Debates of June 10th, 2015

Report Stage

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for his speech.

I would like to pick up on what he said about the new economy and the extraordinary opportunities that come with protecting the environment. There is a very telling statistic about the Conservative reign. In 2006, the employment rate was 62.8% and in 2014 it was only 61.4%, which is a rather shameful statistic considering the economic recovery that followed the crisis.

It also stands to reason that with the upheaval related to the drop in the price of oil, the employment rate fell further in 2015. It really is too bad that we did not take up the challenge and start transitioning to a new economy, one that is more respectful and that gives people more autonomy in order to reduce their dependence on oil.

Would my colleague like to elaborate on the benefits of creating good-quality, well-paying jobs for middle-class families?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who is doing excellent work on environmental concerns at the Port of Québec. I am very proud because we cannot move the economy into the future in any old way.

There has to be a vision for sustainable development. I am so proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party, whose leader is the author of Quebec's Sustainable Development Act. He knows exactly what it means to move the economy forward while respecting the environment and the social concerns of workers and people.

When the people of Drummond hear about sustainable development and support for SMEs, they are truly happy because they know that is the way of the future. They know that 80% of new jobs are created by SMEs and that we need to give SMEs the opportunity to grow.

That is why we have a plan that will not only let SMEs grow and develop, but will help them to create jobs and hire people.

We also want to take back the $1.3 billion in subsidies to oil and gas companies. It is shameful that this money is used for that when it should be used to create the sustainable economies of the future.

We must not pass problems on to our grandchildren or, as the Minister of Finance said, pass the problems on to the Prime Minister's grandchildren. That makes no sense.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have kept our promise to Canadians, and the budget is balanced. Some underestimate the discipline involved. It was widely reported that there were some in the House that believed budgets magically balanced themselves. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me state for the record and the benefit of all members that magic cannot be counted on to balance the budget, and Hogwarts is not the London School of Economics. Our budget is balanced due to the fiscal responsibility of our government, not by waiving the magic wand. While the Liberals and the NDP are making billions of dollars in new political promises, I encourage both of those parties to dust off their calculators as their numbers do not add up. In fact, their budgetary plans have more holes in them than Swiss cheese.

Balanced budgets are the only way to ensure long-term prosperity in our economy. It allows for further tax relief for hard-working families and for our seniors. It bolsters our top credit rating, supports lower interest payments and protects health care transfers to the provinces. We cannot borrow our way to prosperity, no matter what some of our opposition colleagues might say. Now is not the time to spend money we do not have, which, if done, would only lead to massive deficits and larger debt payments.

For generations, Westman families have understood the path to prosperity and that we must not compromise tomorrow by spending recklessly today or pile on debt that we cannot afford. Rather, we must invest sensibly for a financially secure future.

My approach of standing up for hard-working taxpayers has been clear and consistent: take as little as possible and give back as much as we can. That is why I am pleased to stand and voice my support for this budget implementation act, as federal taxes are now the lowest they have been in 50 years. Countless seniors from my constituency of Brandon—Souris, and from across the country, have been taken off the tax rolls completely. Benefits are going directly to families, and we have reduced numerous taxes rather than funding an over-burgeoning and inefficient bureaucracy that can help few.

I also support this budget implementation act and budget 2015 because our Conservative government is supporting the good people of Manitoba like never before. Since 2006, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, health care transfers have risen by 57%. Unlike the previous Liberal government that drastically cut and slashed vital health care funding to Manitoba and other provinces to balance its federal budget, we took a much different approach. In fact, federal support has never been higher.

I am also pleased that the new building Canada plan is making critical infrastructure investments to grow Westman's economy, such as tripling the size of Manitoba's regional airport terminal at McGill Field, expanding the town of Deloraine's water treatment plant, and ensuring more homes and farms have access to clean drinking water in the rural municipality of Elton.

I would be remiss not to point out that the opposition voted against the funding of all these projects. The people of Westman are not pleased that every time the NDP and the Liberals have a chance to stand up for Brandon—Souris, they have sat on their hands. While the Liberals like to crow about infrastructure funding, they forget that their record of investing in Manitoba is abysmal. We only have to look at their lackluster infrastructure record of only investing $370 million in Manitoba over 12 years. In comparison, our Conservative government has already invested $1.2 billion into Manitoba's infrastructure, and we are well on our way to investing another $1.2 billion in the coming years.

Since the first day I had the honour of being elected as the member for Brandon—Souris in Parliament, I have reached out and consulted widely with local residents on ways we can continue to grow our economy and enhance our quality of life. I would like to briefly touch on the new measures contained in budget 2015 that support our seniors, reduce taxes for small business owners, and assist Westman farmers under initiatives that will close the skills gap and lead to the creation of new high-paying jobs.

Budget 2015 builds on our record of supporting seniors whose efforts have helped to make Canada the strong and prosperous country that it is today. We will reduce the minimum withdrawals for registered retirement income funds that will allow seniors to preserve more of their retirement savings to better support their current income needs.

Budget 2015 also introduces a new home accessibility tax credit for seniors and persons with disabilities to help with the costs of renovating their home so they can remain safe, secure and accessible.

There has been much hoopla from the opposition, which has something against Canadians putting more of their hard-earned money into a tax-free savings account. Without a doubt, the TFSA is the most important tax saving vehicle since the introduction of RRSPs. Providing Canadians a further incentive to save and invest is not only sound economic policy, it encourages future growth. The TFSA provides the flexibility of such things as saving for a new home and paying for their children's education. It is there for those who have an unexpected expense and need to quickly draw on their investments.

While our Conservative government will enhance the TFSA, the Liberals want to claw back this enhancement and, in turn, force Canadians into a mandated and compulsory increase in the CPP rather than trust Canadians to make investment decisions with their own money.

It should be noted for the record that regardless of what the Liberals may say about the tax-free savings account, 60% of those who have opened a TFSA make under $60,000 and close to half of those people with TFSAs are seniors. I can think of no greater example that highlights the difference between our government's economic agenda and the Liberal plan to force Canadians into larger, forced, mandatory CPP contributions.

While our plan allows Canadians the option of where they want to invest their money, the Liberal plan says that it knows what is best for them and while it is at it, it will take thousands of dollars out of the pockets of their employers as well.

Speaking of job creators, budget 2015 will help Westman's small business grow and create jobs. While we have already reduced the small business tax rate to 11% and increased the amount of income eligible from $300,000 to $500,000, this budget will further reduce the small business tax rate to 9%. This is in addition to the small business job credit that is providing relief for EI premiums.

As well, many Westman farmers will welcome the increase in the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million, which will allow them to retain more of their capital for retirement.

While our government's approach is to allow small businesses to keep more of their money to reinvest and hire even more employees, all of our hard work could be reversed if the Liberal CPP tax hike took effect.

Make no mistake, the Liberal, job-killing plan will hurt Westman's small business owners. While our government is investing in skills training and education for future growth, the Liberal tax plan will dampen the confidence of the private sector. Many in the House have raised the issue of the skills gap and how it affects their local economy. In many Westman communities, small business owners are having a hard time filling job openings.

The skills gap is an impediment and barrier not only to our local economy, but also to the national economy. That is why I am pleased our budget financially supports harmonizing apprenticeship training and certification requirements to targeted Red Seal trades.

I am also pleased that our government has made historic investments in apprenticeship training. We have supported post-secondary institutions, such as the Assiniboine Community College, so it can provide the skills and knowledge to meet local demands. Through programs such as the apprenticeship incentive and completion grants, we are providing young people with necessary financial assistance to finish their training. In addition to these, the tradesperson tool deduction and apprenticeship job creation tax credit and the Canada job grant are having a real world effect on our economy.

While there are those who have voted against some or all of these measures in the past, I encourage all colleagues in the House to support this legislation in front of us today. We cannot grow the Canadian economy if our workforce does not have the skills to fulfill the jobs of tomorrow.

I ask all of my colleagues, particularly those in the opposition, to join our government and stand up in favour of this budget implementation act. I ask that they stand up for hard-working taxpayers, seniors, students and for the long-term prosperity of our country. As I have said repeatedly, we must all work together to build a stronger Canada than we inherited, and this budget implementation act would do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech and I was truly astonished by what I heard.

We know full well that the provinces will not be receiving $36 billion in health transfers. We also know that the government took $2 billion from the employment insurance fund, money that employers and employees paid out of their own pockets. Finally, we also know that a $3 billion reserve has disappeared because the government wanted to balance the budget. As for the TFSA, which is a disaster, the banks are even charging fees if people make several deposits or withdrawals in the same month.

Can the member elaborate on these points?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to those points and I thank my colleague for those comments.

We have balanced the budget, and that is a key for the economy in Canada. It gives our industries and our families confidence in being able to invest in their own livelihoods and in their own businesses, and that makes a stronger country.

We have put forward a plan that is balanced, but also a plan that is fiscally responsible. Unlike the high tax increase programs of the NDP and the Liberals, programs that have not proven to be funded out yet, we have put forth a plan that is funded and certainly will help families in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments from the member, even though I do not necessarily agree with them all.

I have an issue about which the Liberal Party has been talking a great deal, and that is in regard to Canada's safety net, our national pension programs. We disagree with the government 's plan to increase the age of retirement, or OAS, from 65 to 67. A Liberal government would reverse that decision.

We have real concern about the CPP approach. The Prime Minister has refused to meet with the premiers, refused to recognize this is a valuable program that Canadians believe in and that they want the federal government to show some stronger leadership on the issue.

Can the member explain to the House and to viewers why it is that the current Prime Minister, who at one time suggested abolishing the CPP, that there was no need for a CPP, does not support the CPP? A vast majority of Canadians support it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is wrong. The Canada pension plan is there, it is viable and we are offering a voluntary mechanism for citizens in Canada to contribute to more on a voluntary basis.

Unlike the Kathleen Wynne program that the Liberals have put forward in regard to a forced mandatory inclusion of CPP contributions that would end up costing not just $1,000, for an individual who is making $60,000, but also $1,000 for the employer as well.

This plan has been well planned out in our Conservative announcements. I just have to say that the member's question is very well received, but I am surprised that he is the one who asked it, given the fact that the Liberals have a shortfall in the funding of that program.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is a very experienced public servant in legislature, and now a fantastic MP. I found it very interesting that the incredible statistic that the Brandon Airport Terminal has tripled in size due to federal investments. That is simply outstanding and indicative of the booming economy of the area.

I wonder if the member could tell us more specific examples of federal investment in his riding. There is a reason I ask this question. In today's Brandon Sun, the member was criticized for making too many announcements, for having been too available to constituents and for having been around the entire constituency.

I wonder if the member could react to this criticism.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia for the excellent work he has done and he is so well respected across the country, never mind just in his constituency.

I thank him for the question regarding the expansion of the Brandon Airport. One of the reasons it was needed was because of the growing economy in our region that my colleague has referred to. We have had flood mitigation needs in the last few years from the excessive moisture we have had, so we have projects to enhance the dikes in the city of Brandon. Melita and Souris have been done, Wawanesa has been finished. There is small one in Reston and there is more to come.

In regard to being criticized for working too hard, I take that with a grain of salt. I would far sooner be criticized for doing too much than doing too little.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to ask my colleague from Brandon—Souris a question. I wanted to ask him about the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago. I wanted to show him chart 2.16, which compares Canada's unemployment rate to that of the United States. I wanted to help him escape from his fantasy world. He thinks that balancing the budget will solve all our problems. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily true, unless there is some sort of secret I am not in on.

The unemployment rate in the United States dropped from 10% in 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, to just 5.5% in January 2015. Meanwhile, in Canada, the unemployment rate went from about 8.7% to 6.8%. We all know that for years, the Unites States has been dealing with recurring deficits that it is quite unable to get out of and that it has a higher accumulated public debt than Canada. The government needs to back up its claim that a balanced budget will solve all our problems. We know what happens when a government gets bogged down in ideology. It is very difficult to reason, see clearly and put things in perspective.

That said, the government has imposed the 100th gag order, the 100th time allocation motion. When I was elected on May 2, 2011, I never could have imagined that I would see 100 gag orders, 100 refusals to give a voice to millions of Canadians across the country. A gag order is one thing, and it has been used for a number of different bills, real bills that addressed specific problems or specific topics. However, ironically, the 100th one is being used for an omnibus bill, yet one more hodgepodge of legislative measures that amend a huge variety of laws, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Patent Act and even the act pertaining to the federal public service. This is the same kind of nonsense we have been seeing all along, and it unfortunately prevents us from seriously studying the legislative measures that are being imposed, not proposed, by the government. That is the reality.

This is the sign of a worn-out government: it is still imposing its will despite its growing list of failures and the opposition of a huge majority of the people on issues as significant as the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51. Unfortunately, the bill was passed by the Conservative majority, which, just like the government, is running away and trying to escape its own corruption under the vigilant eye of the Auditor General. The real pity is that the government is missing yet another opportunity to work with the opposition parties and the other parties represented in the House.

At least there is one good thing about the Minister of Finance's budget: it includes some NDP measures. We see it as “friendly theft”. We are not going to complain about them stealing our good ideas. The really funny thing, though, is that the Conservatives do not want to give the NDP any credit. Everyone knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the measures for small businesses: lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% and the accelerated capital cost allowance.

Those are obvious ways to help small businesses, which often operate on very tight budgets. Sometimes their budgets are so tight that the owners cannot even pay themselves a salary.

It is a great privilege for me, as a member of Parliament, to meet so many business owners in my riding. Furthermore, Beauport—Limoilou is a riding that is home to many small businesses made up of just a few employees who are valiantly supported by the business owners. Those individuals have so much faith that they often work very long hours in conditions that are much worse than those of their employees. Every bit of help is important.

It is too bad, because those are the kinds of measures we could have supported wholeheartedly. However, instead of playing fair and having the courage to debate and discuss only the budget by introducing a coherent budget implementation bill that allows for a full debate, the Conservatives buried everything in this unpalatable jumble of an omnibus bill, which includes things that have nothing to do with the budget.

My colleagues have talked about that. Unfortunately, too few of my colleagues from all political parties will be able to speak to this omnibus bill. It is important to do so, because this bill will drastically change many aspects of our society, including good faith negotiations, which have been completely scrapped at the stroke of a pen, or respect for foreign visitors, who will be subjected to biometric screening. That last measure should have been the subject of a full debate to determine what limits should have been applied. Instead, the government prefers to short-circuit the debate. It is going to rush this through and we will have to live with the consequences. Judges are going to have to do the work of parliamentarians, once again, by perhaps striking down some of the abusive provisions that do not comply with our basic laws.

I think it is very important to go over the sorry record of nine very long years. It has been nine and a half years, actually, since the Conservative Party came to power. It was my first campaign, in 2006, one January 23. In 2006, as I said, the employment rate was 62.8% in the Canadian workforce. Last year, that rate fell to 61.4%, and I can assure the House that it has continued to drop given the turmoil caused by the drop in the price of oil. Given that the government increased development of our natural resources, especially oil and gas, we have reached a level of dependence that is forcing us to deal with a much harsher reality than we would have liked.

TD Bank's former chief economist, Craig Alexander, testified at the Standing Committee on Finance a few times and talked about this. His contribution is highly valued. He said that in the long term we need to build a knowledge economy that is globally competitive, productive and innovative and does not depend on speculation or fluctuating commodity prices.

For a government that ignored knowledge, innovation and the vibrancy of a talented pool of young people in favour of the massive export of raw, unprocessed resources, the judgment is particularly harsh. As Mr. Alexander said, the priority should have been the other way around, but the Conservatives forced us down a road that seems to be a dead end, and we do not know the way out yet.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about health care, which we know is of great concern to all Canadians. The government lost the opportunity back in 2014 to achieve another health care accord. In 2004, Prime Minister Paul Martin, at the time, recognized the importance of working with the provinces in order to deliver a service which was of critical importance to all Canadians. We believe and trust that health care will not only be here for us today but also into the future.

When we look at today's budget implementation bill, one thing that is really lacking is any sense of commitment toward health care going into the future. This is something that I suspect would disappoint many Canadians. I am wondering if the member might want to provide his thoughts on the lost opportunity of not having a long-term health care accord with the premiers and that the Prime Minister should have done something a couple of years back.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Lester B. Pearson's government listened to the NDP, but those days are long gone.

The provinces adopted Paul Martin's famous accord with a gun to their heads, an old Liberal practice that goes back to the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the rounds of negotiations with the provinces in the early 1970s and 1980s. This is the last chapter in the saga of this famous accord; the government is drastically reducing the health transfers to the provinces.

The initial accord guaranteed that the federal government would pay 50% of provincial health care costs. It was a very clear and very simple accord, and this new program was the envy of the world. The Liberals began dismantling it and the Conservatives continued the job.

My dear colleague cannot be proud of the 20 years spent tearing apart the fabric of this country.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Conservative government raided the employment insurance fund to balance the budget. The budget contains some good measures, such as cutting the tax rate for SMEs from 11% to 9%, which is an NDP idea. However, it also contains bad measures, bad initiatives and bad programs.

I am going to ask a question about unemployment. Given that there are 1,310,000 unemployed workers in Canada, what would an NDP government have done better in terms of creating jobs and ensuring that people can earn a higher salary and improve their quality of life, and also to help unemployed workers who have lost their jobs?

We see that the Conservatives prefer, unfortunately, to restrict access to employment insurance and then raid the fund. Some might even talk about theft. However, I will not do so in the House because that would be unparliamentary language.

What does my NDP colleague think about that?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who has witnessed first-hand the impact that the dismantling of the employment insurance program has had. The people in his region have been particularly affected by this.

The fact that the government is using the employment insurance surplus to balance the budget is likely not the most shocking aspect of this budget. It is actually a hidden deficit. What is more, we are strongly opposed to two measures: the increased TFSA contribution limit and income splitting. Basically, were it not for these two measures, the government would have a surplus without having to resort to such manipulation.

The other really shocking aspect of the budget is that the government is actually hampering job creation and interfering with job mobility and economic activity by limiting access to employment insurance. I have provided statistics on the employment rate to prove it. This has forced millions of people across the country to put up with jobs that make them unhappy, jobs where they have no hope of getting ahead and jobs that do not meet their needs. This leaves the door wide open to abuse and often results in extremely unfortunate consequences.

At the same time, it is rather ironic to see the government implementing employment insurance measures to allow people who are sick to receive benefits for a longer period of time, but that may be the result of accumulated problems with and failures of the basic employment insurance program.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today to support the budget implementation act.

As Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, I am proud that our budget will improve health and safety in the workplace, strengthen protections for interns and provide added support for employees who are caring for their gravely ill family members.

The Government of Canada understands very well that a safe, fair and productive workplace is an important part of creating jobs, stimulating growth and ensuring long-term prosperity. That has always been a priority.

We know that a strong and healthy economy relies on a workforce that is also strong and healthy.

That workforce includes interns. Internships have generated significant debate and discussion over the past year, and for good reason. Internships play an essential role when it comes to providing Canadians with opportunities to gain skills and experience that they need to join and succeed in the workforce.

Whether paid or unpaid, internships are an important way to improve employment prospects. In fact, a November 2014 survey by the Association of Universities and Colleges found that four out of five employers say that internships provide students added value as well as for their companies. They bring new talent into their organizations and the benefits go both ways.

Internships give students an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to participate in the workforce. It is estimated that there are currently hundreds of thousands of interns in workplaces across Canada.

Many of them are working toward degrees or diplomas through secondary or post-secondary educational institutions, or through vocational schools, but not all of them. There are also recent graduates, new Canadians, people pursuing career changes and those looking to return to the workforce after a period absence, among others, who are also engaging in internships.

Internships make it possible to acquire valuable knowledge and experience. However, it is also important for interns, regardless of pay, to be protected by the Canadian Labour Code.

Members may remember Andy Ferguson, a young student who died in November 2011 after an overnight shift at an Alberta radio station where he had been an intern. His brother believes he fell asleep at the wheel after working 16 hours in a 24-hour period. Since Andy passed away, his family has been pushing for labour protection for interns. When the budget was introduced, Matthew Ferguson, his brother, responded by saying, “I didn't expect it at this scale, or this quickly, but it's still very exciting that it has come out today”.

This clearly shows that the government took the necessary measures to ensure that interns are properly protected. Occupational health and safety are extremely important. We take our mandate very seriously.

The budget implementation act would amend the Canada Labour Code to ensure that all interns under federal jurisdiction, regardless of pay, would receive occupational health and safety protection. This would include the right to refuse dangerous work.

The code would also be amended to clarify the circumstances when unpaid internships could be offered. In addition, the code would be amended to allow labour standards protection to apply and to be adapted to unpaid interns. That way we would ensure that all interns are protected appropriately in the workplace without discouraging employers from offering unpaid internships should they wish to do so.

As we heard in committee from Mr. John Farrell, the executive director of the Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications Group, interns are not employees, but they have the right to be treated fairly and an appropriate balance is required.

Our government listened to what Canadians had to say about this and we acted quickly. Our government is also concerned about job security for employees who have to stop working to take care of a sick loved one and about the income assistance they receive.

Our government will also be introducing an extension to the compassionate care benefits under the federal employment insurance program. We will be investing up to $37 million annually to extend the duration of compassionate care benefits, from the current six weeks to six months.

We are also extending the time period within which claimants can receive those benefits, from 26 weeks to 52 weeks. In addition, we are amending the Canada Labour Code to ensure that employees in federally regulated workplaces have their jobs protected when they access these increased benefits. We expect these changes to come into force in January 2016.

We heard from Canadians that the existing program parameters did not reflect the financial hardship and emotional stress that people providing end of life care often face. I can say from first-hand experience, working with individuals within my own riding, and I am sure other members have experienced the same, that the issue of making sure individuals can be with their loved one at the most valuable time they can be when they require them, especially at an end of life experience, and that having this extension of compassionate care leave from six weeks to six months is being viewed extremely well.

That is why the government will support Canadian workers during the most difficult times of their lives. That is why these changes are so important.

Ensuring that Canadians are well protected and can pursue their own personal economic prosperity is something that our government is determined to do.

This bill would put our budget measures into action. It would strengthen workplace protections for interns and ensure job security for employees who are caring for their loved ones.

Budget 2015 is proof of our commitment to create a strong and healthy workforce that will, in turn, create a strong and healthy economy.

Budget 2015 is good for all Canadians. I would urge hon. members in the House to vote in favour of the bill and give their support to a stronger workforce and a stronger economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for her speech. It is quite clear that her background is in health care. She put particular emphasis on benefits for people who take care of their loved ones and on the occupational health and safety of interns.

I have two questions. Why did the government cut $36 billion in health transfers to the provinces?

My second question has to do with interns. Why did the government not agree to the NDP's proposal to require that interns be paid?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things. First, with respect to transfer payments, they are on an escalator and will continue to be so, both the social transfer tax as well as the health transfer tax.

With respect to interns, as I mentioned in my speech, it is about coming to a balance. It is extremely appropriate to the point that the member made that individuals do receive payment once they have reached a tipping point.

The budget is very clear. We have a new six-point plan. Individuals who are at school and receiving vocational training would continue as they have in the past, but now would have all the additional protections. They would remain unpaid because that is part of their educational process.

For those who enter the workplace, we are setting a maximum of four months of unpaid internship and then an employer must move forward ensuring that those individuals receive a salary.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members in this place will know, I am deeply disturbed by the number of measures buried in Bill C-59 that are dangerous for this country and that are extremely anti-democratic, particularly the changes being made post facto, retroactively, to access to information.

I had initially welcomed the changes to protect interns, until I saw the submission from the Canadian Intern Association and realized how much we are failing interns. I asked the hon. minister if she had reviewed the testimony from this organization. Its members certainly are very concerned. I will just quote from their brief:

We submit that the amendments to the Canada Labour Code proposed in Division 7 offer inadequate workplace rights to students, interns, unpaid persons and entry-level employees working for federally regulated employers.

These are some of our most vulnerable and precarious workers, and we are not protecting them.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in this place, it is extremely important for all Canadians to look at what we have put forward in the budget. All portions of part 2 of the Canada Labour Code, that is, occupational health and safety coverage for any employee, are now being extended to interns.

With respect to part 3 of the code, labour standards, that is being reviewed, as requested, by individuals across the country to make sure that we cover all the labour standards that would be appropriate for interns. Obviously, people who are not being paid do not require paid leave, and we do not include that.

Those are the types of things we are looking forward to discussing with respect to labour standards to make sure that they are all-inclusive.

As I have mentioned before, we encourage the internship association to please read the bill and look at it. We did extensive consultations all over the country. The parliamentary secretary from British Columbia did an outstanding job of speaking to young Canadians, to older individuals who are transitioning in work, and to new Canadians about how important internships are. That is what this bill encompasses to make sure that all of those protections that have to be afforded, all occupational health and safety coverage in part 2 of the code, cover all interns in the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question in regard to the myth that the Conservatives have a balanced budget. In fact, when they first took office, they inherited a surplus, and they turned that surplus into a deficit within two years, prior to the recession. Ever since then, the Conservatives have not had a balanced budget. They have added billions of dollars to Canada's debt. Here we are months away from the election, the magic wand goes, and now they have a balanced budget. We will not know whether it is actually balanced until next year.

Does the minister believe that she is going to be able to fool Canadians by selling wholesale GM shares for $2 billion and going into the contingency fund and saying that they have a balanced budget? Does she believe that this is something Canadians are actually going to believe?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is balanced. The member opposite seems to believe that the Liberal Party would be able to deal with the economy of the country. This is a group that wants to raise taxes, and we are lowering them. These people want to eliminate jobs by raising taxes, and we are creating them.

The budget is balanced. It is that simple.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the 2015 budget. There is consensus that this budget is less than stellar. It is not future-oriented. It does not attempt to make the investments needed to improve our economic productivity for the long term, nor does it make the necessary long-term investments to keep our health care system viable.

Before I address these two points, I would like to comment on the government's plans in the budget for targeted benefit pension plans. The government intends to create a legislative and regulatory framework to impose this pension model on private businesses under federal jurisdiction, including airlines, telecommunications companies and banks.

A few weeks ago, some Air Canada retirees came to see me in my riding office. They are very worried about this Conservative government plan. If it goes through, people who currently collect defined benefits through their pension plan could be subject to this new pension model under which benefits may vary depending on the financial state of the pension plan. I am against that idea.

As I said, many of my constituents worked for banks, telecommunications companies such as Bell Canada and airlines such as Air Canada, and they are very concerned about the government's plan.

I really think the government is making a grave error in trying to impose a model for target benefit plans on private sector companies in federal jurisdiction. As we know, these plans would involve benefits that could vary, depending on the state of the pension plan.

Many of my constituents receive pensions from companies like Air Canada. These pensions are not indexed. They have been receiving these pensions, in many cases, for 20 years. They retired 20 years ago. They have seen their purchasing power erode, and now they are worried that their pension benefits, which they had assumed would be stable, could fluctuate up and down.

I do not know why the government wants to impose this model on private sector companies in federal jurisdiction. They are companies that are quite solid, like banks and telecommunications firms, like Bell. Even the airlines are doing well.

I would note that some provinces are looking at target benefit plans because they make life easier for companies that are in financial trouble and that have pension plan deficits. However, I would note that in the province of Quebec, the government is imposing this model only on firms in the pulp and paper industry, which we know is an industry that is going through hard times. In addition, it imposes the model only on companies in that industry that are subject to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

I understand the benefit of this model for a company that is in financial trouble, like a company in the pulp and paper industry, for example, that is in such trouble that it is under some kind of bankruptcy protection, but I do not see the logic of imposing this model on companies like banks, telecommunication companies, and companies like Air Canada that are doing very well. I do not think this is a good initiative on the part of the government, and that is one reason I am voting against this budget.

On the subject of TFSAs, we know that they are good vehicles for saving for retirement. They make a lot of sense, but as I was listening to the government's proposal for increasing the contribution ceiling, I thought back to my constituents. Many of them have teenagers in high school. They are thinking about their children's education. Some of them are struggling with debt, and if they got any extra money, say for example if we had a Liberal government and parents received enhanced child benefit payments because of our very wise and creative plan, what would they do with that money? It would make more sense for them to invest that money in an RESP than in a TFSA, and I will explain why.

If they put the money in an RESP, they get a higher rate of return. They get a 30% rate of return the first year, because they get a cash grant from the federal government, instituted by the Paul Martin government, of 20% on every dollar invested in an RESP, and they get an additional cash grant from the Quebec government of 10%. If parents have a teenager aged 16 or 17 who is about to enter university, and the parents get some extra cash because of the Liberal tax cut, then it makes more economic sense to put it in an RESP than in a TFSA. Even if it were in the RESP for two years, the annual rate of return would be 15%, which I would say is quite good under those circumstances.

These are just some of the thoughts I have had in reaction to this budget, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to address the matter.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.