Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my dear colleague, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.
It is always an honour for me to rise in the House to represent my constituents in the great riding of Pontiac. However, today, I am speaking out against the fact that a bill with such a large scope is being examined in such a short period of time. This undermines Parliament's work by preventing members from thoroughly examining the bill and its impact. This is the fifth time that the Conservatives have tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their regressive economic agenda by using an omnibus budget bill. The issues put forward in these bills are important and deserve serious consideration.
That is what my constituents expect from their MP and that is what Canadians expect from parliamentarians and from their democratic institutions. We are well aware that this is another budget implementation bill designed to sneak in hundreds of changes through the back door, without their being examined properly, for the very partisan and ideological purposes of the governing Conservative Party.
The bill is over 350 pages long and contains over 500 clauses. It changes dozens of laws and contains many measures that were not even mentioned in the budget statement. I would like to point out that, after only 25 minutes of debate, after only one person had a chance to speak, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons decided to put an end to the debate by moving a closure motion. That is shameful. It is simply atrocious.
The decisions made in the budget and the budget implementation bill are meant to be made for Canadians. It is their money the government is spending, and it must do so wisely. However, the bill does not address the real concerns of Canadians. It sets out austerity measures that make life less affordable for Canadians. These measures are stifling Canada's economic growth at a time when wages are stagnant, jobs are less stable and household debt is rising and reaching record levels. What is worse, there is nothing in the budget or the budget bill to help the 300,000 additional Canadians who have become unemployed since the recession to find work or to replace the 400,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector under the Conservative government. The government needs to think about future generations when making budget decisions.
I came back to politics because my daughters, Sophia and Gabrielle, are now six and four. When I would look at them as babies in their cribs, I remember asking myself what kind of future we would be leaving them. My leader often likes to say that we will be the first generation to leave less to our children than what we ourselves received. We will be leaving them an economic, environmental and social deficit. He is right. The future must be different. In the future, we must live in greater harmony with our brothers and sisters from all countries and in greater harmony with the planet. We need to think about future generations and about preserving that harmony when we govern and make budget choices.
This bill does not do enough to preserve this harmony. We need to focus on new technologies to reduce our dependence on oil, which leads to global conflict and causes environmental degradation. That is why my party supports investing in a 21st century economy based on clean technology.
This could come in the form of the following measures: restore the eco-energy retrofit – homes program; support the renewable energy sector to help Canada grow and prosper in the new global economy; help the industry take advantage of clean technology markets by supporting research and development for these energies; adopt an action plan to abolish the $1.3 billion in subsidies being handed out to the fossil fuel industry; support specialized training to prepare workers for the green jobs of the future; carry out a study on ways to increase value-added domestic production in the clean energy sector; and lastly, increase access to information and transparency regarding the enforcement of and compliance with environmental legislation.
Furthermore, there is almost nothing in this bill to address the lack of infrastructure in our communities. This bill could have addressed Canada's serious infrastructure deficit by cancelling the $5.8 billion in cuts to local infrastructure set out in the last budget.
We need new infrastructure—roads especially—in Pontiac. We need to work with the provinces and territories to stop the erosion of the municipal tax base by developing a long-term infrastructure plan for cities, towns, suburbs and rural communities.
Why not invest part of the proceeds from the 700 MHz auction in developing broadband Internet infrastructure in remote rural parts of the country? That could stimulate an entire economy of online businesses. Access to high-speed Internet is critical to small and medium-sized businesses in my region.
The government could also have simplified the process rural communities have to go through to request and receive funding for infrastructure projects. It is not hard to take steps to improve Canada's productivity. The government should update our infrastructure by doubling the gas tax transfer to municipalities. That is a very simple and practical measure. However, in this bill, the government made choices that will benefit only the rich and the biggest corporations in the country. Why do the biggest ones always come out on top with this government?
As the Treasury Board critic, it is my job to criticize choices about services to Canadians. Canadians expect to get good services in exchange for their tax dollars, but the Conservatives are betraying them by making these cuts.
It is not overstating things to say that there is a crisis around access to health care services in the Pontiac. Even so, this government is determined to cut $36 billion from provincial health transfers.
In addition, the employment insurance reform was really hard on seasonal workers in my riding. We could also deal with the tax haven issue and find new sources of revenue for the government so that Canadians can get the services they are entitled to.
The last thing I want to say is that my children's future is the reason I am speaking today. We have to make different choices, choices that are more environmentally friendly, socially sound and responsible.