Debates of June 4th, 2014

Motions in Amendment

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak tonight in support of this bill.

Before I start, I want to take a moment to mention that there is a dangerous situation unfolding as we speak here tonight in the city of Moncton in New Brunswick, my home province. I just want to let the people of Moncton know that they are definitely in our thoughts and prayers this evening. I ask that they listen to the authorities and stay inside and stay safe until the situation is over. Thank you for the opportunity to say that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to echo the words of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley when he paid homage to our good friend and former colleague, the Hon. Jim Flaherty, because what we are talking about tonight are the fruits of the former minister's labour.

He worked very hard over his time as Minister of Finance to bring us back to balance. This budget, this economic action plan 2014, puts us squarely on track for returning to balance. It does exactly what the minister set out to do. I am very pleased to be able to stand here tonight to speak to this bill, because it speaks very firmly to what is so important to my riding.

I truly believe that all politics are local. That is why, when I speak about this bill this evening, I want to speak to how it impacts my riding and my province and what it will do to enable our province to take advantage of the opportunities that are there in front of us today. I say this because the Province of New Brunswick, not unlike a lot of other provinces, has been having a rough time, to be frank. Our fiscal situation and fiscal outlook have not been very rosy.

This budget does exactly what it should be doing: it respects the provinces, it does not cut transfers, and it does not try to bring the budget back to balance in the same way that previous governments did. It does not do that. It does not balance the budget on the backs of the provinces. It respects the provinces for what they have to do. It respects the taxpayer. It respects Canadians. That is what is important. It is important that we do that.

It is not just words that I am echoing here tonight. Our government has been solid on respect for the provinces and on growing the transfers to the provinces. To a province like New Brunswick, those transfers are very important. In this fiscal year, those transfers will total $2.6 billion for the Province of New Brunswick. Of that $2.6 billion, $1.7 billion will be through equalization. There will be $682 million under the Canada health transfer and $267 million will be through the Canada social transfer. Those dollars are extremely important, and those dollars have been increasing over the life of our government.

Since 2006, our government has increased those numbers. In equalization alone, those numbers have increased by 24%. In health, they have increased by 37%, and for the Canada social transfer, they have increased by 26% since 2006. That is important.

I talk about these numbers and about how important they are because I have a background with the Province of New Brunswick, which many members in this House have heard me speak about different times. I was a provincial member of the legislative assembly. I know how important these transfers are and I know what they do for the work that the province does on an ongoing basis.

The fact that we have been able to bring our budget back to balance without doing it on the backs of the provinces is laudable. We have done it by providing tax relief to Canadians and we have done it by providing new investments to provinces such as New Brunswick. Those new investments are very important, and that tax relief is so important to a province like New Brunswick.

As I said, our fiscal outlook is not very good. Our fiscal situation is rough, although there are some good signs on the horizon. There are some good things happening in New Brunswick. There are some real opportunities, and this budget allows us to take advantage of those opportunities. There are opportunities out there, such as our resource sector, which remains undeveloped for the most part. We talk about a resource sector that is just waiting for us to develop it.

I talk about shale gas development. I talk about potash. I talk about some of the things we have within my own city. I talk about the port and the opportunities that lie with the pipeline from western Canada. That energy east pipeline will come to Saint John, New Brunswick. Something that puts us in an enviable position is our deepwater ice-free port. Not only do we have a deepwater ice-free port, but we have the largest refinery in North America, and we are anxious to see the pipeline come to Saint John, New Brunswick, so that we can support and grow our industry and take advantage of some of those opportunities.

I talk about having the largest refinery in North America. I talk about our ice-free deepwater port, but we also have an LNG terminal that is anxious to transform itself from an import LNG terminal to an export terminal. Those opportunities come from the fact that we have this port.

The market is craving energy, and the people of New Brunswick have been waiting for some time to see their economy transformed. We have been waiting to see this happen. Unlike most New Brunswickers, I was born there, I was raised there, and I have watched a lot of my friends and relatives have to leave there for the opportunities that are sitting on our doorstep. They have to leave our province. Many of them go to western Canada. Many of them go to Newfoundland on a weekly basis.

I travel here to take my seat in the House of Commons to represent the people of my riding. I sit on airplanes with many people leaving my city and province to go to Newfoundland or western Canada as they look for opportunities. Those opportunities are right there at home for those people; we just need to take advantage of them.

The economic action plan gives us the tools to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. It invests in job creation. It gives us the opportunity to develop the skills and develop the workforce. Through the Canada job grant, we will be able to work with the provinces to develop our workforce so that when these opportunities come forward, people will be able to take full advantage of them.

We talk a lot in the House about temporary foreign workers. We have to bring temporary foreign workers into New Brunswick, and one might wonder why. It is because a lot of our trained workforce has left the province and there are situations that need temporary foreign workers, but we want to see our people come back home. We want to work with the province to bring our citizens back to New Brunswick to take advantage of these opportunities. They want to come back to do the same thing they are travelling west to do, the same thing they are travelling to Newfoundland to do: they want to develop our natural resources, and they want to do it at home. They want to contribute to the economy. They want to see their families, and there is nothing wrong with that.

We want to give them the opportunity. We want to give them the ability to do that. It is so important for this budget to move forward so that we will be able to do those things. We have to have a strong economy in the province. We have to have the tools in place to do it, and this government has done that through economic action plan 2014.

We provided funding of $28 million over the next two years to ensure that the National Energy Board review process goes smoothly. It is important that we put our money where these opportunities lie. There are many opportunities out there. We have supported these things and we want to see them move forward.

I could talk for quite some time on the budget and what it means to the people of New Brunswick and to the people of Saint John. Most of all it means that we will have the opportunity and the ability and the tools to take advantage of what lies in front of us, and that is all we are asking for.

We are asking for the chance to do that. We want members of the House to help support us and give us the ability to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech. I think that he does not grasp the real scope of this budget bill. It contains everything but the kitchen sink. I know this because I sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, which studied the bill.

If he has read the bill, I would like him to talk about the impact of the provision pertaining to the Champlain Bridge, which is actually in this budget implementation bill. We know that 19% of Quebec's GDP crosses the Champlain Bridge, which needs to be replaced immediately. However, the bill is proposing a toll and does not mention the impact this will have on the other entry routes to Montreal.

I would like to know whether he thinks it is okay to study such a bill as quickly as we did at the Standing Committee on Finance. We had very little time to study a measure that is so vital to the Quebec economy. I would like to know whether he believes it is appropriate to impose a toll without consultation—in fact, the bill prohibits it—about the new Champlain Bridge, given how this will disrupt other entry routes and the Quebec economy.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked if I have read the bill. Of course I have looked at the bill. I have read through the bill.

As I said in my comments tonight, I want to talk about how the bill would impact my local area and the benefits that would come to my local area through this bill. I am very pleased about the opportunities that would be there for us to take advantage of in Saint John and in New Brunswick as a whole, because we need those opportunities and we look forward to them.

I have been very clear that the situation in New Brunswick has not been the best in the last few years. However, the outlook is very positive, and that is what we are looking for. We are looking for the opportunity to take advantage of that rosy outlook.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a great deal about the issues in New Brunswick, where he is from, and he commented briefly about the $28 million that would go to the National Energy Board for the review of TransCanada's energy east project.

I wonder if he could talk about how that, combined with the money that we would be putting into apprenticeship programs to help young people get skills training, would affect the economy in New Brunswick.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I did mention the $28 million that would go the National Energy Board to review the energy east pipeline project. One of the things that I am excited about in that regard is that our government has ensured that there would be a firm timeline attached to this review process.

When I talk about these projects or a project of this nature, we want to ensure that we can get to it and have a definitive answer very quickly. We also want to ensure that the review process is done thoroughly. That is what this bill would do. It would enable that review process to be done thoroughly and within a definitive timeline. That would work well for my constituents, because they are anxious to see this process move forward so that they would be able to take advantage of the opportunities in this pipeline project.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend has claimed to have read the bill. I wonder if he can comment on the changes to the trademark provisions that are contained within the bill and on the effect they may have on the Canadian economy.

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague across the way comment earlier to one of my colleagues here in the House about how my colleague spoke without notes. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley said my colleague talked about the budget implementation act without using talking points or notes from the Prime Minister's Office.

I laughed when I heard him say it, because I can tell members the Prime Minister's Office did not write my comments. The Prime Minister did not write my notes. Well, he might have. They are handwritten notes.

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

What was the question?

[Rodney Weston, Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way can stand and talk all he wants, but I am talking about what is important to my riding. I am talking about what is important to New Brunswick. If the member does not want to hear it, that is too bad.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to debate Bill C-31, the 2014 budget implementation bill.

With this bill, the Prime Minister is handing us another deficit budget and further proof of the Conservative government's mismanagement. This government is completely out of touch with Canadians.

The Liberal Party and our leader have repeatedly asked the Prime Minister to listen to the needs of the middle class. We have asked for specific actions. This budget does not give the middle class the help it needs even though that should be a priority for the Prime Minister.

The only thing this government cares about is balancing the budget in an election year because it wants to change its disastrous reputation on the economy. The only thing this government cares about is its political interests. It is ignoring Canadians' pressing needs.

Every year, the Prime Minister promises to balance the budget, but he never succeeds. Ever since day one of their mandate, the Conservatives have been announcing supposed improvements in the economy, but we are actually going backward. All this budget has to offer is temporary, vague measures that will not improve people's quality of life.

The government has given us a discouraging budget. Canadians need investments that will stimulate economic growth. This budget is no better than the ones that came before, yet as we all know, the needs are many.

The Liberal Party knows that the middle class needs to be heard. The budget should always be in line with the middle class's interests, not the Prime Minister's election interests.

I would also like to emphasize the government's incredible lack of respect for Canadian democracy. I oppose this budget implementation bill because it is rife with changes and amendments that should not be in this financial document.

For example, there are amendments to rail transportation regulations, food safety, the number of federal judges and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. This is a catch-all bill that amends a vast number of bills that we should have been able to debate separately in the House.

As we all know, the government is perfectly aware that it can use this technique to avoid a lot of debates. We also know that it is not right for a government to do this. This is the Conservatives' way of avoiding debate in the House.

In terms of budget measures for post-secondary education, the government needs to co-operate with the provinces instead of getting in their way. All of the education measures announced in this budget had already been promised before. The government is serving up old promises that it never fulfilled. The budget does not offer any solutions to student debt, nor does it improve access to education.

What we really needed in terms of education was a much more focused plan to work with the provinces, so that measures would be successful. We need skilled workers and we want the majority of people to have access to post-secondary education. I think the best way to stimulate our economy is to focus on education and innovation. We cannot improve our education outcomes when the government acts as though it has power over the provinces.

As for employment, the government needs to work with the provinces to find solutions that work for Canadians. The provinces were largely critical of this budget. It does not offer them much in terms of education or employment. The employment action plan should not involve putting massive amounts of pressure on the provinces.

For example, negotiations should not in any way undermine or result in cuts to professional training programs for the most vulnerable workers. Furthermore, since the government's proposed Canada job grants were a failure, I think it is up to this government to find alternatives, to offer real support to workers and to help the unemployed find work. These are the kinds of things that middle-class Canadians worry about on a daily basis.

The Conservatives are demonstrating, yet again, that we cannot trust their promises about employment assistance. The government must do more to help create jobs and increase the number of skilled labourers. These are the things that Canadians worry about on a daily basis: the economy, debt, retirement, education, access to employment and so on. How is it possible that the Conservative government is not listening to what Canadians are saying? What right does it have to refuse to listen and think only about its own self-interest?

Economic growth requires significant investment if we want to see surpluses in the long term. The government cannot expect that repeatedly slashing spending in order to balance the budget will have a positive effect in the future. The government needs to work to increase employment opportunities, offer better opportunities for the middle class and young families and implement the many announcements made in the previous budget, including creating a code of conduct for the financial sector and eliminating fees for paper bills.

I urge the Prime Minister to honour his previous commitments. We need a far more ambitious and flexible economic plan for the middle class and Canadian families.

In addition to not thinking about the need to invest in order to stimulate the economy, the government is making improper cuts. For example, cuts to the defence budget are just an inappropriate way of maintaining a balanced or surplus budget. The government is simply putting off buying military equipment. By eliminating those expenses from the 2014 budget, the Conservatives are showing Canadians that they are neither responsible nor honest. They are just putting off that spending, which they had already committed to. Next year, $3.1 billion will have to be found somewhere so that the Conservatives can deliver on their promises.

Is that a responsible, honest way of balancing the budget? I do not think so. How can we legitimize those types of cuts? The Canadian Forces require certain equipment to ensure that each mission is successful. Be it major equipment, basic trucks or supplies, our troops must not face equipment shortages. It is irresponsible of the government to cut the defence budget in order to balance the budget.

It comes as no surprise, but the government broke an election promise it made in 2011. When income splitting did not garner the support he hoped to get for the next election, the Prime Minister cut his promise from this budget. We all knew this program would not last because it is far too expensive and it does not really benefit the middle class.

The Conservative Party campaigned on this economic promise, but now it is dropping it because it did nothing for the party. Again, the government is starting to lose people's trust, and no wonder. This is not the first time the Conservatives have made these types of mistakes. True to form, they are concealing information to hide their mistakes from the public. This example shows that the government is unable to ensure that its promises are feasible.

One of the most important aspects of this bill for my region is the confirmation that there will be a toll on the Champlain Bridge. I will not get into that just yet because I have some questions about that. The public is calling for clear and tangible benefits for families and members of the middle class who are concerned about their future and their children's future. The measures introduced by the minister in his latest budget do not put the public in a better position.

Is it not the role of the Prime Minister to find effective ways to help families and improve their living conditions? I believe he has a responsibility to provide a budget centred on Canadians who are concerned. They are concerned because the budget does not offer them anything meaningful in terms of education, employment and infrastructure. Families, the middle class, public servants and soldiers are losing out. It is high time that the government realized that taxpayers are sick of seeing their interests and demands left out of the federal budget.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member talked about a lot of things, but I would like to ask him a question about one in particular.

He said that the Canada job grant, proposed by the government in the 2013 budget, was a failure. Does he not know that 13 provinces and territories signed a agreement in principle for the Canada job grant, that we concluded final agreements with 12 provinces and territories to provide the grant to those jurisdictions and that the Canada job grant was endorsed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Polytechnics Canada and the National Association of Career Colleges?

That is almost all of the business organizations in our country, such as the building trades council of the AFL-CIO and many other labour unions. Is the member saying that all the major business organizations, many of the major unions and all of the provinces and territories are wrong about the Canada job grant?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge the presence of the minister in the House at this hour. I commend him.

That is a very good question. That is odd. Last year, by the time the program was announced, there were already ads saying that jobs had been created. Now, the minister just admitted that the program did not exist and that it still does not exist. The only thing that has happened is that an agreement has been made. However, the agreement was forced on the provinces because this government threatened them and forced them to accept the money or lose it.

Has the program created a single job? Is there a single student who has registered for these educational programs? I do not know of any.

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

Mr. Speaker, many of the things in this omnibus bill have nothing to do with a budget. This bill amends over 60 laws.

However, one very important thing, a very important tax measure for small businesses, was left out of this bill: the job creation tax credit, which was first proposed by the NDP in 2011. This hiring credit helped small businesses hire people. It created lots of jobs, but it has been left out of this omnibus budget bill, forgotten.

What is my Liberal Party colleague's opinion on this? Does he have any idea why the government has turned its back on unemployed people and small businesses?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and I thank the member from the Toronto region.

Once again, we are different from the New Democrats. Yes, the program was a success, but it did not create a single job. It gave employers a tax credit because their insurance premiums had gone up. There was no evidence. As an accountant, I know the program.

Yes, it was a success, but the previous government, the Liberal government, did the same thing. It was not an NDP idea. The program helped small businesses. I think it would have been possible to maintain the program, to help small businesses because it was easy for them to access the program and the money. There was no more paperwork to fill out. However, there is no evidence that a single job was created because of the program.

Once again, our opinion differs from the NDP's.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise in the House and participate in this debate tonight on Bill C-31, the budget implementation act.

I would like to start with a bit of a tribute. I have had the opportunity, in the three years that I have had the honour and privilege of representing the people of Mississauga—Streetsville in the House of Commons, to work with a phenomenal individual who, unfortunately as we all know, is no longer with us. Of course, that is the Hon. Jim Flaherty, who was the architect of the budget that we are talking about tonight. I have not yet had the opportunity since his very untimely and sudden passing to pay tribute to Jim Flaherty, to his wife Christine Elliott, and his three sons, and to just let the entire family know how much we miss Jim, how much Canada has lost in this great public servant of our country. He was a man who led Canada through the most difficult economic recession since the Great Depression, who was recognized as probably the world's best finance minister during that very difficult time, and certainly who is revered and respected on both sides of this House. I wanted to start off tonight by saying that and ensuring that all members of this House, and I am sure they all do, remember Jim very fondly and thank him for his tremendous contribution to this great country of Canada.

We are here tonight to talk about Bill C-31, the budget implementation act. This is a very important budget that sets Canada forward for next year, having us return to balance. We look at where our country was and where we, like most countries around the world if not all during that very difficult economic recession, had to go into deficit financing and spending to ensure economies did not collapse, ensure we kept people working, and ensure that we invested in infrastructure. We certainly did. There is no doubt that at that time we ran deficits that would have been larger than anyone would have thought, but it was done in a responsible and prudent way. I might note that it was actually done, and budgets like those were actually passed, during minority Parliaments so we had support of other parties in this House for the kind of investment and spending that we did and the levels of deficits that we accumulated as the Government of Canada at that time. However, times improved and, just like families in Mississauga—Streetsville would do if they have to spend a bit more today and then save up in the future and pay back that money that they have borrowed, we do that. It is a prudent and responsible thing to do.

I am delighted and the constituents in my great riding of Mississauga—Streetsville would agree that they are delighted and proud to see where Canada has come and that in the next fiscal year we will achieve a balanced budget. Hopefully there will be a surplus and we will begin to pay down debt and we will continue to offer tax relief for Canadians.

Tonight I just want to highlight a few things that are in Bill C-31. It is important that we remind people of the very positive measures that are in this bill. One of the main focuses of our budgets since I have been a member of Parliament here has been on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. This is another budget that focuses exactly on those core areas.

Bill C-31 would invest $11 million over two years and $3.5 million per year ongoing to strengthen the labour market opinion process to ensure Canadians are given the first chance at available jobs.

It provides $14 million over two years and $4.7 million per year ongoing toward the successful implementation of an expression of interest economic immigration system to support Canada's labour market needs. It provides apprentices registered in the Red Seal trades with access to interest-free loans of up to $4,000 per period of technical training. As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and Status of Persons With Disabilities, our committee held the hearings and listened to witnesses, who were very excited about the prospect of this new apprentice loan that I am so proud to talk about in this budget tonight.

We are cutting red tape on more than 50,000 employers by reducing the maximum number of required payments on account of source deductions.

We are continuing our focus on more jobs and better jobs for all Canadians.

The budget also continues our support for families and communities. We are encouraging competition and lower prices in the telecommunications market by capping wholesale domestic wireless roaming rates to prevent wireless providers from charging other companies, that may be their competitors, more than they charge their own customers for mobile voice, data, and text services.

We are introducing a search and rescue volunteers tax credit for our search and rescue volunteers who perform at least 200 hours of service in a year.

We are increasing the maximum amount of the adoption expense tax credit to $15,000 to help make adoption more affordable for Canadian families. That one is particularly important to me because I served for six years, two 3-year terms as a member of the board of the Peel Children's Aid Society. One of our major challenges was how we could get our kids in care adopted by families. Adopting children out of the children's aid system is challenging enough. These are very vulnerable children who are in the care of our local children's aid societies. I have to say, if we can improve the financial ability of families to adopt those children, and other children, but certainly those most vulnerable children, into a loving and welcoming new family home, that is one of the most important things we as a government could ever possibly do. I am very proud about that initiative in this budget.

We are exempting acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors' professional fees from the goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax. The budget would expand the list of eligible expenses under the medical expense tax credit to include costs associated with service animals that are specially trained to assist individuals with severe diabetes, such as our diabetes alert dogs, as well as amounts paid for the design of an eligible individualized therapy plan.

We are enhancing access to employment insurance sickness benefits for claimants who receive benefits for critically ill children and compassionate care benefits.

The budget sets forth a renewed investment in infrastructure. I want to say how proud I am of our government for renewing the build Canada fund for 10 years. I come from the city of Mississauga. We know infrastructure is important and investing in our urban areas is crucial. Our government has made the largest commitment to infrastructure in the history of our country. We have a true partnership with provinces and municipalities, treating them as equal orders of government in the important work of investing in our communities and in our cities. The budget does that.

The last item I will talk about, because it is one of my passions from my previous life, is housing. The budget commits to the five-year renewal of the affordable housing initiative and the homelessness partnering strategy. Adding those two together, that is almost $2 billion over the next five years.

This is a good budget. This is an excellent bill. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit rich that the member talks about everything that the Conservatives have done and yet in this budget there is very little for veterans.

There was a rally today. Some veterans were on the Hill rallying against cuts to benefits for veterans.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

There are none.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may say there are none, but there are lots of cuts. At the end of the day, we have to recognize how much veterans have given to our country.

What looks like good news in the budget is actually bad news in another way for many across Canada. Again, let me talk about the veterans for now and the fact that the government has cut the number of offices. We need to remember that the Conservatives were able to find $36 million to fight veterans in court on this particular matter with respect to the clawback, just to be proven wrong. They also found $28 million for the War of 1812 and another $103,000 for Twitter.

How can they justify wasting all of this money as opposed to improving the services for veterans? Why did they not also include money to provide support and tools for the families of veterans?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course, as usual, on that side members' facts are completely wrong.

First, the Veterans Affairs Canada budget is $700 million more this year than it has been in previous years. The budget has been increased by over $5 billion since 2006. I am very fortunate that my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville has one of the best legions in all of the country, Branch 139, Streetsville Overseas Veterans Club.

I have spent a fair bit of time there and I talk to real people on the ground, veterans who live in my community and are involved in the Legion movement. Let me tell the House what they say. They say the best country in the world to be a veteran is Canada, because Canada takes care of them, Canada looks out for them, Canada supports them. Veterans know this government is behind them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to infrastructure dollars. We need to look at what the Conservative government is actually doing. It is putting its own self-serving political interests ahead of the needs of our communities across Canada. The reality is that there is an 80% cut in actual expenditures this year compared to last year in infrastructure dollars. It is a cut and yet the government says it is giving an increase. It is talking about into the future. Over the next five years, yes, there is an increase, but this year there is actually a cut, and it is a substantial cut.

My question to the member is this. Why did his government decrease the actual spending this year in infrastructure dollars?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Again, Mr. Speaker, only from the party that believes budgets balance themselves can we get a question like that.

We have something called the gas tax. The gas tax is permanent and indexed every single year. How can it be a cut if we increase the gas tax funding to municipalities every year, which is indexed to inflation? Only Liberals think that is a cut.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that I only have 10 minutes, but I will resume my speech when this bill is at third reading. We are at report stage now, and I have 10 minutes to summarize my thoughts on this budget bill and on the budget as a whole.

I listened to a number of speeches tonight. Unfortunately, it seemed obvious that many of my Conservative colleagues had not even read the bill. They were asked questions about very specific parts of the bill and they gave us the runaround.

We ask these questions to try to illustrate, once again, that we have a budget bill that is more than 380 pages long and that amends, eliminates or adds some 60 acts in a single bill. At third reading, we will ultimately have to decide, with a single vote, whether we agree with a bill that contains a wide variety of measures.

Let us take a look at that variety. This bill contains clauses that will increase the number of federal judges in Alberta and Quebec courts. The bill amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act and the Museums Act, it makes changes to demutualization, makes changes related to the Champlain Bridge and makes changes related to measures for veterans, in response to a Supreme court ruling. All that in just one bill. Many of these elements should have been studied separately.

During his speech, my colleague from Victoria said that the most complex aspect of the bill was probably the one pertaining to the House ratifying an intergovernmental agreement with the United States. This is an agreement with the United States, which wants to tax Americans who live in Canada. We are not talking about citizenship. This measure contains elements that could well jeopardize the privacy of our citizens.

To add to what my colleague from Victoria said in his eloquent speech, this will obviously affect Canadians who have dual citizenship, Canadians who have not been to the United States in 20, 25 or 30 years, who no longer consider themselves to be American and who have always paid their taxes in Canada. In the end, they may be forced to pay back-taxes to the United States for the entire period during which they lived full time in Canada.

What is more, their own banks could send their banking information to the Canada Revenue Agency, which will act as an intermediary and relay that information to the American revenue agency, the IRS. These elements are extremely complex. Our constituents talk to us about them regularly, and I am certain that the constituents of Conservative members, the government members, talk to them about it too. These are major concerns. I would like to add that, after the testimony we heard before the Standing Committee on Finance, it is clear that this provision will be challenged in court. Did the government listen to the comments and criticisms about these aspects of the bill? No, it did not. It is going ahead with them.

There is another aspect of this agreement that is very relevant to my riding. Many Canadians have never been American, but they live near the border. That is the case in my riding, which shares a border with Maine. Many people in Témiscouata who do not live close to a Canadian hospital gave birth to their babies in American hospitals. They then returned to Canada. There was a time when that happened quite frequently. Because these individuals were technically born in the United States, they could be considered American, have their file referred to the IRS and eventually be forced to pay taxes in the United States, a country that they have never lived in.

I am not the only one. One of my Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, is in the same situation because his riding also shares a border with Maine. These are extremely complex situations that should have been carefully examined in a separate bill. The government refused to do that.

Now, the government is saying that we have had plenty of time to examine this bill in the House and in the Standing Committee on Finance. This bill is 380 pages long and it amends 60 laws. We did not even have the opportunity to call witnesses to speak about certain parts of the bill because we did not have enough time.

The NDP does its homework. We tried, within the framework imposed on us by the government, to bring in witnesses to talk about as many issues as possible and cover as much material as possible. Despite those efforts, we were not able to properly examine some important parts of the bill.

This is not the first time this has happened. This is the fourth omnibus bill I have seen since I became deputy finance critic. The government would have us believe that it respects the opinion of the House and particularly the opinions of opposition members. We often provide constructive criticism because the opposition's role is not just to oppose, but to point out weaknesses in the bills that the government introduces. One would think that we would be right about something every so often.

After examining four omnibus bills in the Standing Committee on Finance, we still have not managed to get a single amendment passed. It was not until we examined this budget bill that we finally managed to get an amendment through, and even then a Conservative subamendment had to be made to it.

This government is not doing its duty when it comes to the parliamentary work we are responsible for doing as representatives of our ridings, our own little corners of Canada. The government is not demonstrating good governance and is not evaluating every aspect of its bills on the basis of merit. Bill C-31 and what is happening at the Standing Committee on Finance is not an isolated case. It is the general rule.

The Standing Committee on Finance addressed other specific and complex aspects of the bill, and I know that members of the Standing Committee on Transport did the same, just as quickly. The matter of the intergovernmental agreement between Canada and the United States on taxation is complex, but other aspects of the bill are also worth examining.

The matter of the Champlain Bridge, which I just spoke about with one of my Conservative colleagues, is one example. The Conservatives want to impose a toll on the new Champlain Bridge without having conducted appropriate studies on the impact that this would have on access to Montreal or on the other points of entry, such as the Victoria Bridge, the Jacques-Cartier Bridge and the Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine Bridge–Tunnel. How will these points of entry be affected?

The Champlain Bridge is a major gateway not only for Montreal, but also for Quebec. What would a member from Toronto think if the government decided to patch up the Don Valley Parkway and impose a toll? What impact would that have on Toronto's economy? That is the same situation Montreal is facing.

Once again, the government is not listening, even though it was unable to provide a single witness who supported its proposed toll. The government is not being responsible; it should be working for the common good. I would like to talk about so many elements, but my time is limited. I will talk about demutualization, another complex issue.

Last year there was a case of demutualization, and the Standing Committee on Finance studied this issue. We know about mutual insurance companies in general. However, some of these companies want to demutualize and become share capital companies. One case was reported to the committee at the time.

The mutual company in question had 943 mutual policyholders or subscribers. However, these 943 policyholders were not the only ones who were insured by the mutual company. There were one million insured people. The 943 policyholders in question saw a good opportunity: if the mutual company was privatized and transformed into a share capital company, it could eventually be sold, amalgamated and bought by another company. They would make a tidy profit because the company's capital was assessed at more than $1.3 billion. Thus, every one of the mutual policyholders could make up to $1.3 million. That was clearly an incentive to demutualize, to the detriment of those who had an insurance policy. We tried to clarify this complex situation.

I want to talk about so many other aspects of the bill, including the issue of labour-sponsored funds and the elimination of the tax credit that the government is still planning, which will have adverse effects on job creation. In fact, this could lead to job losses in Quebec, and the government continues to turn a deaf ear.

I have no lessons to learn from this government when it comes to job creation. They are all talk and no action. That is why I will have no problem voting in favour of our amendments and against Bill C-31.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent intervention.

As he indicated, there are so many elements to this omnibus budget bill. I would like the member's views on one that he talked about in passing. Canada's venture capital industry has warned that the changes to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations could have dire consequences for the rejuvenation of our venture investment sector in Canada, critical to high-tech and bio-tech, the jobs of the future.

However, without any reason, it appears that the government is phasing out the federal tax credit for these labour-sponsored venture capital corporations.

I would like the member to elaborate, if he would, on why he thinks that has occurred and what the consequences might be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good question. It allows me to elaborate on the subject.

This decision will be extremely detrimental. The government has not proven that the tax credit should be eliminated. On the contrary, the witnesses we heard from in committee criticized this government measure, especially the witnesses from Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association, which represents private venture capital and labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

Canada is at the back of the pack when it comes to venture capital. It is very hard to raise venture capital in Canada. Quebec accounts for 90% of the tax credits for labour-sponsored funds, which shows how important labour-sponsored funds are to Quebeckers. Quebec is at the top of the list after the United States and Israel, when we look at OECD countries.

Some 45% of the venture capital invested by private venture capital organizations comes from labour-sponsored funds. A symbiotic relationship between private funds and labour-sponsored funds is what makes the Quebec model work.

Currently, 169,000 jobs are being maintained or were created by labour-sponsored funds in Quebec. Again, 169,000 jobs. In the past 10 years, more than 500,000 jobs have been maintained or created by labour-sponsored funds.

The last thing I want to say about this is that the testimony in committee showed us that getting rid of the tax credit might lead to the loss of 20,000 jobs in Quebec. Is that what the government calls job creation?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech on this bill.

He made a very important point, not only for Quebec, but also for all of Canada, about the Jacques-Cartier Bridge. The Conservatives want to put a toll on this bridge without consulting Quebeckers or Canadians. That tells me that the Conservatives are not really interested in hearing what Quebeckers want or what they have to say.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?