthy debate and consultation lead to better legislation for Canadians, yet we have another omnibus bill designed to ram through hundreds of changes with little study and little oversight. In fact, the Conservatives moved time allocation on the bill after just 25 minutes of debate. Canadians deserve better.

In addition, the bill fails to make life more affordable for Canadian families, who are still recovering from the effects of the recession. We have 300,000 more unemployed Canadians than before the recession, on this government's watch. The effects of this are painfully evident in ridings across the country, including my riding of London—Fanshawe. There is absolutely nothing in the budget, or Bill C-31, that would assist in getting the hard-working constituents of London—Fanshawe back to work, or to help replace the 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs lost on this Prime Minister's watch.

There is nothing in the budget or the bill that addresses the reasonable and affordable proposals of the NDP to strengthen the Canada pension plan. There is nothing to provide relief on heating bills, nothing for the millions of Canadians without access to a family doctor, and nothing to address the fact that we still have seniors in our country living in poverty. There are 250,000 of them.

New Democrats are focused on helping our most vulnerable seniors with an affordable increase to the guaranteed income supplement. While the government has made incremental measures in the past, they amount to much less than half of what is needed to pull every Canadian senior out of poverty. It is an amount that is far less than the billions in tax breaks the government has given to banks and big polluters.

Let us look at the history of this government. It is a government that has hiked payroll taxes, while working families struggled with the worst recession in decades. At the same time it was dishing out $21 billion in tax giveaways to Canada's richest companies. It stood by as good jobs with good wages and pensions, like those at Electro-Motive Diesel in London, disappeared as a result of foreign corporate takeovers.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides explicit and transparent criteria for the testing of net benefit to Canada in the Investment Canada Act, which place emphasis on assessing the impact of foreign investments on communities, jobs, pensions, families, and new capital investments.

New Democrats propose working with the provinces to build a long-term skills training strategy to fill the skilled job shortages and to bring provinces, employers, labour, and educational organizations together to improve existing labour market development agreements. While we are at it, New Democrats would like to see the government sit down with the provinces on issues vital to Canadians, like the Canada pension plan and the Canada health accord, so we can arrive at the creative, affordable, and sustainable solutions we know are possible.

New Democrats would like to see a government that provides the services Canadians rely on. Reverse the devastating decision to cut provincial health care transfers by $36 billion; that would be a good start. The government has put universal health care on death watch. Reverse changes to El that include damaging new rules that would require Canadian workers to accept as much as a 70% pay reduction or risk losing benefits. Set fair and effective contribution rates for employment insurance, and protect the money in the fund.

Unfortunately, the government is not interested in serving Canadians. It has fallen down on the issues that matter most to us. It has refused to repay seniors their missing pension earnings, despite admitting that CPP and OAS pensioners were shortchanged by $1 billion due to an accounting error.

What happened to the promise of a comprehensive patient wait times guarantee? It disappeared after a handful of pilot projects that left most patients out in the cold.

The government cancelled agreements with provinces to fund affordable child care spaces. It was child care that would have given some relief to working families. The Conservatives misled Canadians with the $100 universal child care benefit by subjecting it to unfair clawbacks and taxes, so that families who needed assistance with child care the most got the least.

This is the government that squandered $20 billion on giveaways for oil companies, big banks, cellphone giants, and other corporations, without any requirements that they stop ripping off Canadians—

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

They think it is funny. It is shameful.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that they find this so amusing. My constituents are not amused.

The Conservatives expanded drug company monopoly rights. They moved to allow direct-to-consumer advertising, which would add $6.3 billion to our drug bills, even though Canadian consumers already pay some of the world's highest prices.

While the government has pandered to the large corporations, it has failed to renew the small business job creation tax credit, first proposed by the NDP in 2011, for the hiring of people by small businesses. New Democrats know that small and medium businesses fuel communities and help those communities to thrive. We believe that continuing to build on the existing job creation tax credit for small and medium businesses would benefit Canadians.

While Bill C-31 would provide for the compensation for deductions from veterans' pay between May 29, 2012, and September 30, 2012, it is silent on the amounts deducted between 2006 and 2012. We have already seen two ministers promise action and then fail to deliver on this issue.

With Veterans Affairs Canada, the Conservatives cut $225 million out of the budget. There is no concern for modern-day veterans. There is no concern for the young men and women who went on peacekeeping missions. There is none.

At the veterans affairs committee, we heard testimony from organizations that provide vital services to our Canadian veterans and their families. Those organizations, like the last post fund, had their budgets cut in 1995 to reduce government deficits. Those cuts have never been redressed, let alone seen an indexation for inflation, the kind we have seen over 20 years.

I should point out that this is not only the Conservative government's failure. It started with the Liberals, the same Liberals who voted in the past to support Conservative omnibus budget bills.

Those bills in the past included weakening environmental assessment in Canada. Bill C-31 would do nothing to correct that. We have a responsibility to leave clean water and breathable air to future generations in Canada, and we need to start now. We have heard that dire warning over and over.

I have received overwhelming support from the constituents of London—Fanshawe and the surrounding area to return the Thames River to inclusion in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canadians understand the value of environmental protection to the quality of life and a healthy economy. Why do the Conservatives not get that?

I see nothing in the budget, nor Bill C-31, to address Canada's staggering infrastructure deficit. New Democrats proposed a reversal of the $5.8 billion that the Conservatives cut from local infrastructure. We should be working with the provinces. We should be working with Canadians. We should be working to preserve rail travel and ensure that cargo transport on trains is sustainable, affordable, and safe. There is nothing in this budget that speaks to any of those needs.

In conclusion, I would like to end with my opening observation. Let the Conservatives rail that New Democrats did not support this budget or previous budgets. How could we possibly do that when these budgets harm Canadian families, veterans, and seniors?

We need something much better. Canadians deserve something much better.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched on many subjects. One of them that is near and dear to my heart, as everyone heard after question period, is the Algoma Central Railway passenger service. While other countries are moving forward at a very quick pace to make sure there is passenger service and to address climate change and infrastructure issues, the Conservative government lags behind.

I want to ask the member if she thinks that the government is actually fiscally responsible and whether it should be handling the taxes and the economy.

Let us look at the history. It wasted $50 million building things like gazebos in the riding of the President of the Treasury Board, $2 billion to host a G8 meeting that could have been held somewhere else at lower cost, $14 million on advertising in one day, and millions to buy expensive advertising during a hockey game for a job program that did not exist. As well, let us not forget the $2 million fake lake.

Maybe my colleague would like to talk about whether this is a government that should be leading Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out some of the misspending. I think $14 million on ads and $50 million for fake lakes and gazebos is a little much.

I would like to also mention the $72.5 billion that the government has given away to profitable corporations in tax breaks while veterans and seniors suffer and there is no child care. It has no money for the people of this country, but it has all kinds of money for profitable corporations.

It says it is going to create jobs. Tell that to the 300,000 Canadians who are still waiting. Tell that to the people of London—Fanshawe, who have lost many good jobs in the last few years.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the member speak as an Ontario member of Parliament. I recall when the member was a minister in the Ontario NDP government that almost bankrupted the province of Ontario, that saw a million people on welfare, that saw millions of people lose their jobs and promise after promise broken.

This is a member who just criticized the fact that we are giving Canadians $100 extra every month. She criticized that. She criticizes the fact that we have increased funding for our veterans by $5 billion. She criticizes and votes against the good work done by the Minister of International Trade, who signs new free trade deals that tremendously benefit her region of the country. An incredible investment is being made. The deal that the minister signed recently will help manufacturers in her own riding, and she will stand to vote against that as well.

On every measure that counts when it comes to job creation, protecting the environment, protecting manufacturers, or enhancing the economy, the member votes against it. Her party has a record of destroying economies.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the member has mentioned some of these things, because I think he needs a history lesson.

Yes, I was in that government in Ontario between 1990 and 1995. Do members know what happened to that government? In 1989, the welfare rate was $1.89 billion. That was for people who were in desperate situations. The federal government decided that was not enough, so it changed the unemployment insurance rules, and the very next year that welfare rate was up to $6 billion.

Then the same bunch of people cut transfers for health care, training, and education. We wonder why students have horrendous debts in this country; it is because of the cuts to the very programs that were intended to maintain those people and help to make sure they had access to the economy.

He talks about free trade agreements. Free trade agreements are fine if they are fair trade agreements. What about the people who are injured by those agreements? What about the environment? What about the loss of labour rights? What about the loss of jobs because the government could not put in clauses to make sure that jobs here in Canada are protected?

Do not give me any rhetoric. I was there.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!